FAQ Update - Aargh!

[Camarath]

I think Hyp's just upset that this nerfs the two-handed-power-attacking-lance-in-one-hand cheese.

I think Hypersmurf is upset because the Sage's took it upon himself to say in effect that there are really two definitions (or more) for the terms One-Handed Weapon and Two-Handed Weapon the definitions stated by the rules and also definitions based on if the weapon is being used in one or two hands. This means that every time one sees term one-handed or two-handed weapon it could mean one of two things (or both or maybe neither) and you can not be certain which is meant. It also makes the phrase "a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands hands" redundant and silly since it draws a disitinction that does not exist (in the sage's opinion). But one-handed or two-handed does not exactly mean wielded in one hand or two hands because if it did a light weapon would always be considered either a one-handed or a two-handed weapon but the sage states that that is not so. So IMO and I believe Hypersmurf's opinion the sage's ruling takes two clearly defined terms and obfuscates them.

 

[Caliban]

If that's not the intent of the 3.5 designers, why did they allow it into the FAQ? It would seem that they agree with his interpretation.

 

[Korak]

If that's not the intent of the 3.5 designers, why did they allow it into the FAQ? It would seem that they agree with his interpretation.

It seems pretty clear that there is a difference of opinion on what the rules should be within the design team.

As for me, I'll stick with the PHB as written. Once again, I will have to ignore the horrendous incongruous "sage" advice.

If others prefer to use the FAQ and shift back to 3.0 style weapon sizing rules, good for them. For them, I say, be clear with your players what rules are in effect and their implications on power attack, special maneuver bonuses/penalties, and any other issues.

 

[jgsugden]

If that's not the intent of the 3.5 designers, why did they allow it into the FAQ? It would seem that they agree with his interpretation.

They didn't necessarily 'allow' anything. They probably never saw it.

WotC is divided up. Andy Collins (designer) has made it clear that he is not to announce new products or provide rules support. His job, as a designer, has nothing to do with these things (in the minds of WotC), so he leaves it to the people with these assigned dutities to do their jobs. Once the rules are written by a designer, it becomes somebody else's job to see to their support.

 

[Ranger REG]

That is true. What the assigned or contracted designer/writer intention for his own work may not be agreeable with the core R&D Group. Only they decide what the rule shall be, which I hope they are reviewing the Sage Advice's answer to ensure customer they're getting the official answer.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think the +4 against disarms for a weapon in two hands is to represent the fact that you have 2 HANDS holding on to it, NOT the fact that it is a bigger weapon. I don't get the fuss.

That's how it worked in 3E. If you were holding a weapon with two hands, you received a +4 bonus to resist Disarm attempts.

In 3.5, a two-handed weapon gets a +4 bonus to all Disarm checks. That's checks you make to Disarm someone, and checks you make when someone tries to Disarm you.

I think Hyp's just upset that this nerfs the two-handed-power-attacking-lance-in-one-hand cheese.

I don't care if they fix that loophole with an erratum to the lance - "A lance may be treated as a one-handed martial weapon by a mounted creature", for example.

But they're not using errata. They're saying "The words in the book don't mean what was written". That's not errata, that's not getting it.

I'm not sure about Hyper, but I am sure about why the Sage's 'Advice' upsets me: He got it wrong. He is their 'expert' and he got it wrong.

That's exactly it. I haven't even seen a lance used in 3.5 yet. I just want to see "official clarifications" demonstrate an understanding of the rules they're supposed to clarify, and these don't.

FYI, to add to the debate...

Joshua - what about Monkey Grip were you pointing out?

-Hyp.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Re: Monkey Grip - it's interesting that Monkey Grip uses the phrase "amount of effort to wield" instead of referring to weapons by the light/one-handed/two-handed designation. (Actually, it kind of does both.)

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

Just something I noticed.

 

[IanB]

Joshua - what about Monkey Grip were you pointing out?

-Hyp.

Probably that suddenly if you take Monkey Grip, your weapon loses its +4 disarm bonus under your interpretation. To me that's a pretty strong indication that the FAQ answer is the right ruling.

 

[ZansForCans]

I have to agree with Hyp here nearly 100%. In particular, this part of the FAQ in the lance question:

When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons,
they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium
character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a
“two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium
lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed
weapon.

Completely conflicts with the 3.5 SRD (my emphasis):

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons: This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat.

It says nothing about how the weapon is being used at the time.

Now, my only minor nitpick is that the 'two-handed' wording, is in fact explicitly in the descriptions of the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe:

A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

Thus, taking the literal interpretation of the phrase "two-handed" (which I do) as referring only to the weapon encumbrance class, when you have MWP (bastard sword) or have a class that includes martial proficiencies, you can wield the bastard sword two-handed--not one-handed with two hands.

Similarly, if you have EWP (bastard sword) and do not have martial proficiency with the weapon (say a Cleric with only the EWP (bs) feat), you can not wield it two-handed. You can only wield it one-handed--which does include the option of one-handed with two hands--and would never get the +4 disarm bonus for it.

So, at least on this one point--with that condition of having the proficiency--I'd agree with the Sage, although I agree that the implied logic (that those weapons 'default' to two-handed) in the answer of that question is rather suspect. And although I generally agree with Hyp's "bigger is better" rule of thumb, I think there's clear evidence that your training can change that slightly for a few weapons in the core. It all comes back to the straightforward SRD phrase: "how much effort".

 

[MerakSpielman]

I'm thankful none of my players read the FAQ. I get to arbitrate when and if any of this ever comes up without rules-lawyers arguing across the table.