power attack question

[Flipguarder]

Quick one, I promise. If I hold a versatile weapon in two hands, do I get the extra damage from power attack as though I was using a two handed weapon?

 

[Dalzig]

Absolute Literal view: No. You are still attacking with a one-handed weapon, even if you are using it with two-hands. (Current RAW supported by Wizards, AFAIK)

More Lenient view: Sure, why not?

 

[Mahali]

Dalzig is correct. RAW says no.

Previously someone quoted a CS responses (and maybe one of designers) saying versatile is supposed to give you the best of both worlds.

If that's true I don't know why they'd bother to give it +1 damage since other feats will give it the best of both worlds.

In our game we stick with RAW. They're one handed weapons you can use in two hands for a +1 damage bonus.

 

[eriktheguy]

Same in my campaigns, you need a two handed weapon to use two handed powers.

 

[Stalker0]

I figure what's the point of versatile if you don't get the benefit of two handed weapons when you use it two handed, so I would allow it.

But strict raw, no.

 

[shadowoflameth]

wielding it two handed doesn't make it a two handed weapon. You could wield other weapons two handed even if they are not versatile, but there is no game mechanic benefit (unless perhaps if you are very inventive and cheesy). With a versatile weapon two handed you get +1 to damage. With power attack, you would also get the bonus for power attacking with a one handed weapon.

 

[Flipguarder]

wielding it two handed doesn't make it a two handed weapon.

Strictly speaking, that's exactly false.

PHB 215
"Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good
grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage
by using them as two-handed weapons."

 

[Parlan]

Strictly speaking, that's exactly false.

PHB 215
"Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good
grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage
by using them as two-handed weapons."

No. Strictly speaking, that language is ambiguous.

"A one-handed weapon is light enough or balanced enough to be used in one hand. A two-handed weapon is two heavy or unbalanced to be used without two hands."

So does "using [versatile weapons] as two-handed weapons" entitle one to all the benefits of two-handed weapons?

The definition of "Versatile" suggests not. "Versatile weapons are one-handed, but you can use them two-handed. If you do, you deal an extra point of damage when you roll damage for the weapon."

Notice that they are only "used two-handed" and not, e.g., "treated as two-handed weapons" here.

I think the terminology in the definition of versatile carries more weight than your quote; it's "crunchier".

That said, I don't think it makes a big difference one way or the other. Especially if someone is blowing a feat on a bastard sword or something.

 

[Flipguarder]

Isn't the treating of your quote over mine, as measured in "crunchiness", simply a veiled attempt at disproving me without any evidence?

To say that the language in my quote is ambiguous (a point which I'm willing to agree to) and then give an equally ambiguous quote as evidence of the contrary is quite unreasonable.

 

[Mahali]

PHB 215
"Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good
grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage
by using them as two-handed weapons."

The property of Versatile says they're one-handed weapons.

To find out how versatile weapons function you looks at the description of the Versatile property, not the descriptive text you quote.