Powerful Bulid Question

[Wyvernhand]

Neither do Girallon. My point is that if you go about touting things that "you feel" are right as if they were rules, you confuse people. If you are going to suggest other people use your house rules, please preface it with "this is my houserule". Don't try to pass such things off as RAW or someone will believe that it is and get horribly confused.

 

[Nezkrul]

Honestly, in the case of Powerful Build I'd say the character can use a 2h weapon for its size (in this case, medium) in one hand at a -2 penalty. This is an extension of Powerful Build's description...

That is your interpretation, therefore = houserule. Powerful build does not state you can ignore handedness for weapons of your size, likewise it doesn't mention ANYTHING about weapons appropriately sized for you, therefore you still have to follow the rules for weapons sized for you, in this case, can't use two-handed weapon of your size in one hand.

 

[emoplato]

Neither do Girallon. My point is that if you go about touting things that "you feel" are right as if they were rules, you confuse people. If you are going to suggest other people use your house rules, please preface it with "this is my houserule". Don't try to pass such things off as RAW or someone will believe that it is and get horribly confused.

So, your argument is based one can't customize within the rules just because the way something is named? You don't actually turn into a Girallon and forsake the rest just because of a soulmeld. No, it may not be RAW but it is compliant because it doesn't dismiss it explicitly or with the other rules of the game. This isn't a house rule, I talked about it as if a theoretical DM may have thought it to be too powerful within the scope of their campaign. I just offered my opinion that I don't think it is since it just takes a simple dispel to cut its offensive capability in half, especially if one wants to really optimize it having to forsake meldshaping levels.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

That is your interpretation, therefore = houserule. Powerful build does not state you can ignore handedness for weapons of your size, likewise it doesn't mention ANYTHING about weapons appropriately sized for you, therefore you still have to follow the rules for weapons sized for you, in this case, can't use two-handed weapon of your size in one hand.

Just because it doesn't mention something specific doesn't mean it can't be included with the rule. In this case, you're using exclusive logic with it since you are reading it strict, to the letter, nothing else works. Kinda like saying the US Constitution is a strict set of rules stating this is only what people can do.

I'm reading it as inclusive, meaning I include other possibilities not necessarily mentioned. In this case, the fact that it says one can use larger weapons without penalty can mean one can use smaller versions of those weapons with the usual penalty. Or perhaps we should say that the character can use larger versions of smaller weapons with the usual penalty?

 

[Wyvernhand]

Rules Compendium page 13 states the the D&D rules are written on an "exception" basis. There are general rules, and then there are exceptions. If the exceptions aren't stated, then they don't exist. Because of that, you can't argue that Girallon Arms allow you to wield weapons because it doesn't say they can't. The only valid argument is that they can't, because normally they can't and there is no exception text.

Thus, your opinion is not supported by the rules, which makes it a house rule. That is fine, just as long as you represent it as such, instead of presenting it in a manner that could confuse someone into thinking it is a real rule. There is enough confusion already propagated on the internet...we don't need more here.

 

[emoplato]

Rules Compendium page 13 states the the D&D rules are written on an "exception" basis. There are general rules, and then there are exceptions. If the exceptions aren't stated, then they don't exist. Because of that, you can't argue that Girallon Arms allow you to wield weapons because it doesn't say they can't. The only valid argument is that they can't, because normally they can't and there is no exception text.

Thus, your opinion is not supported by the rules, which makes it a house rule. That is fine, just as long as you represent it as such, instead of presenting it in a manner that could confuse someone into thinking it is a real rule. There is enough confusion already propagated on the internet...we don't need more here.

Yeah, since it isn't stated, doesn't exist, and compliant with the rules it isn't an exception it is an interpretation of the situation. What you said doesn't revoke it, it just says here are the rules and the exceptions, if we haven't mentioned any problems you are dealing aka. DM and players you decide . I never claimed it to be standard rule just that it is compliant. The fact is you actually need a house rule to deny its use; the evidence points to the fact they are fully developed arms with hand claws being used by someone who knows how to wield two handed weapons.
I know it isn't an orthodox interpretation but just because it isn't stated doesn't mean it is against it. I like to mention these things so that both DM's and players are aware of things like these in the mix. This isn't mal-information just what is read between the lines. Whether you like it or not a house rule actually has to be made to deny its use, because as you said it doesn't exist.

 

[kitcik]

I agree with [MENTION=97681]Wyvernhand[/MENTION] et al. This is a reasonable and logical house rule, but it is nonetheless a house rule which is not explicitly stated or implied by RAW.

 

[Wyvernhand]

What rule am I making up? Creatures with clawed hands that are capable of using weapons have that option listed in their statblock. Examples include Lizardmen and Troglodytes. Creatures incapable of wielding weapons do not have them in their statblocks. Examples include Lions, Wyverns, and Girallon.

The fact that you lose out on 3/4 of those attacks when wielding a shield in your offhand is further proof that they didn't intend for you to wield weapons, or anything else, with them.

They are clawed hands for making claw attacks. They can not wield weapons because there is no evidence to suggest they can, and unlike Lizardmen who do have weapons, Girallon normally don't. The fact that exceptions exist, and Girallon Arms doesn't have it is proof of that.

 

[emoplato]

What rule am I making up? Creatures with clawed hands that are capable of using weapons have that option listed in their statblock. Examples include Lizardmen and Troglodytes. Creatures incapable of wielding weapons do not have them in their statblocks. Examples include Lions, Wyverns, and Girallon.

The fact that you lose out on 3/4 of those attacks when wielding a shield in your offhand is further proof that they didn't intend for you to wield weapons, or anything else, with them.

They are clawed hands for making claw attacks. They can not wield weapons because there is no evidence to suggest they can, and unlike Lizardmen who do have weapons, Girallon normally don't. The fact that exceptions exist, and Girallon Arms doesn't have it is proof of that.

I am not saying you made up a law but to say no to this means you are interjecting an exception of your own to rule this out, which is fine if you don't think it is right for the campaign at hand. I don't know why you keep going back to what the stupid creature can only do when we are dealing with a moderately intelligent humanoid character.
As for the shield a claw attack can't be made if it is occupied normally anyway also most multi-armed creatures can't wield items alone in the offhand without a feat that says they can. What a creature can do with a shield and natural weapons simultaneously seems to be another heated debate across other boards which doesn't have much light shed upon from the books. It seems that people are left with whatever makes sense for them.
I think we should walk away and not derail into another topic.

 

[Jeffrie]

Of course he can wield it. In general he would need the proficiency or take the penalty(-4). Then he would also take an improvised weapon penalty unless he took an exotic weapon feat. Yeah, two feats in he primary hand, and of course TWF if in his off hand.

Besides the fact that this is dnd and there are rules; A two handed weapon is a weapon for two hands. They are shaped and balanced differently. It's like asking to use a bow with one hand because your bigger. heh.

On the other hand, what's the beef? Can't you just get a Longsword of one size catagory larger and wield it in one hand?