Rogue Weapons - Possible Error

[Starfox]

Many rogue powers have the limitation "Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling." The problem with this is that it doesn't actually say you have to USE the weapon. For example, you could use a Bastard Sword in one hand and a dagger in the other and qualify, despite making all the attacks with the bastard sword. Or you could hold a dagger in your hand and cast a Magic Missile. While this will not work with Rogue powers, it does enable sneak attacks with spells, and you do get a +1 attack bonus due to rogue weapon talent.

I suppose this is not how things are intended to work. Or is it? I thought I'd make a separate discussion thread on this before I noted it in the errata thread.

 

[Mort_Q]

The intent is obvious.

 

[TimeOut]

Yes, those powers don't say that you need to use the weapon. So (on first glance) technically you can use the attacks with a bastard sword in the main hand, and a light blade in the off-hand.

Sneak Attack does: "Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a weapon from the light blade, the crossbow, or the sling weapon group, [...]" (PHB, page 117, right side "Sneak Attack")

 

[Stilvan]

Many rogue powers have the limitation "Requirement: You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling." The problem with this is that it doesn't actually say you have to USE the weapon. For example, you could use a Bastard Sword in one hand and a dagger in the other and qualify, despite making all the attacks with the bastard sword. Or you could hold a dagger in your hand and cast a Magic Missile. While this will not work with Rogue powers, it does enable sneak attacks with spells, and you do get a +1 attack bonus due to rogue weapon talent.

I suppose this is not how things are intended to work. Or is it? I thought I'd make a separate discussion thread on this before I noted it in the errata thread.

I think you've made a legitimate observation - but I REALLY don't want to see the rules degenerate into long lists of appended clauses and clarifications to shut up the three twits that are lame enough to try and capitalize on 'loopholes' like this.

If you absolutely need to get around this issue I will point out that 'wield' does not mean 'carry' - use is implied. I don't think they need to expand it to "wielding a crossbow in conjunction with this power' or somesuch.

 

[Wormwood]

The intent is obvious.

That phrase has replaced "rule zero" as my 4e motto.

 

[Wormwood]

but I REALLY don't want to see the rules degenerate into long lists of appended clauses and clarifications to shut up the three twits that are lame enough to try and capitalize on 'loopholes' like this.

Eight years was plenty, thanks.

 

[Starfox]

So, how about a pact blade dagger then?

Actually, I am a bit annoyed at the class limitations that force you into a certain mold, so I could play up an unclarity such as this one.

 

[Mort_Q]

So, how about a pact blade dagger then?

A pact blade dagger is a light blade. What's the question?

 

[RandomCitizenX]

This kinda came up in regards to the Wizard staff implement power. Basically when it say you must be wielding something, it means that you must be using it.

 

[Oompa]

Indeed, it was answered somewhere about benefitting from an staff of defense while only holding it and not using it..

Answer: WIELDING = USING, so you can smack with the bastard sword, but the powers only work on the light blade..

Common sense..