So I got into a discussion with a party member about how versus weapons can be used for my barbarian. He says I can only use one vers weapon at time because it has the option to be two-handed. But after looking in the books I haven't found anything that says vers weapons can't be duel wielded even with two-weapon fighting. Can i get a little help with settling this. Thoughts?
To start off, as no versatile weapons are light, you would definitely need the Dual Wielder feat to do this.
You can use versatile weapons one handed (smaller damage die) or two-handed (larger damage die). I guess that somebody could try to argue that stops them from being "one-handed melee weapons" as required by Dual Wielder, but I wouldn't say that myself. You would obviously be limited to one handed use, so the smaller damage die.
I've been trying to research this, and I cannot find anything from Sage Advice. It's ambiguous at this point.
The Dual Wielder Feat states: "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light."
Versatile: This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property — the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack.
It's fair to interpret this as being both, a "one-handed" and "two-handed" weapon. My personal interpretation is that you can. Why? Interestingly, thereis no "one-handed" property to any weapon. It is the default if a weapon does not say "two-handed" or "versatile." Also, it's a rather silly restriction. Allowing you to use either does not affect the game mechanics one bit.
Player: "I want to wield two warhammers. They do 1d8 bludgeoning damage. Yay, me! :o)"
DM: "You can't. It has the versatile property."
Player: "Boo! Okay, how about two flails? They do 1d8 bludgeoning damage."
Heres a interesting thought, what if Gandalf was actually a Barbarian disguised as a Wizard. I mean the handful of spells you see him cast could be from feats. And the man does run around without armor (Unarmored Defense?) and seems quite angry when fighting (Rage?)
I think that you could use both, you would just use the smaller roll, Versatile means you can hold it with one or two hands, and if you hold 1 in each hand, then I see no problem, But you cant also use a shield.
Technically, Gandalf is a high level aasimar bard. He even gets a magic ring with the express purpose of Inspiring people better.
The reason he never casts a bunch of spells, back to back, is because the DM decided to put a bunch of magical detection/wards up so that anyone who uses magic gets attacked by some OP bosses who flew around using pterodactyls. Tolkien had no idea how to balance encounters. /s
Technically, Gandalf is a high level aasimar bard. He even gets a magic ring with the express purpose of Inspiring people better.
The reason he never casts a bunch of spells, back to back, is because the DM decided to put a bunch of magical detection/wards up so that anyone who uses magic gets attacked by some OP bosses who flew around using pterodactyls. Tolkien had no idea how to balance encounters. /s
My wife has just pointed out that you're probably being a bit harsh on Tolkien. We're discussing what were really just his first draft notes. He would probably have balanced things better before the actual session.
Gandalf says you can dual wield a staff with a sword and look damn cool doing it. Thats all the argument I need to say it works lol.
Gandalf is a very high level character, and probably picked up this ability as an Epic Boon from his player's DM.
Gandalf is weird. He'll cast like one level 6 spell and then he's out of spell slots for the day.
Omg does this mean Gandalf is a warlock??? A Hexblade that uses his spell slots to smite so can only cast his once a day arcanum spells?!?!?
Correct :) This has been my thesis for some time now. He's crazy good in melee and he's very stingy with some quite powerful spells. I demand to know who he made a deal with, and the nature of that bargain.
Given his celestial nature, he could theoretically have made a deal with himself.
He is technically an agent of a Celestial Council. So if he made a deal for power then it's with the Council.
Though I will say that this thread is one of the better ones for giving any actual reason why Gandalf is anything other than a very high level Wizard in a very low magic setting. Which is actually the truth. Nobody ever considers that Gandalf doesn't cast more spells because Magic is literally dieing in Middle Earth and perhaps Casting More Spells puts a strain on the little magic that is left and may do things like hasten it dieing out where he is trying to preserve it as much as possible. Kind of like how Dark Sun treats magic. In Dark Sun, Preservers limit how much they cast spells to preserve what's left. Defilers strip every little ounce they can out of the world and the magic of it to increase their magic as much as possible.
I find it humorous how a Barbarian thread can be hijacked by Gandalf. I find it even more humorous imagining Gandalf holding up a mirror and saying: 'I would like to make a deal'
I find it humorous how a Barbarian thread can be hijacked by Gandalf. I find it even more humorous imagining Gandalf holding up a mirror and saying: 'I would like to make a deal'
This thread just keeps on giving :D
He doesn't hold up a mirror. He goes and talks to the Council in whatever realm they are within. That's what he was gone and doing between fighting the Balrog and Appearing to Aragorn, Legolas, and the dwarf (i'm blanking on his name so bad right now) as Gandalf the White. If you treat him as a Warlock it's supported by the fact that his deal was renegotiated and he was given more power with the switch from Grey to White.
So I got into a discussion with a party member about how versus weapons can be used for my barbarian. He says I can only use one vers weapon at time because it has the option to be two-handed. But after looking in the books I haven't found anything that says vers weapons can't be duel wielded even with two-weapon fighting. Can i get a little help with settling this. Thoughts?
Of course you can. With the dual wielder feat DW long swords is very common.
To start off, as no versatile weapons are light, you would definitely need the Dual Wielder feat to do this.
You can use versatile weapons one handed (smaller damage die) or two-handed (larger damage die). I guess that somebody could try to argue that stops them from being "one-handed melee weapons" as required by Dual Wielder, but I wouldn't say that myself. You would obviously be limited to one handed use, so the smaller damage die.
I've been trying to research this, and I cannot find anything from Sage Advice. It's ambiguous at this point.
The Dual Wielder Feat states: "You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light."
Versatile: This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property — the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack.
It's fair to interpret this as being both, a "one-handed" and "two-handed" weapon. My personal interpretation is that you can. Why? Interestingly, there is no "one-handed" property to any weapon. It is the default if a weapon does not say "two-handed" or "versatile." Also, it's a rather silly restriction. Allowing you to use either does not affect the game mechanics one bit.
Player: "I want to wield two warhammers. They do 1d8 bludgeoning damage. Yay, me! :o)"
DM: "You can't. It has the versatile property."
Player: "Boo! Okay, how about two flails? They do 1d8 bludgeoning damage."
DM: "Sure, no problem."
Player: ...
DM: ...
It doesn’t matter that you can potentially use it two handed (Except for urth’s point about them not being light).
By that logic, you wouldn’t be able to use a shield with a longsword, because the sword could potentially be two-handed.
Gandalf says you can dual wield a staff with a sword and look damn cool doing it. Thats all the argument I need to say it works lol.
Gandalf is a very high level character, and probably picked up this ability as an Epic Boon from his player's DM.
Heres a interesting thought, what if Gandalf was actually a Barbarian disguised as a Wizard. I mean the handful of spells you see him cast could be from feats. And the man does run around without armor (Unarmored Defense?) and seems quite angry when fighting (Rage?)
I think that you could use both, you would just use the smaller roll, Versatile means you can hold it with one or two hands, and if you hold 1 in each hand, then I see no problem, But you cant also use a shield.
Gandalf is weird. He'll cast like one level 6 spell and then he's out of spell slots for the day.
Omg does this mean Gandalf is a warlock??? A Hexblade that uses his spell slots to smite so can only cast his once a day arcanum spells?!?!?
Technically, Gandalf is a high level aasimar bard. He even gets a magic ring with the express purpose of Inspiring people better.
The reason he never casts a bunch of spells, back to back, is because the DM decided to put a bunch of magical detection/wards up so that anyone who uses magic gets attacked by some OP bosses who flew around using pterodactyls. Tolkien had no idea how to balance encounters. /s
My wife has just pointed out that you're probably being a bit harsh on Tolkien. We're discussing what were really just his first draft notes. He would probably have balanced things better before the actual session.
Correct :) This has been my thesis for some time now. He's crazy good in melee and he's very stingy with some quite powerful spells. I demand to know who he made a deal with, and the nature of that bargain.
Given his celestial nature, he could theoretically have made a deal with himself.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
He is technically an agent of a Celestial Council. So if he made a deal for power then it's with the Council.
Though I will say that this thread is one of the better ones for giving any actual reason why Gandalf is anything other than a very high level Wizard in a very low magic setting. Which is actually the truth. Nobody ever considers that Gandalf doesn't cast more spells because Magic is literally dieing in Middle Earth and perhaps Casting More Spells puts a strain on the little magic that is left and may do things like hasten it dieing out where he is trying to preserve it as much as possible. Kind of like how Dark Sun treats magic. In Dark Sun, Preservers limit how much they cast spells to preserve what's left. Defilers strip every little ounce they can out of the world and the magic of it to increase their magic as much as possible.
I find it humorous how a Barbarian thread can be hijacked by Gandalf. I find it even more humorous imagining Gandalf holding up a mirror and saying: 'I would like to make a deal'
This thread just keeps on giving :D
He doesn't hold up a mirror. He goes and talks to the Council in whatever realm they are within. That's what he was gone and doing between fighting the Balrog and Appearing to Aragorn, Legolas, and the dwarf (i'm blanking on his name so bad right now) as Gandalf the White. If you treat him as a Warlock it's supported by the fact that his deal was renegotiated and he was given more power with the switch from Grey to White.
The mirror thing was more about 6thLyranGuard's post about him making a deal with himself lol. And for shame!!! How could you forget the mighty Gimli.
Particularly in a barbarian disc. post, how did you forget Gimli.