2 speed weapons- legal? [Archive] - Wizards Community

2 speed weapons- legal? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
scout989
08-05-05, 11:55 PM I was just planning out a character I intend to play next time I have an opportunity, and I was planning a dual-wielder with 2 Speed weapons. However, earlier tonight I was checking out another thread when I saw a reference to a debate on the subject of whether or not those weapons would EACH allow an extra attack in the round. Now, to my mind, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense (and yes, I know about the line about not stacking with Haste or similar effects), but I wanted to get an idea of why people think this is wrong.
I don't really want to start the debate up again (though I'm aware that I might have done that just by asking the question); what I'm really hoping is that someone can post me a link to the debate thread, as I haven't found it yet.
Tyler Do'Urden
08-06-05, 12:10 AM It's a combination of balance and simplicity. It's unbalanced to have the extra attack from haste stacking with the extra attack from Heroic Surge stacking with the extra attacks from not one but two speed weapons. But it's simpler to simply say any extra attacks that are sort of like that don't stack, so no matter how many of these effects you got going, you only get one bonus attack.

If you're just theorizing, then it's best to assume they don't stack. If this is for an actual campaign that you plan to play in, just ask your DM. You'd be suprised what sort of controversial options a friendly DM will allow.
tiluvias99
08-06-05, 01:33 AM If you're just theorizing, then it's best to assume they don't stack. If this is for an actual campaign that you plan to play in, just ask your DM. You'd be suprised what sort of controversial options a friendly DM will allow.indeed. It's really up to your DM, because as it is written there are two ways to interpret it, one of which is that the weapon is granting you an extra attack, and one in which the weapon gets to make an extra attack... its impossible to tell which when using english grammar, it could mean either option. Personally, I think that 2 speed weapons should only grant 1 extra attack.
NeueRegel
08-06-05, 01:46 AM Heyas. 3.5

This short post will shock the regulars that know me too well, as a retentive rules Core-only freak.

I also say this with the caveat that we will never play epic levels, so I will never really have to field this topic "IRL", as it were.

I am in the (rare) camp that believes that the two speed weapons is allowed, and without looking things up (again), The books say (or very close) "Epic weapons creation follow the rules for non-epic weapons normally except {insert epic stuff}." And then they give the epic weapon Staff of Alacrity, a double weapon with both ends "speed", stated in perfect english that each end gives it's free attack each round. Now, mind you, it's epic... but it has lots of other powers too; A single head being a +5 speed weapon is not epic in itself, and heads are treated as two weapons separate for creation.

And even if you apply the +10 max non-epic rule to a double weapon inclusive, a staff +2speed/+2speed would be +10...

My .02. Ask your DM, as suggested by the others.

It would certainly be less powerful than some of the (to us) silly builds and races and splatbook feats 'we' (our group) read about here on the boards.

NeueRegel
Thorak
08-06-05, 01:54 AM indeed. It's really up to your DM, because as it is written there are two ways to interpret it, one of which is that the weapon is granting you an extra attack, and one in which the weapon gets to make an extra attack... its impossible to tell which when using english grammar, it could mean either option. Personally, I think that 2 speed weapons should only grant 1 extra attack.
Weapons don't make extra attacks. Their wielders do. Speed enchantments apply to the wielder, not the weapon directly. That's why they don't stack.

Are you using the weapon's BAB to determine how many attacks you make? No? Then why are you arguing that the weapon is making attacks? Not directed at you, tiluvias, but to those who claimed this.
I am in the (rare) camp that believes that the two speed weapons is allowed, and without looking things up (again), The books say (or very close) "Epic weapons creation follow the rules for non-epic weapons normally except {insert epic stuff}." And then they give the epic weapon Staff of Alacrity, a double weapon with both ends "speed", stated in perfect english that each end gives it's free attack each round. Now, mind you, it's epic... but it has lots of other powers too; A single head being a +5 speed weapon is not epic in itself, and heads are treated as two weapons separate for creation.
The Staff of Alacrity pretty clearly says; "Both ends of this +5 quarterstaff of speed have equal enhancement and special powers, meaning that it allows an additional attack with each end every round."

Making the additional attack with each end every round is a special power. Otherwise, the "meaning that..." clause would have to come before any mention of the special powers, grammatically. Because it follows "special powers", it grammatically points to that, and thus "special powers" are what "mean that it allows an additional attack with each end every round."

It might also refer to the equal enchantment part, but it can't not refer to the special powers. And if that's a special power, then it seems pretty clear that normally, speed weapons don't stack.
NeueRegel
08-06-05, 02:07 AM Weapons don't make extra attacks. Their wielders do. Speed enchantments apply to the wielder, not the weapon directly. That's why they don't stack.

Are you using the weapon's BAB to determine how many attacks you make? No? Then why are you arguing that the weapon is making attacks? Not directed at you, tiluvias, but to those who claimed this.

The Staff of Alacrity pretty clearly says; "Both ends of this +5 quarterstaff of speed have equal enhancement and special powers, meaning that it allows an additional attack with each end every round."

Making the additional attack with each end every round is a special power. Otherwise, the "meaning that..." clause would have to come before any mention of the special powers, grammatically. Because it follows "special powers", it grammatically points to that, and thus "special powers" are what "mean that it allows an additional attack with each end every round."

It might also refer to the equal enchantment part, but it can't not refer to the special powers. And if that's a special power, then it seems pretty clear that normally, speed weapons don't stack.
Thorak, I'm not in the mood to mince grammar tonight. You made my case for me, in a way. The sentence "have equal enhancement and special powers" is exactly that; Any magic weapon has it's enhancement bonus and it's special ability(s) (a POWER), and the staff deflects arrows with either end as needed (a POWER), etc. It makes no mention of any "new, special power of dual-double-stacking-speed".

Let the OP decide. I'm out.
Thorak
08-06-05, 03:08 AM Thorak, I'm not in the mood to mince grammar tonight. You made my case for me, in a way. The sentence "have equal enhancement and special powers" is exactly that; Any magic weapon has it's enhancement bonus and it's special ability(s) (a POWER), and the staff deflects arrows with either end as needed (a POWER), etc. It makes no mention of any "new, special power of dual-double-stacking-speed".

Let the OP decide. I'm out.
It doesn't need to.

A clause starting with 'meaning that..." is a dependent clause. A relative clause, specifically. And a dependent clause depends on a preceding noun as its subject. In this case, "special powers".

The stacking has to be the special powers. That's how the grammar on dependent clauses works. It might refer to both nouns preceding it, both the powers and the enchantment, but it can't be referring to just the enchantment alone; then you'd have a noun interposing between the dependent clause and its subject, which is a grammar no-no, at least in that kind of structure.

For instance, if I were to say "My monkey is dirty and brown, meaning that he needs a bath", it appears that it's the brownness that makes him need a bath, perhaps along with the dirtiness. But the brownness could be normal and merely descriptive. If that's the case, the sentence is incorrectly set up; the brown is located incorrectly and confuses the meaning.

So, with the D&D books, I just assume they didn't bone the grammar that badly, especially since they haven't Errataed it.
Someone
08-06-05, 01:03 PM Well, my take on it is: yes, you can have two speed weapons. No, you don't get 2 extra attacks. What you do get, however, is a choice of which weapon you use to make the extra attack. If you were using only 1 speed weapon, the extra attack has to be with that weapon.

The haste spell is kinda handy in that way- it allows you to choose which weapon to get the extra attack with.
UZI
08-06-05, 01:24 PM Simply ask the DM. It's hardly unbalancing, and not a stretch to read that 2 speed weapons work together. However it was explicitly impossible in 3E since the 3E Haste and Speed were worded in such a way to obviously make it impossible (and the 3E FAQ clarifies this). Many people oppose this on various grounds related to the 3E intention and statements about not having weapons but characters making attacks (ignoring dancing weapons and weapon-like spells for the moment, consider a spiritual weapon or mage's sword).

3.5 Haste grants you an extra attack with any weapon you're holding, you get to choose (and doesn't stack with a speed weapon). 3.5 Speed grants you an extra attack with a particular weapon so enhanced (and doesn't stack with haste).

Haste lets you pick the weapon, speed is bound to the weapon. You cannot shift the extra attack granted by a speed weapon to another weapon, like you can with haste. You cannot use haste to get two extra attacks with a speed weapon.

However, in all those rules, since you can pick the hasted weapon you can presumably pick a non-speed weapon for an extra attack and continue to use the speed weapon also for an extra attack. Also, there is nothing there that explicitly prevents two speed weapons from each getting an extra attack.

The 3E FAQ can be ignored since its reasoning refers to 3E haste and speed which have been greatly changed. There have (as of yet) been no FAQs to clarify the issue with 3.5 haste and speed.

But ask your DM, since he's the one who has to live with it, as do you.
Thorak
08-06-05, 02:16 PM However, in all those rules, since you can pick the hasted weapon you can presumably pick a non-speed weapon for an extra attack and continue to use the speed weapon also for an extra attack. Also, there is nothing there that explicitly prevents two speed weapons from each getting an extra attack.

Weapons do not have or make attacks. A weapon cannot be granted an extra attack. The wielder can be granted an extra attack with that weapon, but the effect is still on the wielder.

And the wording is such that Speed doesn't stack with similar effects. So if the wielder is already getting a Speed effect, he doesn't get to have a second.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
scout989 08-05-05, 11:55 PM	I was just planning out a character I intend to play next time I have an opportunity, and I was planning a dual-wielder with 2 Speed weapons. However, earlier tonight I was checking out another thread when I saw a reference to a debate on the subject of whether or not those weapons would EACH allow an extra attack in the round. Now, to my mind, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense (and yes, I know about the line about not stacking with Haste or similar effects), but I wanted to get an idea of why people think this is wrong. I don't really want to start the debate up again (though I'm aware that I might have done that just by asking the question); what I'm really hoping is that someone can post me a link to the debate thread, as I haven't found it yet.
Tyler Do'Urden 08-06-05, 12:10 AM	It's a combination of balance and simplicity. It's unbalanced to have the extra attack from haste stacking with the extra attack from Heroic Surge stacking with the extra attacks from not one but two speed weapons. But it's simpler to simply say any extra attacks that are sort of like that don't stack, so no matter how many of these effects you got going, you only get one bonus attack. If you're just theorizing, then it's best to assume they don't stack. If this is for an actual campaign that you plan to play in, just ask your DM. You'd be suprised what sort of controversial options a friendly DM will allow.
tiluvias99 08-06-05, 01:33 AM	If you're just theorizing, then it's best to assume they don't stack. If this is for an actual campaign that you plan to play in, just ask your DM. You'd be suprised what sort of controversial options a friendly DM will allow.indeed. It's really up to your DM, because as it is written there are two ways to interpret it, one of which is that the weapon is granting you an extra attack, and one in which the weapon gets to make an extra attack... its impossible to tell which when using english grammar, it could mean either option. Personally, I think that 2 speed weapons should only grant 1 extra attack.
NeueRegel 08-06-05, 01:46 AM	Heyas. 3.5 This short post will shock the regulars that know me too well, as a retentive rules Core-only freak. I also say this with the caveat that we will never play epic levels, so I will never really have to field this topic "IRL", as it were. I am in the (rare) camp that believes that the two speed weapons is allowed, and without looking things up (again), The books say (or very close) "Epic weapons creation follow the rules for non-epic weapons normally except {insert epic stuff}." And then they give the epic weapon Staff of Alacrity, a double weapon with both ends "speed", stated in perfect english that each end gives it's free attack each round. Now, mind you, it's epic... but it has lots of other powers too; A single head being a +5 speed weapon is not epic in itself, and heads are treated as two weapons separate for creation. And even if you apply the +10 max non-epic rule to a double weapon inclusive, a staff +2speed/+2speed would be +10... My .02. Ask your DM, as suggested by the others. It would certainly be less powerful than some of the (to us) silly builds and races and splatbook feats 'we' (our group) read about here on the boards. NeueRegel
Thorak 08-06-05, 01:54 AM	indeed. It's really up to your DM, because as it is written there are two ways to interpret it, one of which is that the weapon is granting you an extra attack, and one in which the weapon gets to make an extra attack... its impossible to tell which when using english grammar, it could mean either option. Personally, I think that 2 speed weapons should only grant 1 extra attack. Weapons don't make extra attacks. Their wielders do. Speed enchantments apply to the wielder, not the weapon directly. That's why they don't stack. Are you using the weapon's BAB to determine how many attacks you make? No? Then why are you arguing that the weapon is making attacks? Not directed at you, tiluvias, but to those who claimed this. I am in the (rare) camp that believes that the two speed weapons is allowed, and without looking things up (again), The books say (or very close) "Epic weapons creation follow the rules for non-epic weapons normally except {insert epic stuff}." And then they give the epic weapon Staff of Alacrity, a double weapon with both ends "speed", stated in perfect english that each end gives it's free attack each round. Now, mind you, it's epic... but it has lots of other powers too; A single head being a +5 speed weapon is not epic in itself, and heads are treated as two weapons separate for creation. The Staff of Alacrity pretty clearly says; "Both ends of this +5 quarterstaff of speed have equal enhancement and special powers, meaning that it allows an additional attack with each end every round." Making the additional attack with each end every round is a special power. Otherwise, the "meaning that..." clause would have to come before any mention of the special powers, grammatically. Because it follows "special powers", it grammatically points to that, and thus "special powers" are what "mean that it allows an additional attack with each end every round." It might also refer to the equal enchantment part, but it can't not refer to the special powers. And if that's a special power, then it seems pretty clear that normally, speed weapons don't stack.
NeueRegel 08-06-05, 02:07 AM	Weapons don't make extra attacks. Their wielders do. Speed enchantments apply to the wielder, not the weapon directly. That's why they don't stack. Are you using the weapon's BAB to determine how many attacks you make? No? Then why are you arguing that the weapon is making attacks? Not directed at you, tiluvias, but to those who claimed this. The Staff of Alacrity pretty clearly says; "Both ends of this +5 quarterstaff of speed have equal enhancement and special powers, meaning that it allows an additional attack with each end every round." Making the additional attack with each end every round is a special power. Otherwise, the "meaning that..." clause would have to come before any mention of the special powers, grammatically. Because it follows "special powers", it grammatically points to that, and thus "special powers" are what "mean that it allows an additional attack with each end every round." It might also refer to the equal enchantment part, but it can't not refer to the special powers. And if that's a special power, then it seems pretty clear that normally, speed weapons don't stack. Thorak, I'm not in the mood to mince grammar tonight. You made my case for me, in a way. The sentence "have equal enhancement and special powers" is exactly that; Any magic weapon has it's enhancement bonus and it's special ability(s) (a POWER), and the staff deflects arrows with either end as needed (a POWER), etc. It makes no mention of any "new, special power of dual-double-stacking-speed". Let the OP decide. I'm out.
Thorak 08-06-05, 03:08 AM	Thorak, I'm not in the mood to mince grammar tonight. You made my case for me, in a way. The sentence "have equal enhancement and special powers" is exactly that; Any magic weapon has it's enhancement bonus and it's special ability(s) (a POWER), and the staff deflects arrows with either end as needed (a POWER), etc. It makes no mention of any "new, special power of dual-double-stacking-speed". Let the OP decide. I'm out. It doesn't need to. A clause starting with 'meaning that..." is a dependent clause. A relative clause, specifically. And a dependent clause depends on a preceding noun as its subject. In this case, "special powers". The stacking has to be the special powers. That's how the grammar on dependent clauses works. It might refer to both nouns preceding it, both the powers and the enchantment, but it can't be referring to just the enchantment alone; then you'd have a noun interposing between the dependent clause and its subject, which is a grammar no-no, at least in that kind of structure. For instance, if I were to say "My monkey is dirty and brown, meaning that he needs a bath", it appears that it's the brownness that makes him need a bath, perhaps along with the dirtiness. But the brownness could be normal and merely descriptive. If that's the case, the sentence is incorrectly set up; the brown is located incorrectly and confuses the meaning. So, with the D&D books, I just assume they didn't bone the grammar that badly, especially since they haven't Errataed it.
Someone 08-06-05, 01:03 PM	Well, my take on it is: yes, you can have two speed weapons. No, you don't get 2 extra attacks. What you do get, however, is a choice of which weapon you use to make the extra attack. If you were using only 1 speed weapon, the extra attack has to be with that weapon. The haste spell is kinda handy in that way- it allows you to choose which weapon to get the extra attack with.
UZI 08-06-05, 01:24 PM	Simply ask the DM. It's hardly unbalancing, and not a stretch to read that 2 speed weapons work together. However it was explicitly impossible in 3E since the 3E Haste and Speed were worded in such a way to obviously make it impossible (and the 3E FAQ clarifies this). Many people oppose this on various grounds related to the 3E intention and statements about not having weapons but characters making attacks (ignoring dancing weapons and weapon-like spells for the moment, consider a spiritual weapon or mage's sword). 3.5 Haste grants you an extra attack with any weapon you're holding, you get to choose (and doesn't stack with a speed weapon). 3.5 Speed grants you an extra attack with a particular weapon so enhanced (and doesn't stack with haste). Haste lets you pick the weapon, speed is bound to the weapon. You cannot shift the extra attack granted by a speed weapon to another weapon, like you can with haste. You cannot use haste to get two extra attacks with a speed weapon. However, in all those rules, since you can pick the hasted weapon you can presumably pick a non-speed weapon for an extra attack and continue to use the speed weapon also for an extra attack. Also, there is nothing there that explicitly prevents two speed weapons from each getting an extra attack. The 3E FAQ can be ignored since its reasoning refers to 3E haste and speed which have been greatly changed. There have (as of yet) been no FAQs to clarify the issue with 3.5 haste and speed. But ask your DM, since he's the one who has to live with it, as do you.
Thorak 08-06-05, 02:16 PM	However, in all those rules, since you can pick the hasted weapon you can presumably pick a non-speed weapon for an extra attack and continue to use the speed weapon also for an extra attack. Also, there is nothing there that explicitly prevents two speed weapons from each getting an extra attack. Weapons do not have or make attacks. A weapon cannot be granted an extra attack. The wielder can be granted an extra attack with that weapon, but the effect is still on the wielder. And the wording is such that Speed doesn't stack with similar effects. So if the wielder is already getting a Speed effect, he doesn't get to have a second.