Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shieldhart91 01-02-08, 09:52 AM	Captain America, anyone? I'm considering, for my Greyhawk character, to make a character who throws shields around. Alternatively, I'm wondering if you can equip a shield in both hands, and if I could get a reference to the PHB rules for that. Thanks!
kenobi65 01-02-08, 10:29 AM	I don't think there's any reason why you *couldn't* have a shield in each hand, but bear in mind that you'll only get the AC benefit from one of them -- both of them are providing "shield" bonuses to your AC, and the same type of bonus doesn't stack.
MatteBlack 01-02-08, 11:09 AM	Sorry but, expect to get laughed at and/or mocked heartily if you try to rock two shields.
Churcher 01-02-08, 01:59 PM	My friend actually playtested one of these builds in a homegame. 28 point buy all Greyhawk legal things. At 4th level, he actually did pretty well. It was pretty funny and we still refrence it to this day. It was Captain Greyhawk! Remeber, it's considered One-Handed, so you CAN use the shield with TWO HANDS! Power Attacking with a shield...who would have thought?
kenobi65 01-02-08, 02:26 PM	My friend actually playtested one of these builds in a homegame. 28 point buy all Greyhawk legal things. At 4th level, he actually did pretty well. It was pretty funny and we still refrence it to this day. It was Captain Greyhawk! Remeber, it's considered One-Handed, so you CAN use the shield with TWO HANDS! Power Attacking with a shield...who would have thought? You *can* do it, but I still wonder *why*, unless it's for pure flavor value: 1) A spiked heavy shield is about the worst one-handed martial weapon there is (looking at damage and crit range) 2) When you use it to attack, you can't get the shield bonus to your AC 3) You need to enhance the "shield" portion and the "spike" portion separately. It just seems like a darn ineffective build to me. What am I missing?
bitznarf 01-02-08, 02:57 PM	Well, add in improved shield bash and you get your AC back, and the ability to enhance it on both the spike and shield is a good thing. Bashing gets added to the shield and flaming to the spike for example. They really can be quite effective.
kenobi65 01-02-08, 03:06 PM	Well, add in improved shield bash and you get your AC back, and the ability to enhance it on both the spike and shield is a good thing. Bashing gets added to the shield and flaming to the spike for example. They really can be quite effective. Ehh, I suppose. I still think it'll look silly. ;)
Jay_Ibero_911 01-02-08, 03:16 PM	You *can* do it, but I still wonder *why*, unless it's for pure flavor value: 1) A spiked heavy shield is about the worst one-handed martial weapon there is (looking at damage and crit range) 2) When you use it to attack, you can't get the shield bonus to your AC 3) You need to enhance the "shield" portion and the "spike" portion separately. It just seems like a darn ineffective build to me. What am I missing? Improved Shield Bash eliminates the issue of number 2. However using the shield sling feat makes it a bigger issue without the returning ability in some form or other. If only that one Tome of Battle throwing based PrC was available...
bitznarf 01-02-08, 03:17 PM	Ehh, I suppose. I still think it'll look silly. ;) You realize that hitting someone with your shield was a tried and true battle tactic? Knock them down with it if you will.
kenobi65 01-02-08, 03:24 PM	You realize that hitting someone with your shield was a tried and true battle tactic? Knock them down with it if you will. Oh, I understand that, and that's not my complaint. But, I'd imagine that most of those historical warriors had a "real" weapon in their other hand at the time. I think that the fighter wielding nothing but a heavy shield (and with both hands, at that) is silly-looking, effective though he might be. Then again, it's probably no sillier-looking than a spiked chain or two-bladed sword, so what do I know? :D
magebeast 01-02-08, 05:09 PM	There was a player with a paladin shield basher who posted on the boards a while back. If you dig you might be able to find it.
Hariman 01-02-08, 07:51 PM	A fighter/shield basher would get the most out of this. (Actually, I think a cleric would, but Captain America was not a caster.) You would have the feats to take Improved Shield Bash/Shield Specialization/Shield Ward/etc. (If you're gonna trick out for shield bashing, get the best bonuses you can out of it.) Power Attacking will keep your damage competitive with other fighters and barbarians. (who am I kidding, barbarians are damage machines.) Technically, you could take Improved Unarmed Strike/Versatile Unarmed Strike AND weapon focus and specialization (unarmed strike) to get melee weapon mastery (Bludgeoning) and melee weapon mastery (piercing) to boost your shield damage. (you can't take weapon focus/specialization for shields :( ) IF you are willing to sacrifice a little flavor, you can save a few feats and use a morning star in your primary hand. You wouldn't have to take Unarmed Strike for that "Shield + Fist" flavor that the Captain had. The greatest hurdle is damage reduction at low levels and inflicting higher amounts of damage at the higher levels. Shields have a major weakness in that you can't Focus/Specialize in a shield. BUT, it's good that you can Power Attack two handed with them. Any good sword and board build would do for "Captain Greyhawk". But focusing solely on the shield is a bit of a power trap.
Jay_Ibero_911 01-02-08, 08:28 PM	A fighter/shield basher would get the most out of this. (Actually, I think a cleric would, but Captain America was not a caster.) You would have the feats to take Improved Shield Bash/Shield Specialization/Shield Ward/etc. (If you're gonna trick out for shield bashing, get the best bonuses you can out of it.) Power Attacking will keep your damage competitive with other fighters and barbarians. (who am I kidding, barbarians are damage machines.) Technically, you could take Improved Unarmed Strike/Versatile Unarmed Strike AND weapon focus and specialization (unarmed strike) to get melee weapon mastery (Bludgeoning) and melee weapon mastery (piercing) to boost your shield damage. (you can't take weapon focus/specialization for shields :( ) IF you are willing to sacrifice a little flavor, you can save a few feats and use a morning star in your primary hand. You wouldn't have to take Unarmed Strike for that "Shield + Fist" flavor that the Captain had. The greatest hurdle is damage reduction at low levels and inflicting higher amounts of damage at the higher levels. Shields have a major weakness in that you can't Focus/Specialize in a shield. BUT, it's good that you can Power Attack two handed with them. Any good sword and board build would do for "Captain Greyhawk". But focusing solely on the shield is a bit of a power trap. Where'd you get the idea that you can't take weapon focus/specialization in shields? They ARE listed on the weapon tables afterall...Is it in an FAQ/erratta somewhere?
Shieldhart91 01-03-08, 06:56 AM	Also, if you bash with one shield, can't you still use the shield bonus from the other hand to your AC? I don't imagine I would, this is more of a curiousity question than anything else. Additionally, could you enchant a shield (as it is in the weapon table) with throwing and returning enchantments? I just can't get it out of my head: Captain Greyhawk!
Arvagor 01-03-08, 03:03 PM	Additionally, could you enchant a shield (as it is in the weapon table) with throwing and returning enchantments?Sure, why not? Per the description of spiked shields, "[...] a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right." If you can gain access, however, the ranged special ability in MIC is much better -- returning and throwing, plus the shield's enhancement bonus on damage, all for the price of a +1 bonus... There's a similar ability to returning in the XPH, called teleporting, which is slightly better -- the weapon returns through the astral plane to your location, even if you've moved. Still the cost of a +1 bonus, but I don't see an equivalent ability in the MIC...
Hariman 01-04-08, 02:07 AM	Where'd you get the idea that you can't take weapon focus/specialization in shields? They ARE listed on the weapon tables afterall...Is it in an FAQ/erratta somewhere? Either it was a house rule of a prior DM or some other mix-up. Upon re-checking the rules, you CAN take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization with light or heavy shields. Which makes the build much easier and more deadly, as that +3/+4 from Weapon Focus/Specialization/Mastery is a significant increase. Sure, why not? Per the description of spiked shields, "[...] a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right." If you can gain access, however, the ranged special ability in MIC is much better -- returning and throwing, plus the shield's enhancement bonus on damage, all for the price of a +1 bonus... There's a similar ability to returning in the XPH, called teleporting, which is slightly better -- the weapon returns through the astral plane to your location, even if you've moved. Still the cost of a +1 bonus, but I don't see an equivalent ability in the MIC... Two words: Anticipate Teleportation You DON'T want to risk having your weapon get shunted to 4 rounds in the future. (or howwever long the spell lasts.) Also, relying on getting access for a shield enchantment is iffy at best. It's far better to make a build that doesn't need the enchantment, but will benefit if it gets it.
Churcher 01-04-08, 07:01 PM	Also, don't forget the feat from PHBII, the Shield Sling. What would Captain Greyhawk be without the ability to throw your shield with proficiancy! Now, I'm not sure if that would consitute the shield being a "weapon" for the point of the returning and throwing abilities, but it certainly is cool! I'm actually kinda wanting to see this at some Battle Interactive...NEVER FEAR! CAPTAIN GREYHAWK IS HERE!
Shieldhart91 01-05-08, 09:22 AM	I'm convinced. Furyondy will now be plagued with the likes of CAPTAIN GREYHAWK! STALWART ADVENTURER DEDICATED TO DESTROYING EVIL! The question is...deity. ~Rubs chin~ I suppose I could take Heironeous, but I'm curious if there's a better patron to call out in battle. Zagyg maybe? Embodying that Greyhawk flare. --- RACE: Human (Oeridian) PATRON DEITY: Heironeous ALIGNMENT: Lawful Good STARTING STATS: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 8, Cha 14 (Captain Greyhawk is a strong, agile, tough, and charming person- but is often too absorbed within himself to notice much of anything or think that there's an evil villain plotting against his every move. He's assuming they're fearful, and only the unintelligent would attack him. He's just plain wrong.) Level 1: Fighter (Weapon Focus: Heavy Steel Shield, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot) Level 2: Fighter (Improved Shield Bash) Level 3: Fighter [Open Feat] Level 4: Fighter (Weapon Specialization - Heavy Steel Shield) Level 5: Fighter Level 6: Master Thrower [Open Feat], Quick Draw (Free), Thrown Weapon Trick: Trip Shot or Two with One Blow) Not completely optimal, but I need some input to fill in where I left off. Ideally, he's going to be wearing Medium Armor at the most- but perhaps Mithral Full Plate if I get access to it and I can afford it. He'll be wielding a Heavy Steel Shield with Spikes, but I'm curious as to what damage a thrown shield might do. I'm even more curious if I can even do it =P I only have the Players Handbook and Complete Warrior with me, so if you can reference other feats from other books, that'd be great.
KarmaInferno 01-08-08, 01:11 AM	You *can* do it, but I still wonder *why*, unless it's for pure flavor value: 1) A spiked heavy shield is about the worst one-handed martial weapon there is (looking at damage and crit range) 2) When you use it to attack, you can't get the shield bonus to your AC 3) You need to enhance the "shield" portion and the "spike" portion separately. It just seems like a darn ineffective build to me. What am I missing? The shield has a mechanic attached that no other weapon has. It can be ramped up in size category multiple times. Base weapon: 1d4 + Spiked: 1d6 + Bashing: 2d6 That's a one handed weapon doing 2d6 base damage. No other one handed weapon has that large a damage die. You can even push it to a Large size weapon at 3d6 damage if you want, though you'll have to two-hand wield it unless you took Monkey Grip. Note that Enlarge Person will not have any size-increase to damage on a shield with Bashing, as at least in LG you cannot have two magical size adjustments. It gets better if you use a Gnome Turtle Blade as the base weapon instead of a standard shield, though this might have table variation. WotC Customer service says that Bashing and Spiked work on it, for what it's worth. 1d6 damage to start with instead of 1d4. Any shield-focused character will have Improved Shield Bash. Yes, separate weapon and shield enchants. But this isn't any different than anyone else that uses a shield, even if they don't shield bash. As a side benefit, dual wielding shields allows you to have more shield enchants than you normally could. The bonuses to AC might not stack, but the other enchants all work. Is a shield the most optimal weapon out there? No. But it's hardly ineffective. I have a dwarf shield fighter I've played for about a year. He alternates between dual-wielding them and just two-handing a large one, depending on the situation. Given his short stature, when he's using the large one it looks like a spiked dome is attacking you. =) I also played a shield-slinging cleric back in Living City, complete with returning shield, by name of Captain Justice. Later as Captain Thunder due to threatened legal action from another Captain Justice (There was already a Captain Ravens Bluff). But LC tended to be a silly campaign. =) -karma
jstorrie 01-08-08, 02:51 AM	Shield Sling and shield-bashing are not very powerful, but Shield Slam and Shield Charge are. Tripping with Int under 13 and without going to Monk 6 is great. Tripping with an added daze effect and damage is even greater. If you do Monk 2 / Fighter 4 / Drunken Master 2 / Fighter x, you can pick up the whole Shield Slam / Shield Charge combo and be able to use it in many situations, and mix in something like Three Mountains Style or Defensive Throw.
Vamroc 01-08-08, 04:51 PM	Captain America, anyone? I'm considering, for my Greyhawk character, to make a character who throws shields around. Alternatively, I'm wondering if you can equip a shield in both hands, and if I could get a reference to the PHB rules for that. Thanks! Yes I have the way use a Dwarven Buckler Axe then use Scupt Spell on a Whirling Blades so it comes back to you just like Cap.
TetsujinOni 01-08-08, 07:22 PM	I do not think Sculpt Spell does what it seems like you think it does, Vamroc...
magebeast 01-08-08, 07:44 PM	I do not think Sculpt Spell does what it seems like you think it does, Vamroc... Although I agree with you that sculpt spell doesn't let you sculpt "effect" spells, there are some judges that allow it.
KarmaInferno 01-08-08, 09:34 PM	Those judges would be wrong. Sculpt Spell only works on Area spells. That's all. The rules are pretty specific about aiming spells. There are four categories of spells, for purposes of aiming: 'Target', 'Area', 'Effect', and 'Line of Effect'. Whirling Blade is an Effect spell. Not Area. There is some overlap - like there are Area, Effect, and Line of Effect spells that all hit a line of squares, but just because they all have the same result does not mean you can mix and match the aiming categories. -karma
Jay_Ibero_911 01-08-08, 09:58 PM	Those judges would be wrong. Sculpt Spell only works on Area spells. That's all. The rules are pretty specific about aiming spells. There are four types of spells: Target, Area, Effect, and Line. Whirling Blade is an Effect spell. Not Area. -karma Even without the sculpt though, using whirling blade on an adamantine heavy shield is one way to pull off a Captain America like move...
KarmaInferno 01-08-08, 10:16 PM	True, though it'd have to be one of the slashing variant shields, like a buckler-axe or a turtle blade. -karma
Jay_Ibero_911 01-08-08, 10:46 PM	True, though it'd have to be one of the slashing variant shields, like a buckler-axe or a turtle blade. -karma Why do you say that? Nothing in the text of the whirling blade spell specifies that it must be a slashing weapon. Unless you count the flavor text...
JohnduBois 01-08-08, 10:57 PM	Why do you say that? Nothing in the text of the whirling blade spell specifies that it must be a slashing weapon. Unless you count the flavor text... The focus for the spell is "a slashing melee weapon that you hurl", and it has somatic components to the spell, and the first sentence states that the weapon hurled must be held at the time of casting. I don't see a way for that not to require three hands except if the focus and weapon hurled for damage are the same.
Jay_Ibero_911 01-08-08, 11:12 PM	The focus for the spell is "a slashing melee weapon that you hurl", and it has somatic components to the spell, and the first sentence states that the weapon hurled must be held at the time of casting. I don't see a way for that not to require three hands except if the focus and weapon hurled for damage are the same. Hmm...true I suppose, though the spell could state it more directly...And it's not like the spell would be broken if it could be used with other weapon types...
magebeast 01-09-08, 12:17 AM	Hmm...true I suppose, though the spell could state it more directly...And it's not like the spell would be broken if it could be used with other weapon types... Presumably a still whirling blade could be used to throw just about anything.
Arvagor 01-09-08, 12:41 AM	Presumably a still whirling blade could be used to throw just about anything. No. Though you've gotten rid of the somatic components, the spell still requires the focus (the "slashing melee weapon").
Vamroc 01-09-08, 01:43 AM	I did not mean to imply that sculpt spell had that effect but Whirling Blades does indeed return to your hand after the last enemy has been struck this is why a Dwarven Buckler Axe is great for your (Captain America) build. As for if you can use Sculpt Spell on a Whirling Blades it states area effect for Sculpt Spell and lists Lightning Bolt for the example which says Area: 120 ft line that begins at your finger tip. Whirling Blades says Effect: sixty foot line I think the term "Area" was being used to describe the fact the line can travel in any single direction up to 120 ft with the caster as the point of origin thus covering an area this doesn't make it an area effect spell. If it was it would act more like Call Lightning which states each bolt has a width of five feet which constitutes an area of effect. So the question is which book is wrong since Whirling Blades does theoretically have an area of effect depending on what slashing weapon is used. Or would Lightning Bolt as both an area spell and example for Sculpt Spell be a mistake by the writers of both books.
magebeast 01-09-08, 08:41 PM	No. Though you've gotten rid of the somatic components, the spell still requires the focus (the "slashing melee weapon"). Right. However, if you've got a judge who is of the opinion that the flavor text doesn't count (a fair portion of them) the spell description itself says you hurl a weapon held at the time of casting. So you hold your slashing weapon focus in one hand and another weapon in your other hand and use the slashing weapon as your focus and the other weapon as your throw. I do not advocate this particular position, just noting that it is indeed one way some people might choose to interpret it.
_metz_ 01-09-08, 09:44 PM	Presumably a still whirling blade could be used to throw just about anything. Thats a pretty clear deviation away from intent however. When analysing rules I like to go with the modern way of interpreting LAW. Intent is the prevailing factor. As a DM I would be very unhappy with you ;) I'd let you do it though :)
boolean 01-09-08, 11:21 PM	Right. However, if you've got a judge who is of the opinion that the flavor text doesn't count (a fair portion of them) ... I've got a question for those DM's: What does the spell Rouse from PHB2 do?
Hariman 01-09-08, 11:50 PM	I've got a question for those DM's: What does the spell Rouse from PHB2 do? Wasn't Rouse errata'd to clarify that it wakes up characters who are asleep?
Arvagor 01-10-08, 01:27 AM	Right. However, if you've got a judge who is of the opinion that the flavor text doesn't count (a fair portion of them) the spell description itself says you hurl a weapon held at the time of casting. So you hold your slashing weapon focus in one hand and another weapon in your other hand and use the slashing weapon as your focus and the other weapon as your throw.But the flavor text doesn't enter into it in this case. The focus itself is the weapon you need to hurl ("Focus: A slashing melee weapon that you hurl."). Are you saying that the description of the focus is flavor text? Not to mention, the spell is called whirling blade. Or should we assume the spell's name is flavor text too? ;)
Arvagor 01-10-08, 01:32 AM	Wasn't Rouse errata'd to clarify that it wakes up characters who are asleep?Yes:Replace the spell description with the following text: "This spell awakens creatures from magical and nonmagical sleep. It has no effect on creatures that are otherwise unconscious."
magebeast 01-10-08, 10:37 AM	But the flavor text doesn't enter into it in this case. The focus itself is the weapon you need to hurl ("Focus: A slashing melee weapon that you hurl."). Are you saying that the description of the focus is flavor text? Not to mention, the spell is called whirling blade. Or should we assume the spell's name is flavor text too? ;) Oops, missed that part about the focus. And yeah, spell names are flavor text. Mordenkainen's (spelling?) Great Disjunction has some flavor text in it. I agree that Whirling Blade, specifically, is a silly case.
Vamroc 01-11-08, 07:10 PM	Thats a pretty clear deviation away from intent however. When analyzing rules I like to go with the modern way of interpreting LAW. Intent is the prevailing factor. As a DM I would be very unhappy with you ;) I'd let you do it though :) A spell's name is not flavor text it tells you what the spell does or creates I.E. Magic Missile or Evard's Black Tentacles. Flavor text tells the PC what he sees when the spell happens sometimes that may be the same thing as in the case of Lightning Bolt and Whirling Blades. I just discovered the problem when they put the spell into Spell Compendium they changed it to include any weapon held at the time of casting. In the flavor text of the Spell Compendium is where it's worded as a slashing weapon. In Complete Arcane it was restricted to only a single slashing weapon as part of the actual spell description. Under the Spell Compendium version Two Weapon Fighting would just be evil because you could apply Still Spell and use two one hand medium weapons like Bastard Swords. Then throw them both for either double damage or in two different directions.
magebeast 01-11-08, 08:40 PM	A spell's name is not flavor text it tells you what the spell does or creates I.E. Magic Missile or Evard's Black Tentacles. Flavor text tells the PC what he sees when the spell happens sometimes that may be the same thing as in the case of Lightning Bolt and Whirling Blades. I just discovered the problem when they put the spell into Spell Compendium they changed it to include any weapon held at the time of casting. In the flavor text of the Spell Compendium is where it's worded as a slashing weapon. In Complete Arcane it was restricted to only a single slashing weapon as part of the actual spell description. Under the Spell Compendium version Two Weapon Fighting would just be evil because you could apply Still Spell and use two one hand medium weapons like Bastard Swords. Then throw them both for either double damage or in two different directions. If you read the post three posts above yours you'll see that this was addressed. And I'm sure no one is going to let you throw both weapons because the spell description is pretty clearly singular.
Vamroc 01-11-08, 11:14 PM	If you read the post three posts above yours you'll see that this was addressed. And I'm sure no one is going to let you throw both weapons because the spell description is pretty clearly singular. Actually Spell Compendium says you hurl a weapon held at the time of casting. What you said was true in Complete Arcane however always use the most up to date rules and that's Spell Compendium even if you don't like it. No where in the Spell Compendium description does limit you to one weapon or a slashing one under the new text. The only instance where it describes a single slashing blade is the portion of flavor or fluff text below the name of the spell. That's not apart of the spell description and therefore irrelevant.
bitznarf 01-12-08, 01:04 AM	No, it just says "a weapon held", and "make a melee attack", "the weapon" (singular), etc., etc. Thus you get to throw a weapon. Never mind the focus: "a slashing weapon that you hurl." All the above found in the spell compendium.
magebeast 01-12-08, 04:07 AM	No, it just says "a weapon held", and "make a melee attack", "the weapon" (singular), etc., etc. Thus you get to throw a weapon. Never mind the focus: "a slashing weapon that you hurl." All the above found in the spell compendium. Plus as noted, the focus is "a slashing weapon that you throw"
Vamroc 01-12-08, 09:52 AM	No, it just says "a weapon held", and "make a mêlée attack", "the weapon" (singular), etc., etc. Thus you get to throw a weapon. Never mind the focus: "a slashing weapon that you hurl." All the above found in the spell compendium. Usage of "A" doesn't mean one in the first instance they are talking about "A weapon" an object used with deadly intent. The second "A mêlée attack" means it must be a close combat attack if you are still with in the RAW and you are capable of hurling multiple weapons at once the spell affects each one. "A slashing weapon" was removed from the spell description in the Spell Compendium and is only mentioned in Irrelevant text
JohnduBois 01-12-08, 10:11 AM	Usage of "A" doesn't mean one in the first instance they are talking about "A" weapon an object used with deadly intent. The second "A mêlée attack" means it must be a close combat attack if you are still with in the RAW and you are capable of hurling multiple weapons at once the spell effects each one. "A slashing weapon " was removed from the spell description in the Spell Compendium and is only mentioned in Irrelevant text I have yet to find a definition of the article "a" that doesn't explicitly state its use when referring to a singular object. Even "a" weapon or object used with deadly intent, as you refer, is singular (as implied by the use of the singular nouns "weapon" and "object"). Given that the spell text makes a number of exclusively singular references ("You hurl *a* weapon", "*it* magically attacks all enemies", "You make *a* normal melee attack", "*a* whirling blade gets only *one* attack against each target", "The *weapon* deals damage just as if you had swung it in melee"), I think you're really reaching here. At best.
Vamroc 01-12-08, 12:08 PM	I have yet to find a definition of the article "a" that doesn't explicitly state its use when referring to a singular object. Even "a" weapon or object used with deadly intent, as you refer, is singular (as implied by the use of the singular nouns "weapon" and "object"). Given that the spell text makes a number of exclusively singular references ("You hurl *a* weapon", "*it* magically attacks all enemies", "You make *a* normal mêlée attack", "*a* whirling blade gets only *one* attack against each target", "The *weapon* deals damage just as if you had swung it in mêlée"), I think you're really reaching here. At best. Never said I wasn't reaching just that the argument can be made for a more liberal interpretation. "A" can be use convey type of object as in a weapon or type of action as in a mêlée attack. Under that usage a Whirling Blade only states the spells effect on the weapon if only one weapon is thrown. If you apply Still Spell you can hold two and thus throw two weapons and a charactor with Two Weapon Fighting could do just that. I was simply pointing out the view that the spell is only applied to a "single slashing weapon" has been updated to include any weapon held when delivering the melee attack. Is it a high cheese view of the spell maybe but as the kids say don't hate the player hate the game.
magebeast 01-12-08, 02:33 PM	Never said I wasn't reaching just that the argument can be made for a more liberal interpretation. "A" can be use convey type of object as in a weapon or type of action as in a mêlée attack. Under that usage a Whirling Blade only states the spells effect on the weapon if only one weapon is thrown. If you apply Still Spell you can hold two and thus throw two weapons and a charactor with Two Weapon Fighting could do just that. I was simply pointing out the view that the spell is only applied to a "single slashing weapon" has been updated to include any weapon held when delivering the melee attack. Is it a high cheese view of the spell maybe but as the kids say don't hate the player hate the game. No. Just no. I'm sorry, but you're simply just wrong here. "A" implicitly implies a singular, unless it's a set of something that is itself multiple things. This is clearly one weapon and there is no way - excepting a really poor understanding of the English language - that you could construe it as allowing you to throw two weapons.
Maesto 01-14-08, 03:54 PM	*blinks* You're kidding me. You're arguing how to use the article "a" in the english language? Give me a break.