Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zanzibax 02-26-07, 01:19 PM	For purposes of this discussion, there are two prestige classes that are being examined: Exotic Weapon Master Champion of Corellon ===== The relevant requirements: Exotic Weapon Master requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency *or* racial access to exotic weapons (dwarf/gnome). Champion of Corellon requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency *or* other feats related to longswords. ===== The wording from Exotic Weapon Master implies (to me) that Improved Weapon Familiarity is adequate for this prestige class. Given the similar requirements for Champion of Corellon, is it also true for that class? Therefore, a character working to qualify for Champion of Corellon, working with say...an Elven courtblade...merely needs to take Improved Weapon familiarity to qualify for the class. The feat is required for elves using elvish weapons, dwarves get it for free for dwarvish weapons (granted they can't become Champions of Corellon, but that's neither here nor there).
Howie23 02-26-07, 02:18 PM	Given the similar requirements for Champion of Corellon, is it also true for that class? Not according to this post, take from it what you will: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/lgchardiscussion/message/6500 David
Zanzibax 02-26-07, 02:20 PM	Not according to this post, take from it what you will: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/lgchardiscussion/message/6500 David I can't get there from here. Quote it please?
Howie23 02-26-07, 03:31 PM	I can't get there from here. Quote it please? "Be aware (if you do get access) that Improved Weapon Familiarity will _not_ let you qualify for Champion (I play a 6th level champion and had to change Improved Weapon Familiarity for Exotic Weapon Proficeny Elven Thinblade after a discussion with Creighton.)"
Zanzibax 02-26-07, 03:33 PM	"Be aware (if you do get access) that Improved Weapon Familiarity will _not_ let you qualify for Champion (I play a 6th level champion and had to change Improved Weapon Familiarity for Exotic Weapon Proficeny Elven Thinblade after a discussion with Creighton.)" Who's "Creighton"? What makes his word law without anything official posted anywhere? This is heresay at this point. Please let someone official confirm this.
Britt 02-26-07, 03:34 PM	Creighton is Creighton Broadhurst, Circle member in charge of Core plots.
Zanzibax 02-26-07, 03:37 PM	Creighton is Creighton Broadhurst, Circle member in charge of Core plots. Ok...so when he posts something it's official. Or when someone else recognizeable as an authority consults with hiim and posts the same thing it's official. That's all I'm asking. Please make it official rather than rely on heresay.
King Kashue 02-26-07, 04:28 PM	The wording from Exotic Weapon Master implies (to me) that Improved Weapon Familiarity is adequate for this prestige class. Given the similar requirements for Champion of Corellon, is it also true for that class? Therefore, a character working to qualify for Champion of Corellon, working with say...an Elven courtblade...merely needs to take Improved Weapon familiarity to qualify for the class. The feat is required for elves using elvish weapons, dwarves get it for free for dwarvish weapons (granted they can't become Champions of Corellon, but that's neither here nor there). The reason it's mentioned in the Exotic Weapon Master, and not for the Champion is because the two feats are not in fact equal. Read improved weapon familiarity: (CW p. 101) "You can treat all the exotic weapons associated with your race as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons" It grants you "familiarity", not "proficiency". For instance, if a Wizard were to take the feat, they would still be non-proficient, since they don't have proficiency with martial weapons. Since they are not the same, Exotic Weapon Master explicitly allows the class to use that feat as a pre-req... You don't need an official ruling saying you can't, you actually need an official ruling saying you can (since the class itself does not give that option, and the two feats are not equal).
Mommy was an Orc 02-26-07, 04:33 PM	The reason it's mentioned in the Exotic Weapon Master, and not for the Champion is because the two feats are not in fact equal. Read improved weapon familiarity: (CW p. 101) "You can treat all the exotic weapons associated with your race as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons" It grants you "familiarity", not "proficiency". For instance, if a Wizard were to take the feat, they would still be non-proficient, since they don't have proficiency with martial weapons. You don't need an official ruling saying you can't, you actually need an official ruling saying you can (since the class itself does not give that option, and the two feats are not equal). And that's sufficient to qualify for either of the PrCs... Even if a character treats an exotic weapon as a martial weapon thanks to weapon familiarity, it is still treated as an exotic weapon for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon.
Zanzibax 02-26-07, 04:45 PM	And that's sufficient to qualify for either of the PrCs... But that would mean "Creighton" was wrong wouldn't it?
Lightblade 02-26-07, 04:58 PM	At best, you'll have table variation. Some judges will say that you have an illegal build, and that's that. Generally in LG it's good to avoid the grey areas unless you're prepared to explain your point to each judge you meet, and be willing to live with judges interpreting the rules in a different manner than you do. For example, I could argue that the prerequsite for the PrC is the specific feat "Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Thinblade", and not just proficiency in said exotic weapon. It's a fine distinction, but I'd feel comfortable with such a ruling even if you did quote the pasage from CW to me. If i'm your judge and am insistant in my ruling, (and the appeals judge agrees with me), what will you do?
Zanzibax 02-26-07, 05:03 PM	At best, you'll have table variation. Some judges will say that you have an illegal build, and that's that. Generally in LG it's good to avoid the grey areas unless you're prepared to explain your point to each judge you meet, and be willing to live with judges interpreting the rules in a different manner than you do. For example, I could argue that the prerequsite for the PrC is the specific feat "Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Thinblade", and not just proficiency in said exotic weapon. It's a fine distinction, but I'd feel comfortable with such a ruling even if you did quote the pasage from CW to me. If i'm your judge and am insistant in my ruling, (and the appeals judge agrees with me), what will you do? The book seems pretty definitive. I think I'll keep biting ankles here until one of the Circle or Sage or Customer Serivce tells us, "Yes, the book says: Complete Warrior page 155 Even if a character treats an exotic weapon as a martial weapon thanks to weapon familiarity, it is still treated as an exotic weapon for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon. So why are you bothering me with something you can read for yourself?" Thanks for this post though...because now I have a reason to keep asking this until we get something to help keep judges from ruining a game. You are a judge and sometimes an appeals judge yourself, correct?
Mommy was an Orc 02-26-07, 05:05 PM	But that would mean "Creighton" was wrong wouldn't it? It happens. No one knows every single rule in those rule books. And even those who come close are often wrong.
Zanzibax 02-26-07, 05:17 PM	It happens. No one knows every single rule in those rule books. And even those who come close are often wrong. Is it enough? Lightblade seems to think that a judge could conspire with an appeals judge to overturn it...or maybe he didn't read your quote from The Complete Warrior before responding...which would be O.K. as long as the book is a definitive argument. I just haven't dealt with very many different judges.
Lightblade 02-26-07, 05:21 PM	The book seems pretty definitive. Lots of things seem definitive to one person, but less so to someone else. Hypothetically speaking, there's a chance you'll find someone that isn't sure about something you feel "definitive" about. So why are you bothering me with something you can read for yourself?" I'm not sure what you mean. If I was a judge unfamiliar with your prestiege class, I would look at the requirements for the PrC, say "huh, you don't have EWP:Courtblade, why do you think you qualified for it?", and then you'd show me the passage in CW, and either i'd nod and smile or i'd say "I'm not sure it works like that." As a player with non-core (ie non PHB/DMG/MM) rules items, it's your duty to bring CW and RotW to the table, since judges are only required to own the Core books. Thanks for this post though...because now I have a reason to keep asking this until we get something to help keep judges from ruining a game. If, as a judge, I thought a rule didn't work how you thought it did, and there was no guidance I could find in the LGCS, FAQ, Sage Advice, or Cust Serv, would that really "ruin" the game? I've played a MoH mod where a judge told me that I couldn't flurry of blows because i was in a stagecoach and couldn't maneuver enought to do the ninja-style acrobatics required for a flurry. Was his ruling supported by any documented rule set? Of course not. Did I think his ruling "ruined my game". No. I just said "whatever" and moved on. You are a judge and sometimes an appeals judge yourself, correct? Judge, yes. Appeals judge, no. You might also want to note that I never actually told you how I *would* rule it, but merely how I *could* rule it. You seem to have assumed that I was expressing my opinion when I was merely playing devil's advocate.
Puggle Halfwine 02-26-07, 05:22 PM	I would say your build doesn't work. The class requires a specific feat. It doesn't matter if the feat required is Improved Bananas at this point; if you don't have that exact feat, no matter if there are other feats which accomplish the same aim, you can't take the class.
bhale187 02-26-07, 05:24 PM	This would not be a LG question, but rather a core ruling question in which case the circle usually avoids giving an official ruling. In such cases you have to expect table variations unless/until WoTC makes some clarification on the rule.
Lightblade 02-26-07, 05:30 PM	Is it enough? Lightblade seems to think that a judge could conspire with an appeals judge to overturn it...or maybe he didn't read your quote from The Complete Warrior before responding...which would be O.K. as long as the book is a definitive argument. I just haven't dealt with very many different judges. There's no conspiracy involved. At a home game, if you and the judge disagree on a ruling after you've made your case, you're generally out of luck. At a multi-table con, the senior GM can designate someone the Appeals GM, and if you disagree with the judge on a ruling you can go to the appeals GM. You and the judge each give your side of the issue, the appeals GM would then issue a ruling, and that's that. I'm just pointing out that the C.W. presents a strong arguement in your favor, but I can't say 100% of the time the judge will agree with you. Maybe it's more like 95% or so, i dunno. I tried to outline an arguement the hypothetical 5% of judges that disagree with you could use. "CW says you can use familiarity for a prestiege class that requires you to be proficent in an exotic weapon. However, the wording of the CoCL is not 'Proficent with Courtblade', but instead 'Feat: EWP:Courtblade'. The two are different, and therefore your build is not legal." Once again, i'm just playing devil's advocate here. You said you haven't dealt with many different judges; i'm just telling you that with different judges come different opinions. That's really all i've got to say.
Lightblade 02-26-07, 05:47 PM	To add a bit more, here's an idea of the spectrum of possible judge response to your character. I am making no claims as to how often you'll get each response (or if you'll get some of them at all), merely that i see them as things a judge could *possibly* tell you. 1) OK, your characer complies with the letter of the rules, no problem. 2) Well, i'm not convinced you've got the letter of the rules down, but i think you're satisfying the spirit of the rules with your feat choice. That's fine with me. 3) No, the feat really needs to be EWP: Courtblade. Tell you what, play the character, but just treat the feat as EWP:Courtblade and be nonproficent in the other elven weapons for this mod. 4) No, the feat really needs to be EWP Courtblade. Play your character, but since you don't actually qualifiy for your PrC you don't get it's class abilities, so just take its BAB, saves, and hitdice. Retrain the feat out next chance you get, or talk to your Triad. 5) No, you've really got an invalid build. Contact your triad to get it fixed, and play this mod with another character if you've got one. Once more, i'm making absolutely no claims as to what I'd say, or how often you'd get each response, if at all. Least of all, i'm not saying anything about how correct a judge would be in making any of those rulings. I'm just pointing out that there are plenty shades of grey.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-26-07, 05:48 PM	I tried to outline an arguement the hypothetical 5% of judges that disagree with you could use. "CW says you can use familiarity for a prestiege class that requires you to be proficent in an exotic weapon. However, the wording of the CoCL is not 'Proficent with Courtblade', but instead 'Feat: EWP:Courtblade'. The two are different, and therefore your build is not legal." The counter to that argument would be that there are only 2 ways to get proficiency in an exotic weapon, familiarity, and exotic weapon proficiency. Complete Warrior says that familiarity qualifies you for PrC's that require proficiency in an exotic weapon. Because Exotic Weapon Proficiency is the only other way to become proficient in an exotic weapon, it's clear that familiarity is intended to be a legal substitute for the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.
Howie23 02-26-07, 06:15 PM	The iffy side of this, in trying to build a character around the CW p. 155 quote, is multi-faceted: 1) The quoted section is not from the core rules; without campaign documentation, it is up to the table DM to use it. As Lightblade mentioned, that's a tough hurdle to build a PC around. 2) The quote is taken out of context, from a section that generally treats the idea of how to expand the racial proficiencies that exist in PHB to the new racial weapons for other races, such as Elven Courtblade for elves, etc. 3) The section quoted says that an exotic weapon that is treated as martial is still exotic for specific purposes. In other words, if you are looking at a PrC that requires an exotic weapon, such as Exotic Weapon Master, proficiency in the familiar weapon still counts as exotic..nothing has been taken away. It does not logically follow that a PrC that requires a specific feat is satisfied by taking a different feat that gives more substantial benefits. The topic seems to come up regularly. It seems like the Improved Racial Familiarity feat should be sufficient, but you do risk a judge ruining your game until it's either errata'd or clarified in the FAQ. I think the last thing you want is to travel to a con and then find the PC grounded under the LGCS Troubleshooting section...that's the worst case scenario for what Lightblade was referring to. David
King Kashue 02-26-07, 07:45 PM	And that's sufficient to qualify for either of the PrCs... No, it isn't (to expand on what Howie said)... Read the section you quoted: (CW p. 155) "Even if a character treats an exotic weapon as a martial weapon thanks to weapon familiarity, it is still treated as an exotic weapon for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon." The passage does not say you have the equivalent of "Exotic Weapon Proficiency", just that if you use the weapon as martial, the weapon is still considered exotic for anything that requires an exotic weapon as a prereq...The statement isn't about the character, the statement is about the weapon (that it doesn't "become" a martial weapon, but still counts as exotic when needed)... And the Champion of Corellon PrC does not require the character "to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon", it requires: (RW p. 114) "Special: In addition to the feats above, you must also take either Weapon Focus (Longsword) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Elven Thinblade or Elven Courtblade)"... Having the feat is what is required, not "being skilled in the use of the weapon"... The two are not synonymous, which is why the Exotic Weapon Master PrC says: (CW p. 30) "Special: Races that have familiarity with an exotic weapon (such as the Dwarf's familiarity with the Dwarven Waraxe and the Dwarven Urgosh) are considered to have the exotic weapon proficiency feat for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this class" It's listed as a "special" characteristic, because it's not the norm. If it were similarly permissible for the Champion class, then it would say so. Maybe they'll errata it, and maybe it was the intent of the rules, but it's not what the rules currently say...
Mommy was an Orc 02-26-07, 09:56 PM	No, it isn't (to expand on what Howie said)... Read the section you quoted: (CW p. 155) "Even if a character treats an exotic weapon as a martial weapon thanks to weapon familiarity, it is still treated as an exotic weapon for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon." The passage does not say you have the equivalent of "Exotic Weapon Proficiency", just that if you use the weapon as martial, the weapon is still considered exotic for anything that requires an exotic weapon as a prereq... Sure it does... There is the Exotic Weapon Elven Thinblade. Because he has Improved Weapon Familiarity, he treats this as a martial weapon. Aka, he has Martial Weapon Proficiency Elven Thinblade. Because of this paragraph, it is treated not as Martial Weapon Proficiency, but rather Exotic Weapon Proficiency for the purpose of qualifying for prestige classes. Exotic Weapon Master spells this out with the special, because a given DM might not realize this is how page 155 is supposed to work because this is the first mention of it in 3.5. You're essentially claiming that if a feat said, "This feat requires the feat Heavy Armor Proficiency", a Fighter wouldn't qualify for it, because it doesn't say he actually has the feat. Honestly, I'm happy to see a judge rule against this as a player - as that tells me to get up and join the CoC player in leaving the table. Who wants to play with a judge who is that bad at guessing what the designers intended.
bitznarf 02-26-07, 10:28 PM	Honestly, I'm happy to see a judge rule against this as a player - as that tells me to get up and join the CoC player in leaving the table. Who wants to play with a judge who is that bad at guessing what the designers intended. :clap:
King Kashue 02-26-07, 10:36 PM	You're essentially claiming that if a feat said, "This feat requires the feat Heavy Armor Proficiency", a Fighter wouldn't qualify for it, because it doesn't say he actually has the feat. No I'm not, and yes they do (It's explicitly in the feat text on PHB p.89)... Because of this paragraph, it is treated not as Martial Weapon Proficiency, but rather Exotic Weapon Proficiency for the purpose of qualifying for prestige classes. Exotic Weapon Master spells this out with the special, because a given DM might not realize this is how page 155 is supposed to work because this is the first mention of it in 3.5. That's what the paragraph says? Please quote the portion that says they have the "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" feat (either effectively or as a bonus)...You can't quote it because it isn't there... It's treated as a martial weapon in terms of it's proficiency, but the weapon still is an exotic weapon for "purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon" If it was explicitly the equivalent, it would just say "it is the equivalent of the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat"...That would have been far simpler, no? You're the one who's claiming to know what they intended, why didn't they just write the simpler version if that's what they really meant? Honestly, I'm happy to see a judge rule against this as a player - as that tells me to get up and join the CoC player in leaving the table. Who wants to play with a judge who is that bad at guessing what the designers intended. "Guessing what the designers intended" is not the job of LG judges...The job of LG judges is to apply the explicit official rules... Now, whether someone wishes to break explicit rules when it seems there is no harm in doing so, that's up to them. But the question at hand here is not whether or not a judge should or shouldn't allow it (Personally, I'd "forget" to check the relevant sections, and allow it), but rather what are the explicit rules, and apart from your linguistic gymnastics, the language says what it says...
Arvagor 02-26-07, 10:46 PM	Because he has Improved Weapon Familiarity, he treats this as a martial weapon. Aka, he has Martial Weapon Proficiency Elven Thinblade.But that is the point of dispute. The feat doesn't say a PC gains Martial Weapon Proficiency with all weapons associated with his race; it says, "You can treat all the exotic weapons associated with your race as martial weapons rather than as exotic weapons", which is a very different thing. Even if an elf can treat an elven thinblade as a martial weapon because of the feat, if he's a cleric and therefore only proficient with simple weapons, he still can't use the elven thinblade with proficiency, because he has to treat it as a martial weapon, and he's not proficient in the use of martial weapons. You're essentially claiming that if a feat said, "This feat requires the feat Heavy Armor Proficiency", a Fighter wouldn't qualify for it, because it doesn't say he actually has the feat.I don't believe that's what he's saying; regardless, a fighter does have the Armor Proficiency (heavy) feat, as well as Armor Proficiency (medium) and Armor Proficiency (light), since the feats themselves state that fighters gain them as bonus feats.
Arcane Guyver 02-26-07, 11:47 PM	Even if an elf can treat an elven thinblade as a martial weapon because of the feat, if he's a cleric and therefore only proficient with simple weapons, he still can't use the elven thinblade with proficiency, because he has to treat it as a martial weapon, and he's not proficient in the use of martial weapons. I think that having proficiency with all martial weapons has been implied thus far in the discussion...it'd just be silly to take IWF otherwise.
King Kashue 02-26-07, 11:54 PM	I think that having proficiency with all martial weapons has been implied thus far in the discussion...it'd just be silly to take IWF otherwise. Of course, for the build it's implied, but the build is not the issue, the effect of the feat is. The feat does not impart proficiency, the feat merely changes the class of weapon from exotic to martial. The question is whether or not martial proficiency is equivalent to the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat in all instances. Explicitly, the text says "no" (since it gives the explicit, and limited, purposes and how it is treated)... And most importantly to the passage on p.155 of Complete Warrior, the requirement for Champion of Corellon is not "proficiency with the Elven Thinblade or Elven Courtblade" it is "In addition to the feats above, you must take...Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Elven Thinblade or Elven Courtblade)." (RW p.114) If it were the former, it wouldn't be an issue...But it's the latter...
Arcane Guyver 02-27-07, 12:04 AM	So...if a theoretical PrC in the future required 'Exotic Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe),' dwarf fighters would have to take that feat in order to get into the PrC? Seems kind of odd to me.
Mommy was an Orc 02-27-07, 12:10 AM	That's what the paragraph says? Please quote the portion that says they have the "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" feat (either effectively or as a bonus)...You can't quote it because it isn't there... No, you're choosing not to recognize that martial weapon proficiency in a specific weapon is also a feat. A feat which in consideration of that particular weapon is considered exotic for purposes of qualifying for prestige classes. aka exotic weapon proficiency, the feat. Of course, it says Fighters don't actually need to take martial weapon proficiency feat because they're proficient in all martial weapons. And that means it isn't actually a feat when made exotic because they don't have a feat. Guess they did need to take the feat after all... :rolleyes:
King Kashue 02-27-07, 12:13 AM	So...if a theoretical PrC in the future required 'Exotic Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe),' dwarf fighters would have to take that feat in order to get into the PrC? Seems kind of odd to me. In the case of the Exotic Weapon Master, they explicitly stated that races with familiarity with an exotic weapon were considered to have the feat for that class. If that special note isn't there, then at it's face, yes... Again, do I think that's what's intended? Probably not, but it is what the rules currently say. Best bet for an official ruling is to write the Sage and hope it gets put in the FAQ...
Mommy was an Orc 02-27-07, 12:17 AM	So...if a theoretical PrC in the future required 'Exotic Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe),' dwarf fighters would have to take that feat in order to get into the PrC? Seems kind of odd to me. Not odd at all - only 1 in 100 dwarf fighters has mastered the true obstinance necessary to qualify for that theorectical PrC.
bitznarf 02-27-07, 12:19 AM	In the case of the Exotic Weapon Master, they explicitly stated that races with familiarity with an exotic weapon were considered to have the feat for that class. If that special note isn't there, then at it's face, yes... Again, do I think that's what's intended? Probably not, but it is what the rules currently say. Best bet for an official ruling is to write the Sage and hope it gets put in the FAQ... Are we (as judges) not supposed to take both the rules as written, and the rules as intended when making our judgements? Never mind the fact that our number 1 goal is to have fun/help the players have fun. Or at least, thats how I see it.
King Kashue 02-27-07, 12:30 AM	No, you're choosing not to recognize that martial weapon proficiency in a specific weapon is also a feat. A feat which in consideration of that particular weapon is considered exotic for purposes of qualifying for prestige classes. aka exotic weapon proficiency, the feat. First of all, how am I not recognizing it's a feat? Show me the PrC that requires the martial weapon proficiency feat... I can show you PrCs that require "proficiency with all martial weapons" (Eldrich Knight, DMG p.188)...There is a difference between having proficiency and having the feat, otherwise there wouldn't be two different ways of describing it... And the second sentence is not a coherent English sentence. Of course, it says Fighters don't actually need to take martial weapon proficiency feat because they're proficient in all martial weapons. And that means it isn't actually a feat when made exotic because they don't have a feat. Guess they did need to take the feat after all... :rolleyes: Do you actually have a point here? If you're referring to the Exotic Weapon Master, the text says: "Races that have familiarity with an exotic weapon...are considered to have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this class" (CW p.30) Once again, the passage from p.155: "Even if a character treats an exotic weapon as a martial weapon thanks to weapon familiarity, it is still treated as an exotic weapon for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon." The passage is not about the character...The subject of the second clause is "It" (referring back to "an exotic weapon" from the subordinate clause)... You can say it refers to the character, but it doesn't. You can say it grants the equivalence of the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency, but it doesn't... Feel free to argue the intent of the authors all you want. Since I have no way of determining that, I won't join you. However, the way the authors have chosen to use the language through out the rule books is something we do have, and it is explicit. As I've already said multiple times, I wouldn't disallow a character (and I don't think many judges would), but it is what the rules say, so the original poster should keep that in mind...
GreatSiron 02-27-07, 12:32 AM	I have another question: if you take Improved Weapon Familiarity as an elf, and then (or at the same time) take a lvl of cleric of Kelanen, can you gain proficiency in the elven thinblade via the War Domain?
King Kashue 02-27-07, 12:36 AM	Are we (as judges) not supposed to take both the rules as written, and the rules as intended when making our judgements? Never mind the fact that our number 1 goal is to have fun/help the players have fun. Or at least, thats how I see it. The question in the thread is not "How would you judge the player at the table?", the question is "what do the rules explicitly say?"... And, just as a question, exactly how are we to judge intent? By looking at the patterns in the way the authors define things? If that's the case, then the explicit rules are their intent...That we think it's reasonable is not the same as "knowing their intent"...That's why "ruling in the spirit" of a rule is dangerous, we don't actually know intent or spirit...We speculate, we assume, we reason...those things aren't knowing (which is why whenever claims to know the intent, as some are here, it raises an eyebrow)... Anyhoo, as I said, I wouldn't disallow the character, but that isn't the question ;) The explicit rules disallow it. The player should keep that in mind and make his decisions accordingly. And since it's a core rules issue, if he wants an official answer, he needs to talk to the Sage, not the Circle. Now, if he wants to ask "how many of you would actually disallow this character", I wouldn't be bringing up any of the things I have ;)
bitznarf 02-27-07, 12:42 AM	The question in the thread is not "How would you judge the player at the table?", the question is "what do the rules explicitly say?"... True.
King Kashue 02-27-07, 12:55 AM	I have another question: if you take Improved Weapon Familiarity as an elf, and then (or at the same time) take a lvl of cleric of Kelanen, can you gain proficiency in the elven thinblade via the War Domain? Ooh, good question... Possibly yes, since the Improved Weapon Familiarity does not limit the purposes for which a weapon is considered martial. However, because of Kelanen's funky "favored weapon" being a class of weapons, it runs into the tricky area of who treats the weapon as martial, the character or the god? The weapon is on a table with the title "exotic weapons" (RW p. 165 or CW p. 154), so it may be an "exotic weapon" in it's classification, but your character treats it as a martial weapon, in which case the answer would be "no" To further muddy things, it is listed as one of the weapons acceptable to Kelanen, but that list is just defining what is classified as a "blade", which obviously isn't in question here... To borrow a phrase from Howie, "expect table variation". (I would expect most folks to let it slide, since it's unclear and not overpowered, but the argument can be made both ways)...
Howie23 02-27-07, 01:04 AM	To borrow a phrase from Howie, "expect table variation". (I would expect most folks to let it slide, since it's unclear and not overpowered, but the argument can be made both ways)... Howie can't claim credit for it, as he borrows it from others. He'll acknowledge Brad as the one who first showed him the value of the phrase. :) David -who finds it amusingly addictive to speak in the third person once prompted
Mommy was an Orc 02-27-07, 01:32 AM	The passage is not about the character...The subject of the second clause is "It" (referring back to "an exotic weapon" from the subordinate clause)... It doesn't refer to either of those. The subject of the second clause is proficiency. "Even if a character treats an exotic weapon as a martial weapon (in terms of proficiency) thanks to weapon familiarity, it(the proficiency in said weapon) is still treated as (as proficiency in)an exotic weapon for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon." Of course, you'll probably say they had to actually write in the proficiency part despite weapon familarity doing that. which is why whenever claims to know the intent, as some are here, it raises an eyebrow Oh that's ridiculous. You're claiming that an entire paragraph has no rules application despite the paragraph specifically talking about how it is to be used to qualify for feats, etc...my interpretation of intent might not be correct, but your interpretation of the RAW is certainly wrong - because the result of which is that the writers had no intent.
King Kashue 02-27-07, 01:50 AM	It doesn't refer to either of those. The subject of the second clause is proficiency. "Even if a character treats an exotic weapon as a martial weapon (in terms of proficiency) thanks to weapon familiarity, it(the proficiency in said weapon) is still treated as (as proficiency in)an exotic weapon for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon." Of course, you'll probably say they had to actually write in the proficiency part despite weapon familarity doing that. Grammatically, the subject of the sentence is "an exotic weapon", you wanting to interpret a different way doesn't change the grammar and word choice. However, I do love the fact you think the pronoun "it" refers to a word that isn't actually in the text (that's not quite how pronouns work). And even from an interpretive point of view, your reading makes the phrase "require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon" redundant... So, the possibilities are either: 1. Read it as it is written, taking the words and grammar at their explicit meaning. or 2. Read it with significant interpolation that changes the explicit meaning, and in such a way that makes a portion of it redundant. Decisions, decisions :thinks: Oh that's ridiculous. You're claiming that an entire paragraph has no rules application despite the paragraph specifically talking about how it is to be used to qualify for feats, etc...my interpretation of intent might not be correct, but your interpretation of the RAW is certainly wrong - because the result of which is that the writers had no intent. That isn't my claim at all (second time you've utterly mis-characterized my claims) My claim is that section means exactly what it says. That the weapon is considered an exotic weapon "for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon"... When a class required a character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon, then familiarity is equivalent. You're the one saying that section gives the equivalence of a feat, which is of course interesting, since it doesn't even use the word "feat" in the text... Heck, it doesn't even use the word proficiency. That'd be much easier than saying "skilled in the use of", wouldn't it? Why then wouldn't they use it (since you're up on their intent)? Could it be that "proficiency" is a specific reference to a game term, and they avoided using it because they didn't intend to mean that? And you're still ignoring that the question isn't about intent, it isn't about how we would personally judge it, the question is about what the rules explicitly say...The fact that you have to add multiple parenthetical notes to get the passage to say what you way is a pretty good demonstration it's not explicit... Anyhoo, I've made my point...You can continue to argue that the explicit rules are what they implicitly intended to mean, have a blast, but I won't join you...
Mommy was an Orc 02-27-07, 09:21 AM	Grammatically, the subject of the sentence is "an exotic weapon", you wanting to interpret a different way doesn't change the grammar and word choice. However, I do love the fact you think the pronoun "it" refers to a word that isn't actually in the text (that's not quite how pronouns work). I'm not responsible for your inability to cross-reference. The word proficiency is in the definition of martial and exotic weapon...to use it again as you suggest is repetitive. That isn't my claim at all (second time you've utterly mis-characterized my claims) My claim is that section means exactly what it says. That the weapon is considered an exotic weapon "for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon"... And as that phrasing has never been used in any WotC material for purposes of qualifying for anything - they always use the word proficiency, it means the writers went through the trouble to write a paragraph with no game effect if you're right. I'm not mis-characterizing your claims; I'm pointing out the results of your claims.
Zanzibax 02-27-07, 10:33 AM	In the case of the Exotic Weapon Master, they explicitly stated that races with familiarity with an exotic weapon were considered to have the feat for that class. If that special note isn't there, then at it's face, yes... Again, do I think that's what's intended? Probably not, but it is what the rules currently say. Best bet for an official ruling is to write the Sage and hope it gets put in the FAQ... Help me out here...how could the Sage be more clear than the text on 155? "Dear Sage..." "Dear Questioner... "Yes, if you have Improved Weapon Familiarity, you qualify for all prestige classes, feats, etc. as if you had Exotic Weapon Proficiency" (i.e. repeating page 155 of the Complete Warrior word for word)
Zanzibax 02-27-07, 10:36 AM	The reason it's mentioned in the Exotic Weapon Master, and not for the Champion is because the two feats are not in fact equal. Read improved weapon familiarity: (CW p. 101) "You can treat all the exotic weapons associated with your race as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons" It grants you "familiarity", not "proficiency". For instance, if a Wizard were to take the feat, they would still be non-proficient, since they don't have proficiency with martial weapons. Since they are not the same, Exotic Weapon Master explicitly allows the class to use that feat as a pre-req... You don't need an official ruling saying you can't, you actually need an official ruling saying you can (since the class itself does not give that option, and the two feats are not equal). Ok...then what's the penalty for attack for having "weapon familiarity" since it isn't "weapon proficiency"? I think you're creating a new class of weapon qualification that is undefined...because you created it.
Zanzibax 02-27-07, 10:46 AM	<<Dumb commentary deleted>>
Zanzibax 02-27-07, 10:48 AM	Ooh, good question... Possibly yes, since the Improved Weapon Familiarity does not limit the purposes for which a weapon is considered martial. However, because of Kelanen's funky "favored weapon" being a class of weapons, it runs into the tricky area of who treats the weapon as martial, the character or the god? The weapon is on a table with the title "exotic weapons" (RW p. 165 or CW p. 154), so it may be an "exotic weapon" in it's classification, but your character treats it as a martial weapon, in which case the answer would be "no" To further muddy things, it is listed as one of the weapons acceptable to Kelanen, but that list is just defining what is classified as a "blade", which obviously isn't in question here... To borrow a phrase from Howie, "expect table variation". (I would expect most folks to let it slide, since it's unclear and not overpowered, but the argument can be made both ways)... Naw...you can look up the thinblade and see that it's considered a longsword for those purposes.
Zanzibax 02-27-07, 10:55 AM	Oh that's ridiculous. You're claiming that an entire paragraph has no rules application despite the paragraph specifically talking about how it is to be used to qualify for feats, etc...my interpretation of intent might not be correct, but your interpretation of the RAW is certainly wrong - because the result of which is that the writers had no intent. Wait...I think I understand what you wrote...but I want to parse it carefully. "If the writers intended what King Kashue believes, then their words would have been better left unwritten, because they mean nothing." Is that correct?
Zanzibax 02-27-07, 10:59 AM	Grammatically, the subject of the sentence is "an exotic weapon", you wanting to interpret a different way doesn't change the grammar and word choice. However, I do love the fact you think the pronoun "it" refers to a word that isn't actually in the text (that's not quite how pronouns work). Actually, that is impossible. "Even if a character treats an exotic weapon as a martial weapon thanks to weapon familiarity..." You can't treat an exotic weapon as a martial weapon. They are two different weapons. Worse, the "Improved Weapon Familiarity" feat, doesn't alter weapons at all! Therefore, something is missing from your interpretation...in my opinion.
Britt 02-27-07, 12:34 PM	King Kashue's interpretation of the text is exactly correct. You may disagree about intent, but his assessment of the actual text has no errors. Benefit: You can treat all the exotic weapons associated with your race as martial weapons rather than as exotic weapons. As others have stated, this does not necessarily give you any proficiency in said weapons. If you are a wizard, you would still not be proficient with any of them. All it does is effectively make it easier for you to use the weapons. You still have to have Martial Weapon Proficiency to be proficient with the weapons. Even if a character treats an exotic weapon as a martial weapon thanks to weapon familiarity, it is still treated as an exotic weapon for the purpose of qualifying for feats, prestige classes, or other benefits that require the character to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon. If the it in the second clause was referring to proficiency with a weapon, it would be saying: "proficiency is still treated as an exotic weapon..." That makes absolutely no sense, as proficiency is no type of weapon at all. You can't take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (proficiency). This sentence is saying that if a class requires you to be proficient in the use of an exotic weapon, being proficient with all martial weapons and treating some exotic weapons as martial weapons still counts as being proficient with exotic weapons for the purposes of qualifying for the class. ========================== Now, if you want to use the actual meaning of the text and still get to an interpretation that might allow you to qualify for CoC, here is about the best you can do: ======================================= 1. CoC requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency (elven courtblade) (among others). 2. CoC is a PrC that requires me to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon. 3. Improved Weapon Familiarity lets me treat the elven courtblade as a martial weapon. 4. With Improved Weapon Familiarity, I can take the feat Martial Weapon Proficiency (elven courtblade) to become skilled in the use of an exotic weapon. 5. The text in CW says: "Even if [I treat] an exotic weapon as a martial weapon thanks to weapon familiarity, it is still treated as an exotic weapon for the purpose of qualifying for...prestige classes...that require [me] to be skilled in the use of an exotic weapon." 6. I have now taken a feat to become skilled in the use of an exotic weapon, which is what the PrC was intended to require. 7. That I was able to take Martial Weapon Proficiency rather than Exotic Weapon Proficiency should not count against me when qualifying for the PrC. a. Fighter (or some other class) makes me proficient with all martial weapons, effectively giving me Martial Weapon Proficiency (*). b. Improved Weapon Familiarity combined with fighter effectively gives me Martial Weapon Proficiency (elven courtblade). ======================================= That's about as good as you can do with the text and a little bit of intent, in my estimation. Any other arguments are going to start including more intent and less text.
King Kashue 02-27-07, 03:46 PM	Ok...then what's the penalty for attack for having "weapon familiarity" since it isn't "weapon proficiency"? I think you're creating a new class of weapon qualification that is undefined...because you created it. It's an explicit racial ability for Dwarves and Gnomes in the PHB. It's also the explicit characteristic granted by the feat "Improved Weapon Familiarity"... So, is the claim that I "created" something in the PHB and CW? :confused: Actually, that is impossible. "Even if a character treats an exotic weapon as a martial weapon thanks to weapon familiarity..." You can't treat an exotic weapon as a martial weapon. They are two different weapons. Worse, the "Improved Weapon Familiarity" feat, doesn't alter weapons at all! Therefore, something is missing from your interpretation...in my opinion. Have you even read the abilities to which you're referring? The Dwarf and Gnome ability "Weapon Familarity" allows them to "Treat Dwarven Waraxe/Dwarven Urgosh/Gnome Hookhammer as martial weapons" And the "Improved Weapon Familiarity" says (CW p.101) "You can treat all the exotic weapons associated with your race as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons" The passage you're citing as "impossible" isn't "my interpretation", it's a verbatim quote from the text!
King Kashue 02-27-07, 03:49 PM	King Kashue's interpretation of the text is exactly correct. You may disagree about intent, but his assessment of the actual text has no errors. I appreciate that :D And just to reiterate, since Mommy's seems intent on seeing me as an unbending rules lawyer out to ruin everyone's fun: I would not disallow such a character at my table, and the argument seems intuitive. But, once again, the question was not "how would you rule as a judge", the question was "what are the explicit rules" (At least Biznarf gets it)...
Zanzibax 02-27-07, 04:00 PM	It's an explicit racial ability for Dwarves and Gnomes in the PHB. It's also the explicit characteristic granted by the feat "Improved Weapon Familiarity"... So, is the claim that I "created" something in the PHB and CW? :confused: Have you even read the abilities to which you're referring? The Dwarf and Gnome ability "Weapon Familarity" allows them to "Treat Dwarven Waraxe/Dwarven Urgosh/Gnome Hookhammer as martial weapons" And the "Improved Weapon Familiarity" says (CW p.101) "You can treat all the exotic weapons associated with your race as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons" The passage you're citing as "impossible" isn't "my interpretation", it's a verbatim quote from the text! These all speak to proficiencies. If Improved Weapon Familiarity isn't changing a character's ability to use the racial weapons, which require exotic weapon proficiencies to use, to martial weapons, which require martial weapon proficiencies to use, then you're creating a new class of weapon usage..."familiarity". So we have to ask what the penalties are for weapon famliiarity if it isn't changing the way the weapon proficiency feats work. If we are talking about proficiencies...then we are talking about how weapon familiarity satisfies the exotic weapon proficiency requirement for the Champion of Corellon (in combination with martial weapon proficiencies of course...I don't want you to be confused)
King Kashue 02-27-07, 04:05 PM	These all speak to proficiencies. If Improved Weapon Familiarity isn't changing a character's ability to use the racial weapons, which require exotic weapon proficiencies to use, to martial weapons, which require martial weapon proficiencies to use, then you're creating a new class of weapon usage..."familiarity". Who says it isn't changing that? That's what I've been saying in every single post...It changes the class of the weapon in regards to proficiency, but it doesn't itself grant any proficiency... I'm not "creating" anything... If we are talking about proficiencies...then we are talking about how weapon familiarity satisfies the exotic weapon proficiency requirement for the Champion of Corellon (in combination with martial weapon proficiencies of course...I don't want you to be confused) The issue is whether is does or not. The requirement is not "Martial Weapon Profiency: Courtblade" (which is what Improved Weapon Familiarity grants), the requirement is "Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Courtblade" Britt did a great job running through the issue... And once more (because I'm not going to go round with you either; several others have gotten my point, so there's no need to explain further), I would allow the character...But the explicit rules are how I've represented them.
Zanzibax 02-27-07, 04:07 PM	Who says it isn't changing that? That's what I've been saying in every single post...It changes the class of the weapon in regards to proficiency, but it doesn't itself grant any proficiency... I'm not "creating" anything... If it changes the class of the weapon in regards to proficiency, it grants proficiencyto the weapon if you have proficiency in the new class the weapons receives. Let me see if I can think of an allegory.
Zanzibax 02-27-07, 04:11 PM	Ah...here we go... You need $20 to purchase your stuff. (Exotic Weapon Proficiency) You have $10 only. (Martial Weapon Proficiency) However...you have a 50% off membership discount (Improved Weapon Familiarity) ================== I say this discount gives you what you need to purchase your stuff. You say, you still need $20 according to the price tag. ================== We're probably at an impasse, maybe we've (female dogged) and moaned about it enough for The Sage to end the discussion? Looks like everything has to go through Customer Service by the link organization...no direct contact to The Sage anymore...which means...sometime next year? :(
King Kashue 02-27-07, 04:12 PM	IAnd as that phrasing has never been used in any WotC material for purposes of qualifying for anything - they always use the word proficiency, This is a new point, so I'll address it... Yes, the use the word proficiency, however having proficiency with a weapon and having a specific feat are two different things. The Eldrich Knight requires "proficiency with martial weapons" The Champion of Corellon requires the feat "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" If what they meant was "proficiency with the Elven Courtblade", why didn't they just write that? They've used that phrasing before, why not in this instance?
Zanzibax 02-27-07, 04:15 PM	<<Deleted...going around in circles.>>
King Kashue 02-27-07, 04:16 PM	If it changes the class of the weapon in regards to proficiency, it grants proficiencyto the weapon if you have proficiency in the new class the weapons receives. Let me see if I can think of an allegory. Analogy... And your analogy is fine, and yes, as I've said (about 10 times now) it makes sense, and I would allow it as judge... However, that is not what the rules explicitly say (which is the only thing I've been claiming the entire time)... The requirement for the CoC PrC is the feat "Exotic Weapon Proficiency"... Does the feat Improved Weapon Familiarity grant the feat "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" (or its explicit equivalent)? Yes or no? That is the question of the explicit rules. Once we get in to issues of "effectively" and "essentially", now we're talking about how we would judge it, and that is not the question of the explicit rules.
Mommy was an Orc 02-28-07, 08:47 AM	Wait...I think I understand what you wrote...but I want to parse it carefully. "If the writers intended what King Kashue believes, then their words would have been better left unwritten, because they mean nothing." Is that correct? Yes. His ruling, by definition, means the writers had no intent - because they've never and will never use 'skilled in a weapon' as a prereq for anything. They'll use the word proficiency when referring to multiple weapons and the word feat when referring to a single exotic weapon.
Mommy was an Orc 02-28-07, 09:22 AM	If the it in the second clause was referring to proficiency with a weapon, it would be saying: "proficiency is still treated as an exotic weapon..." That makes absolutely no sense, as proficiency is no type of weapon at all. You can't take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (proficiency). Britt, I see you've learned your law school lessons well - first you claim that King is right and then you say King's use of the text can be used with a little intent to get to my exact position. However, that's parsing it incorrectly - exotic weapon = weapon that requires exotic weapon proficiency to use without penalty. Martial weapon = weapon that requires martial weapon proficiency to use without penalty. Proficiency is in the definition of what the weapon is. I'm not arguing that proficiency is still treated as an exotic weapon. I'm arguing that proficiency in a martial weapon formerly exotic is still treated as proficiency in an exotic weapon. And treating an exotic weapon as martial is obviously talking about what kind of proficiency is required to be used - as that's how it is used in PHB and CW.
Mattastrophic 02-28-07, 10:58 AM	I'll keep it short... MWaO is correct. In fact, this issue has one of the most spelled-out and clear solutions in the game! -Matt