Improved Weapon Familiarity as Exotic Weapon Proficiency for PRCs [Archive] - Wizards Community

Improved Weapon Familiarity as Exotic Weapon Proficiency for PRCs [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Zanzibax
07-26-07, 04:55 PM OK I'm not sure if this is the right place - I know the answer I was given when I raised the question (couple of years ago now) but I've never seen anything anywhere else despite other people asking.

My main character (well before retirement anyway) was a Champion of Corelleon after the rebuild opportunity post the release of Races of the Wild. I rebuilt taking 'Imporved Weapon Familiarity' so that the various 'elven' weapons became martial weapons for me and believed this in combination with Ranger levels meant I met the requirement for Champion of Corelleon of Weapon Focus longsword or Exotic Weapon Proficency Elven Thinblade, Elven Fineblade or Elven Courtblade, on the basis that a dwarf or gnome with fighter levels can qualify for exotic weapon master via their weapon familiarity.

A while after conversiona thread on the lgchardiscussion yahoo group led to the question of whether or not this was legitimate. I emailed Creichton who told me it wasn't and that I'd have to have the actual Exotic Weapon Proficency feat. Is this still the case and if so can it be publically stated (dispel confusion would probably be better than the LGCS).

Cheers

Kithran

This was in the latest Dragon Magazine. Improved Weapon Familiarity does count as exotic weapon proficiency for the purposes of prestige classes.
bitznarf
07-26-07, 05:06 PM Although Dragon Magazine has no impact on LG, I believe something to the same effect is written right into the rules text in Complete Warrior, but I could be wrong. I'll check later.

Edit: Heh, that's one old post you are responding to Zanzibax.
Zanzibax
07-26-07, 05:10 PM I believe it is even written right into the rules text in Complete Warrior, but I could be wrong.

There is an old thread that questioned the wording. An obvious and irrefutable statement was the only solution.

I am very reluctant to try to resurrect that thread. It dates back to the first time I joined this forum. It was actually the only reason I joined this forum: to get a decisive answer to that question.

In the sticky thread, Creighton had apparently suggested that it did not in fact mean what you and I thought it meant in the Complete Warrior.

In the sticky thread, you can go to page 5 to find some of the issues, and that thread can't have discussions.
Zanzibax
07-26-07, 05:15 PM Review the thread:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=799000
Howie23
07-26-07, 05:35 PM Review the thread:

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=799000

And as was said at that time, if you want to avoid the risk of table variance, ask the Sage, and hope it gets to the FAQ. You said it appeared in Dragon. Most of the stuff that is showing up in the Sage Advice column is making it to the FAQ. Once it gets to the FAQ, you're golden.

And, for me, it means I won't have to take the level of cleric in my CoC build. :)

David
bitznarf
07-26-07, 05:35 PM It appears to be hashed out well enough within the first 10 posts or so. I'll take what the books says over what Creighton apparently said any day myself. Never mind the fact that in most cases the Circle is *not allowed* to make rulings on (possible) core rules issues. As such I would think that Creighton's opinion is just that, his opinion. Not a Circle ruling. Unless it is in a campaign document somewhere that I cannot find.
Ralis
07-26-07, 05:49 PM It says right there in the book, that Improved weapon Familiarity counts as the exotic weapon proficiency, for requirements.
Howie23
07-26-07, 06:06 PM It says right there in the book, that Improved weapon Familiarity counts as the exotic weapon proficiency, for requirements.

If you are refering to the CW p.155 passage, that doesn't say that to all people. I won't rely upon it with my CoC build until the Sage statement from Dragon gets to FAQ. If your risk tolerance is higher, go for it.

David
clannagh
07-26-07, 07:13 PM If you are refering to the CW p.155 passage, that doesn't say that to all people. I won't rely upon it with my CoC build until the Sage statement from Dragon gets to FAQ. If your risk tolerance is higher, go for it.

David

My CoC character (just about to hit level 3) has been shelved indefinitely for about 12 months now waiting for this issue to be sorted out one way or the other.
bitznarf
07-27-07, 12:08 AM Do you seriousy expect table varation in your play area? I do understand *how* some people may rule the other way, I just don't understand *why* they would. And yes, I've read the other thread and none of the arguments presented hold any water in my opinion.
Mommy was an Orc
07-27-07, 12:51 AM Do you seriousy expect table varation in your play area? I do understand *how* some people may rule the other way, I just don't understand *why* they would. And yes, I've read the other thread and none of the arguments presented hold any water in my opinion.

In this particular case, I don't think that many people expected table variation - just there were two problems:
Creighton weighed in. Yes, Circle is not supposed to make Core rule decisions for precisely this reason - people listen to Creighton the Circle member, not Creighton the D&D player offering his experienced opinion.

Table variation is lethal in this particular case - if you're a Champion of Corellon, you don't qualify for the PrC. You probably can't use your primary weapon proficiently. You probably don't qualify for a bunch of other things, such as Exotic Weapon Master and you may even be missing an essential feat from CoC 1 from your build.

-------

Sure, this particular table variation shouldn't happen, but those two factors are scary to a build. Just imagine having to resolve this at every single table you play at for a convention.
thorinXXX
07-28-07, 01:11 PM Improved Weapon Familiarity has no language that it qualifies asproficency for PRC's, most notably Exotic Weapon Master. EWM is in the same book and specifically mentions that a racial familiarity with a racial weapon counts, but no mention of IWF as qualifying. Champion of Corellon also does not state that there are exceptions to the specific feats listed.

I happen to think that IWF should count, and in any of my home games it would, the rules do not support that interpretation for LG.
Mommy was an Orc
07-28-07, 07:10 PM Improved Weapon Familiarity has no language that it qualifies asproficency for PRC's, most notably Exotic Weapon Master. EWM is in the same book and specifically mentions that a racial familiarity with a racial weapon counts, but no mention of IWF as qualifying. Champion of Corellon also does not state that there are exceptions to the specific feats listed.

I don't think, in general, the designers are quite that legalistic in nature.

The intent of IWF is abundantly clear - you get proficiency in your racial weapons if you have the proficient in all martial weapons abilities. That should count for anything that requires that you be proficient in those weapons, whether it calls it a feat or not. And when I say that, I mean for LG. I'd easily accept an EWM or CoC character on that basis.

Just remember, it is entirely possible that a campaign is using the Races books without using the Complete books - EWP is a core PHB feat, IWF is not.
thorinXXX
07-29-07, 10:34 AM I don't think, in general, the designers are quite that legalistic in nature.

The intent of IWF is abundantly clear - you get proficiency in your racial weapons if you have the proficient in all martial weapons abilities. That should count for anything that requires that you be proficient in those weapons, whether it calls it a feat or not. And when I say that, I mean for LG. I'd easily accept an EWM or CoC character on that basis.

Just remember, it is entirely possible that a campaign is using the Races books without using the Complete books - EWP is a core PHB feat, IWF is not.

I agree with you on how it should work. Unfortunately this is LG. LG is that legalistic. If EWM had not made that specific exemption intent would be much clearer, but that exemption sets the bar for the rest of them.
Mommy was an Orc
07-29-07, 11:36 AM I agree with you on how it should work. Unfortunately this is LG. LG is that legalistic. If EWM had not made that specific exemption intent would be much clearer, but that exemption sets the bar for the rest of them.

LG is not that legalistic. Some DMs are that legalistic. There's a distinct difference.

You're supposed to abide by both the spirit and the words and spirit comes first in the LGCS. What the DM says, goes unless a senior DM overrules them or the player is willing to walk away from the table. If you, as DM, say it is okay for EWM/CoC to work, it is. If you say it isn't, it isn't.

When you're sufficiently legalistic that you're clearly going against the spirit of the rules, then you're not playing the rules set out in the LGCS.
Timlagor
07-29-07, 03:05 PM This isn't a case of a clear Spirit though and we further have multiple Circle comments on the issue (I'm pretty sure another Circle member has said the same thing more recently).

I wouldn't disallow someone from playing such a CoC but I'd certainly advise them not to make one.
bitznarf
07-29-07, 03:25 PM As far as I know, any 'Circle' comments on this topic are merely ones as fellow players, not ones in any official capacity.
Timlagor
07-30-07, 07:31 AM As far as I know, any 'Circle' comments are merely be ones as fellow players, not ones in any official capacity.

This is true if they aren't in a DC but when the rules are unclear anyway they can certainly have weight.

However new rules for use in LG have been popping up in web-articles too recently :(
Mommy was an Orc
07-30-07, 08:59 AM This isn't a case of a clear Spirit though and we further have multiple Circle comments on the issue (I'm pretty sure another Circle member has said the same thing more recently).

I'm not quite talking about that - if the DM in question thinks the spirit of the rules is clear, but rules against it anyway because of a legalistic reading of the RAW, they're not following the LGCS.

Though I do think the spirit of the rules is perfectly clear here. "I'm sorry, but because you don't actually have the feat whose only benefit is to give proficiency, but are proficient, you don't qualify."

That's the kind of thing that probably makes R&D shake their heads in disgust.
JamesMaissen
07-30-07, 03:44 PM I agree with you on how it should work. Unfortunately this is LG. LG is that legalistic. If EWM had not made that specific exemption intent would be much clearer, but that exemption sets the bar for the rest of them.

Actually I see it the opposite way. EWM allows a Dwarf's racial weapon familiarity to count as an EWP. It doesn't give it as an alternate way of qualifying but rather that just because you treat the exotic weapon as martial doesn't stop that you are proficient in it which was what matters.

-James
Timlagor
07-30-07, 08:58 PM The requirement is not "proficiency with" but "This Feat".

Would you also allow Improved Toughness instead of Toughness as a Prereq?
JamesMaissen
07-30-07, 09:36 PM The requirement is not "proficiency with" but "This Feat".

Would you also allow Improved Toughness instead of Toughness as a Prereq?

Not in LG. But personally I dislike the idea of 'burden' feats (i.e. feats that are so far suboptimal that they are used as an extra cost for a PrC) and wish that they would be done away with.

I guess I see it along the lines of where the PrC required 'Heavy Armor Proficiency' that a level of fighter would suffice for it rather than spending for the feat itself even though its listed under 'feats'. That EWM allows racial familiarity to count I see as a support to this rather than a mark against it.

-James
Mommy was an Orc
07-30-07, 10:32 PM The requirement is not "proficiency with" but "This Feat".

Martial Weapon Proficiency specifically states that a Fighter, Barbarian, etc...need not select the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat. If you have IWF, you treat an Exotic Weapon as Martial, which means you need not select the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat.

i.e. that requirement does not apply to those who have proficiency in all martial weapons. That's the straightforward intent of PHB and IWF. Only if you read CoC in a strictly legalistic way do you end up ignoring the language in PHB.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zanzibax 07-26-07, 04:55 PM	OK I'm not sure if this is the right place - I know the answer I was given when I raised the question (couple of years ago now) but I've never seen anything anywhere else despite other people asking. My main character (well before retirement anyway) was a Champion of Corelleon after the rebuild opportunity post the release of Races of the Wild. I rebuilt taking 'Imporved Weapon Familiarity' so that the various 'elven' weapons became martial weapons for me and believed this in combination with Ranger levels meant I met the requirement for Champion of Corelleon of Weapon Focus longsword or Exotic Weapon Proficency Elven Thinblade, Elven Fineblade or Elven Courtblade, on the basis that a dwarf or gnome with fighter levels can qualify for exotic weapon master via their weapon familiarity. A while after conversiona thread on the lgchardiscussion yahoo group led to the question of whether or not this was legitimate. I emailed Creichton who told me it wasn't and that I'd have to have the actual Exotic Weapon Proficency feat. Is this still the case and if so can it be publically stated (dispel confusion would probably be better than the LGCS). Cheers Kithran This was in the latest Dragon Magazine. Improved Weapon Familiarity does count as exotic weapon proficiency for the purposes of prestige classes.
bitznarf 07-26-07, 05:06 PM	Although Dragon Magazine has no impact on LG, I believe something to the same effect is written right into the rules text in Complete Warrior, but I could be wrong. I'll check later. Edit: Heh, that's one old post you are responding to Zanzibax.
Zanzibax 07-26-07, 05:10 PM	I believe it is even written right into the rules text in Complete Warrior, but I could be wrong. There is an old thread that questioned the wording. An obvious and irrefutable statement was the only solution. I am very reluctant to try to resurrect that thread. It dates back to the first time I joined this forum. It was actually the only reason I joined this forum: to get a decisive answer to that question. In the sticky thread, Creighton had apparently suggested that it did not in fact mean what you and I thought it meant in the Complete Warrior. In the sticky thread, you can go to page 5 to find some of the issues, and that thread can't have discussions.
Zanzibax 07-26-07, 05:15 PM	Review the thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=799000
Howie23 07-26-07, 05:35 PM	Review the thread: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=799000 And as was said at that time, if you want to avoid the risk of table variance, ask the Sage, and hope it gets to the FAQ. You said it appeared in Dragon. Most of the stuff that is showing up in the Sage Advice column is making it to the FAQ. Once it gets to the FAQ, you're golden. And, for me, it means I won't have to take the level of cleric in my CoC build. :) David
bitznarf 07-26-07, 05:35 PM	It appears to be hashed out well enough within the first 10 posts or so. I'll take what the books says over what Creighton apparently said any day myself. Never mind the fact that in most cases the Circle is not allowed to make rulings on (possible) core rules issues. As such I would think that Creighton's opinion is just that, his opinion. Not a Circle ruling. Unless it is in a campaign document somewhere that I cannot find.
Ralis 07-26-07, 05:49 PM	It says right there in the book, that Improved weapon Familiarity counts as the exotic weapon proficiency, for requirements.
Howie23 07-26-07, 06:06 PM	It says right there in the book, that Improved weapon Familiarity counts as the exotic weapon proficiency, for requirements. If you are refering to the CW p.155 passage, that doesn't say that to all people. I won't rely upon it with my CoC build until the Sage statement from Dragon gets to FAQ. If your risk tolerance is higher, go for it. David
clannagh 07-26-07, 07:13 PM	If you are refering to the CW p.155 passage, that doesn't say that to all people. I won't rely upon it with my CoC build until the Sage statement from Dragon gets to FAQ. If your risk tolerance is higher, go for it. David My CoC character (just about to hit level 3) has been shelved indefinitely for about 12 months now waiting for this issue to be sorted out one way or the other.
bitznarf 07-27-07, 12:08 AM	Do you seriousy expect table varation in your play area? I do understand how some people may rule the other way, I just don't understand why they would. And yes, I've read the other thread and none of the arguments presented hold any water in my opinion.
Mommy was an Orc 07-27-07, 12:51 AM	Do you seriousy expect table varation in your play area? I do understand how some people may rule the other way, I just don't understand why they would. And yes, I've read the other thread and none of the arguments presented hold any water in my opinion. In this particular case, I don't think that many people expected table variation - just there were two problems: Creighton weighed in. Yes, Circle is not supposed to make Core rule decisions for precisely this reason - people listen to Creighton the Circle member, not Creighton the D&D player offering his experienced opinion. Table variation is lethal in this particular case - if you're a Champion of Corellon, you don't qualify for the PrC. You probably can't use your primary weapon proficiently. You probably don't qualify for a bunch of other things, such as Exotic Weapon Master and you may even be missing an essential feat from CoC 1 from your build. ------- Sure, this particular table variation shouldn't happen, but those two factors are scary to a build. Just imagine having to resolve this at every single table you play at for a convention.
thorinXXX 07-28-07, 01:11 PM	Improved Weapon Familiarity has no language that it qualifies asproficency for PRC's, most notably Exotic Weapon Master. EWM is in the same book and specifically mentions that a racial familiarity with a racial weapon counts, but no mention of IWF as qualifying. Champion of Corellon also does not state that there are exceptions to the specific feats listed. I happen to think that IWF should count, and in any of my home games it would, the rules do not support that interpretation for LG.
Mommy was an Orc 07-28-07, 07:10 PM	Improved Weapon Familiarity has no language that it qualifies asproficency for PRC's, most notably Exotic Weapon Master. EWM is in the same book and specifically mentions that a racial familiarity with a racial weapon counts, but no mention of IWF as qualifying. Champion of Corellon also does not state that there are exceptions to the specific feats listed. I don't think, in general, the designers are quite that legalistic in nature. The intent of IWF is abundantly clear - you get proficiency in your racial weapons if you have the proficient in all martial weapons abilities. That should count for anything that requires that you be proficient in those weapons, whether it calls it a feat or not. And when I say that, I mean for LG. I'd easily accept an EWM or CoC character on that basis. Just remember, it is entirely possible that a campaign is using the Races books without using the Complete books - EWP is a core PHB feat, IWF is not.
thorinXXX 07-29-07, 10:34 AM	I don't think, in general, the designers are quite that legalistic in nature. The intent of IWF is abundantly clear - you get proficiency in your racial weapons if you have the proficient in all martial weapons abilities. That should count for anything that requires that you be proficient in those weapons, whether it calls it a feat or not. And when I say that, I mean for LG. I'd easily accept an EWM or CoC character on that basis. Just remember, it is entirely possible that a campaign is using the Races books without using the Complete books - EWP is a core PHB feat, IWF is not. I agree with you on how it should work. Unfortunately this is LG. LG is that legalistic. If EWM had not made that specific exemption intent would be much clearer, but that exemption sets the bar for the rest of them.
Mommy was an Orc 07-29-07, 11:36 AM	I agree with you on how it should work. Unfortunately this is LG. LG is that legalistic. If EWM had not made that specific exemption intent would be much clearer, but that exemption sets the bar for the rest of them. LG is not that legalistic. Some DMs are that legalistic. There's a distinct difference. You're supposed to abide by both the spirit and the words and spirit comes first in the LGCS. What the DM says, goes unless a senior DM overrules them or the player is willing to walk away from the table. If you, as DM, say it is okay for EWM/CoC to work, it is. If you say it isn't, it isn't. When you're sufficiently legalistic that you're clearly going against the spirit of the rules, then you're not playing the rules set out in the LGCS.
Timlagor 07-29-07, 03:05 PM	This isn't a case of a clear Spirit though and we further have multiple Circle comments on the issue (I'm pretty sure another Circle member has said the same thing more recently). I wouldn't disallow someone from playing such a CoC but I'd certainly advise them not to make one.
bitznarf 07-29-07, 03:25 PM	As far as I know, any 'Circle' comments on this topic are merely ones as fellow players, not ones in any official capacity.
Timlagor 07-30-07, 07:31 AM	As far as I know, any 'Circle' comments are merely be ones as fellow players, not ones in any official capacity. This is true if they aren't in a DC but when the rules are unclear anyway they can certainly have weight. However new rules for use in LG have been popping up in web-articles too recently :(
Mommy was an Orc 07-30-07, 08:59 AM	This isn't a case of a clear Spirit though and we further have multiple Circle comments on the issue (I'm pretty sure another Circle member has said the same thing more recently). I'm not quite talking about that - if the DM in question thinks the spirit of the rules is clear, but rules against it anyway because of a legalistic reading of the RAW, they're not following the LGCS. Though I do think the spirit of the rules is perfectly clear here. "I'm sorry, but because you don't actually have the feat whose only benefit is to give proficiency, but are proficient, you don't qualify." That's the kind of thing that probably makes R&D shake their heads in disgust.
JamesMaissen 07-30-07, 03:44 PM	I agree with you on how it should work. Unfortunately this is LG. LG is that legalistic. If EWM had not made that specific exemption intent would be much clearer, but that exemption sets the bar for the rest of them. Actually I see it the opposite way. EWM allows a Dwarf's racial weapon familiarity to count as an EWP. It doesn't give it as an alternate way of qualifying but rather that just because you treat the exotic weapon as martial doesn't stop that you are proficient in it which was what matters. -James
Timlagor 07-30-07, 08:58 PM	The requirement is not "proficiency with" but "This Feat". Would you also allow Improved Toughness instead of Toughness as a Prereq?
JamesMaissen 07-30-07, 09:36 PM	The requirement is not "proficiency with" but "This Feat". Would you also allow Improved Toughness instead of Toughness as a Prereq? Not in LG. But personally I dislike the idea of 'burden' feats (i.e. feats that are so far suboptimal that they are used as an extra cost for a PrC) and wish that they would be done away with. I guess I see it along the lines of where the PrC required 'Heavy Armor Proficiency' that a level of fighter would suffice for it rather than spending for the feat itself even though its listed under 'feats'. That EWM allows racial familiarity to count I see as a support to this rather than a mark against it. -James
Mommy was an Orc 07-30-07, 10:32 PM	The requirement is not "proficiency with" but "This Feat". Martial Weapon Proficiency specifically states that a Fighter, Barbarian, etc...need not select the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat. If you have IWF, you treat an Exotic Weapon as Martial, which means you need not select the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat. i.e. that requirement does not apply to those who have proficiency in all martial weapons. That's the straightforward intent of PHB and IWF. Only if you read CoC in a strictly legalistic way do you end up ignoring the language in PHB.