Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mommy was an Orc 01-08-07, 04:51 PM	This is from the Questions/Answers part of LG. Let's get a couple things straight here - I'm not playing a Justiciar, I don't know personally of anyone playing a Justiciar. I greatly respect the work that Britt is putting into making this happen. I'm taking to a new thread so it doesn't bog down the Questions/Answers thread Britt has gone to so much trouble to make. That said... Masterwork manacles would not provide a normal character a +1 bonus to attack. The Justiciar ability is a special ability, not a function of the item itself. Enchantment requires a masterwork weapon as the base item, not an item that is treated as a masterwork weapon for one particular PrC, while a masterwork tool for everyone else. That shouldn't matter on several levels: Regardless of how other people treat Manacles, Justiciars treat them as weapons, some of them as masterwork quality weapons. A Justiciar can use them to enter Exotic Weapon Master, regardless if no one else can. They can take WF: Manacles, again even if no one else can. Even if no one else can get them enchanted, they should be able to do that. And honestly, from a spirit of the rules point of view, I simply don't understand this ruling. They're clearly intended to be allowed to get magical manacles as weapons from a cool factor. If the issue is that they're not spending the extra 300 gold to get it made into MW, allow them to spend an extra 300 gold(or get it made out of adamantine as per normal weapon costs) to make it truly 'MW' if that makes it work for the Circle. If they get a magical manacle, where's the harm? So they get the effect of a magical flail - there's lots of weapons out there that are better than that one. Even with Uncanny Blow from EWM, there's still better choices. Specifically, though, here's the real problem - let's make up the following hypothetical character: Ranger 2/Paladin 4/Justiciar 3 with Practiced Spellcaster & Craft Arms & Armor. Such a character treats a MW manacle as being a Masterwork Flail. This means, by the core rules, the character is allowed to enchant the MW manacle regardless of how others might be effected. It might not be the most common entrance into Justiciar, nor might those be the most common feat choices, but such a character can clearly enchant a manacle at 9th level to +2. And the Circle is making a Core rule decision to say he can't do that.
Britt 01-08-07, 07:58 PM	The issue is not a balance or "cool"ness issue; the issue is that by the Core rules, they are a tool, not a weapon. Only weapons can be enchanted, and masterwork weapons above that. They are not treated as a masterwork light flail; a justiciar treats them as such. It is a function of the person, not of the item. And no, you cannot take WF (manacles). You would take WF(light flail) or (club), and that would apply to the masterwork or normal manacles, respectively. Manacles are not a weapon, they are merely treated as such by one particular class. If this were allowed, a drunken master would be able to enchant anything, including a masterwork chair. Further evidence: why does the sample justiciar, a 16th level character with 10 levels of justiciar, not have WF (manacles) or a set of magical manacles? If the intent was for the class to be able to enchant manacles or take WF (manacles), the sample Justiciar would have a set of +2 manacles rather than a +2 shortsword, and would have WF (manacles) instead of WF (short sword).
Arvagor 01-08-07, 08:10 PM	I'm nobody, but I'm kind of in agreement with Britt here. The ability says: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Manacles): [...] A justicar of 3rd level or higher can swing a pair of metal manacles in one hand as if they were a club without taking a penalty for using an improvised weapon. Masterwork manacles can be wielded as if they were a masterwork light flail.I think the telling phrase is "without taking a penalty for using an improvised weapon", which strongly implies, IMO, that the manacles are still an improvised weapon, but just that the justiciar takes no penalty for using them in this way. I think the problem arises, more than anything else, from choosing to call the class ability "EWP (Manacles)"...
Arinaad 01-08-07, 09:01 PM	I strongly disagree Britt. I think that if you have anything that is considered of masterwork quality, then it should be capable of receiving a magical enhancement. Otherwise one could not have magical arrows, as they are ammunition and not a weapon... those of us who are savvy know that you can use the arrow as an improvised weapon but there's the catch 22, if you can not create a +1 stuffed teddy bear for a drunken master, or a pair of +1 manacles for a justicar, you shouldn't be able to make +1 arrows either. Arinaad
kenobi65 01-08-07, 09:33 PM	I strongly disagree Britt. I think that if you have anything that is considered of masterwork quality, then it should be capable of receiving a magical enhancement. Otherwise one could not have magical arrows, as they are ammunition and not a weapon... those of us who are savvy know that you can use the arrow as an improvised weapon but there's the catch 22, if you can not create a +1 stuffed teddy bear for a drunken master, or a pair of +1 manacles for a justicar, you shouldn't be able to make +1 arrows either. Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water. In the DMG, arrows and other ammo are listed under "Common Ranged Weapons" in the section on magic weapons (DMG, p. 223). Arrows just happen to have a secondary use as an improvised melee weapon.
Arvagor 01-08-07, 09:35 PM	I strongly disagree Britt. I think that if you have anything that is considered of masterwork quality, then it should be capable of receiving a magical enhancement. Otherwise one could not have magical arrows, as they are ammunition and not a weapon... those of us who are savvy know that you can use the arrow as an improvised weapon but there's the catch 22, if you can not create a +1 stuffed teddy bear for a drunken master, or a pair of +1 manacles for a justicar, you shouldn't be able to make +1 arrows either.I don't think your argument follows. Arrows are listed in the PHB as a weapon -- they appear on Table 7-5: Weapons, and they have their own entry on page 114 under "Weapon Descriptions". They are also listed as a weapon in the DMG -- Table 7-13: Common Ranged Weapons and Table 7-9: Weapons (as footnote 1 says that the 2000 gp price buys you 50 arrows, crossbow bolts, or sling bullets). The fact that you can use an arrow in melee (because the entry explictly allows it) has no bearing on what you can do in combat with another masterwork item that is not a weapon.
haferka 01-08-07, 09:44 PM	I agree with Arvagor. After looking at the PH rules for Improvised weapons... It looks like the Justicars ability simply specifies for the DM which PH weapons to equate the manacles to... Regular manacles = club MW Manacles = MW flail This makes sense, since the MW version is likely to be heavier, thus it deals more damage. I believe the developer made a mistake by comparing the manacles to 2 seperate weapon types. What he should have done, was to equate manacles to either club or flail... as it is written, you could argue that combat styles for "club" and "flail" would both apply to the justicars manacles.. MW or not... (expect table variation). In short, If you had access to +1 Improvised weapons, you could enchant the manacles... otherwise.. NOPE.
budleiser 01-08-07, 09:56 PM	Armor spikes are listed under armor or weapons? When we give them +1 its to attack and damage not AC right? +1 abilities are taken from weapon abilities not armor abilities?
_m_ 01-08-07, 10:09 PM	so if the justicar treats manacles as light maces, for example, and you take weapon focus in light mace, and it works for the manacles, dosent this bring up some other issues. i cant recall exactly, but i seem to recall a problem with 'counts as' focus's, specifically for the purposes of qualifying for prc's. i;m thinking of like, kelenans 'any martial bladed weapon focus' thingy, where the bastard sword changes to exotic when 1 handed, so no longer gets focus. also, what about weapons like greatbows not counting as longbows for the purposes of weapon focus. i know thats not a good speicifc argument (because i cant remember the specifics), but im pretty sure you can't use focus in something that isn't what you have focus in, even if you treat them the same. theres like, a table in CW that has weapons that could potentially be treated the same, but i didn't think lgh used it. also, could you use the lightning mace tac. feat from CW with a pair of manacles?
Arvagor 01-08-07, 10:33 PM	also, could you use the lightning mace tac. feat from CW with a pair of manacles?No, for two reasons. 1) For the justiciar, MW manacles are treated like a light flail, not a light mace :P 2) The feat states, "Whenever you roll a threat on an attack roll while using a light mace in each hand, ...". If the MW manacles were treated like a light mace ;), that still does not actually make them light maces, therefore the feat wouldn't apply (anymore than I can use the Quick Staff feat, for example, when wielding my elvencraft longbow).
haferka 01-08-07, 10:38 PM	so if the justicar treats manacles as light maces, for example, and you take weapon focus in light mace, and it works for the manacles, dosent this bring up some other issues. i cant recall exactly, but i seem to recall a problem with 'counts as' focus's, specifically for the purposes of qualifying for prc's. i;m thinking of like, kelenans 'any martial bladed weapon focus' thingy, where the bastard sword changes to exotic when 1 handed, so no longer gets focus. also, what about weapons like greatbows not counting as longbows for the purposes of weapon focus. i know thats not a good speicifc argument (because i cant remember the specifics), but im pretty sure you can't use focus in something that isn't what you have focus in, even if you treat them the same. theres like, a table in CW that has weapons that could potentially be treated the same, but i didn't think lgh used it. also, could you use the lightning mace tac. feat from CW with a pair of manacles? MW manacles count as MW flail... not light mace. so, no lightning mace style.. but, if it was counted as light mace.. yes, it would work.. I did a quick look through a couple books, and was unable to find a broken combination of "club" & "flail" weapon abilities/feats... in fact the book of 9 swords doesnt include either weapon in any of their weapon styles... I expect at some point there WILL be a broken combination of "club" & "flail"... perhaps with the complete champion? At that point, WoTC might want to consider errata to treat the weapon as a flail.. (ONLY).
haferka 01-08-07, 10:43 PM	No, for two reasons. 1) For the justiciar, MW manacles are treated like a light flail, not a light mace :P 2) The feat states, "Whenever you roll a threat on an attack roll while using a light mace in each hand, ...". If the MW manacles were treated like a light mace ;), that still does not actually make them light maces, therefore the feat wouldn't apply (anymore than I can use the Quick Staff feat, for example, when wielding my elvencraft longbow). This is getting off topic, but.. I disagree with item #2. If a weapon is wielded "as weapon X" then it should be treated as if it were that weapon... In your example I would expect someone dual wielding weapons "as light mace" would indeed gain the advantage of this feat (extra attacks with crit threats, or quickstaff benifits with elvencraft longbow). Lets say my caster is wielding 2 metamagic rods (DMG lists rods as "light mace" for weapon purposes, unless specified otherwise in the rod description). He could gain the "lighting mace" benifits.
_m_ 01-08-07, 10:45 PM	No, for two reasons. 1) For the justiciar, MW manacles are treated like a light flail, not a light mace :P 2) The feat states, "Whenever you roll a threat on an attack roll while using a light mace in each hand, ...". If the MW manacles were treated like a light mace ;), that still does not actually make them light maces, therefore the feat wouldn't apply (anymore than I can use the Quick Staff feat, for example, when wielding my elvencraft longbow). 1) fair enough 2) by this logic, does this man that even though they are 'treated' as light flails, you could not take weapon focus light flail and have it be of benefit, and similarly, could not take weapon focus in them, as they are not weapons. it would then logically follow that you could not make them magical, because they aren't weapons. it would also seem that whilst you treat them as an exotic weapon, and gain exotic weapon proficiency in them, that even if you were to go weapon master, you couldn't actually do anything with them, because they aren't actually a weapon. also, if they 'count as' a weapon, but arent actually one, which was the impression i got when looking at the reasoning for it not being allowed to be made magical, you couldn't actually qualify for the exotic weapon master in the first place, because you have to take weapon focus in it, and if it isn't a weapon, you cant focus in it. however, you do gain exotic WEAPON proficiency in manacles, which conclusively means that, at least for you, manacles ARE in fact a weapon, and should therefor be able to enhanced / made magical as per a normal weapon. otherwise it would seem that it would simply say you could use manacles as if they were light flails, not that you gain a feat: exotic weapon proficiency manacles. did that all make sense? if i said what i think i said, i agreed with you arv, and mommy.
Arvagor 01-08-07, 11:10 PM	2) by this logic, does this man that even though they are 'treated' as light flails, you could not take weapon focus light flail and have it be of benefit, and similarly, could not take weapon focus in them, as they are not weapons.Yes, that is my initial take on it. however, you do gain exotic WEAPON proficiency in manacles, which conclusively means that, at least for you, manacles ARE in fact a weapon, and should therefor be able to enhanced / made magical as per a normal weapon. otherwise it would seem that it would simply say you could use manacles as if they were light flails, not that you gain a feat: exotic weapon proficiency manacles.As I said earlier, I think it is a poor choice of words. I hate to say "By the RAW", but by the RAW, nowhere in the Justiciar class description does it say you gain the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (manacles) feat -- you do, however, gain a class ability called "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (manacles)". As far as the manacles being a weapon, they can be a weapon for anybody, just as I can use my haversack (improvised sap), crampons (improvised punching dagger) or a rope (improvised whip) as weapons*. The difference is, the justiciar's training permits him to avoid the penalty normally associated with using improvised weapons.
_m_ 01-08-07, 11:18 PM	As far as the manacles being a weapon, they can be a weapon for anybody, just as I can use my haversack (improvised sap), crampons (improvised punching dagger) or a rope (improvised whip) as weapons*. The difference is, the justiciar's training permits him to avoid the penalty normally associated with using improvised weapons. fair enough. so, next q, is it possible to take weapon focus in an improvised weapon?
Arvagor 01-08-07, 11:35 PM	Lets say my caster is wielding 2 metamagic rods (DMG lists rods as "light mace" for weapon purposes, unless specified otherwise in the rod description). He could gain the "lighting mace" benifits.And I would disagree with you, mainly because the DMG actually says, "(Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs due to their sturdy construction.)" That does not mean that all rods function as light maces or clubs. Bring me a rod of thunder or lightning*, and if I'm in a good mood, perhaps we can talk. The problem arises mainly because of the wording of the various feats you keep referring to. Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, etc. all say "... using the selected weapon", and it simply boils down to the fact that manacles are not light flails (or clubs)... *... which states it has the properties of a +2 light mace -- "properties" being an undefined term, I'll assume that it means the size, weight, and shape of a light mace
LGMoses 01-08-07, 11:42 PM	you have to be proficient with the weapon to take weapon focus. So if you can take weapon proficiency (manacles) then its cool. Judging by the name of the class ability exotic weapon prof. manacles, I'd say it'd be cool. I'd say take weapon focus manacles. That just makes sense to me. As far as enchantments, I'd say I have to agree with Britt
ShinAkuma2 01-08-07, 11:44 PM	How can it possibly make sense that a Justiciar could have manacles enchanted, but an average Joe couldn't? Joe: Excuse me, sir, can you make these Manacles Flaming? Caster: Sorry, friend, that only works on weapons. Justin the Justiciar: Excuse me, sir, but I'm a Justiciar, and I like to hit people with my manacles. Can you make them Flaming? Caster: But of course! A Justiciar can use them as improvised weapons like no one else can, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't actually weapons.
kenobi65 01-08-07, 11:45 PM	Armor spikes are listed under armor or weapons? When we give them +1 its to attack and damage not AC right? +1 abilities are taken from weapon abilities not armor abilities? Armor spikes (and spiked shields) are listed as light martial weapons in the PHB.
Arvagor 01-08-07, 11:46 PM	fair enough. so, next q, is it possible to take weapon focus in an improvised weapon? IMO, no. Weapon Focus says "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat." That's rather specific, and while "weapon" is not technically a defined term, I think rules-wise, it pretty clearly means any item you find on a weapons table in the PHB or other sourcebook. An improvised weapon, on the other hand, is anything that is not defined as a weapon -- as the PHB says, "objects not crafted to be weapons", something that won't appear on a weapons table -- therefore you can't take Weapon Focus in it.
_m_ 01-08-07, 11:52 PM	IMO, no. Weapon Focus says "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat." That's rather specific, and while "weapon" is not technically a defined term, I think rules-wise, it pretty clearly means any item you find on a weapons table in the PHB or other sourcebook. An improvised weapon, on the other hand, is anything that is not defined as a weapon -- as the PHB says, "objects not crafted to be weapons", something that won't appear on a weapons table -- therefore you can't take Weapon Focus in it. which leads to the follwing conclusions: 1) you cannot use justiar to qualify for exotic weapon master 1.a) even if you could, you couldn't do anything, because manacles arent weapons 2) there is no way you could actually improve the manacles, bar possibly getting them crafted from special weapons 3) you cannot take weapon focus, or weapon specialisation in manacles 4) you couldn't take weapon focus in light flail, and have it work for the manacles 5) it follows from 2, 3 and 4 that there is no way to improve the actual damage the manacles themselves do (exluding strength, power attack, sneak dmg etc.), the manacles themselves would always just be unimproved light flails 6) even though the manacles are masterworked, you only gain a + to your hogtie break dc, not to the actual damage the manacles actually do that seem about right? and i mean right as in rules wise, not as in, how it ought to be.
Arvagor 01-09-07, 12:07 AM	1) you cannot use justiar to qualify for exotic weapon masterSure you can; just take EWP in something that's actually an exotic weapon :P Seriously, I think you're working from a false premise that justiciars should be able to qualify for Exotic Weapon Master by virtue of their "proficiency" with manacles. But Britt has spoken, and I'm nobody in particular. Try asking WotC; there's question along the same lines in the FAQ:Regarding the Mau-Jehe, the mind blade of legacy, should a soulknife be able to apply all of his mind blade class features to it? These include the size changing, both the direct +X bonus and the special quality bonuses, the +Xd8 psychic damage, and others. I know it counts as a mind blade for the purposes of Weapon Focus, but it seems that without the rest it is weaker than the real mind blade. All class features should be allowed—this counts as a mind blade in all ways.It seems telling to me that this item is specifically granted feat "compatibility" in its description, yet the manacles of the justiciar are not...
_m_ 01-09-07, 12:15 AM	Sure you can; just take EWP in something that's actually an exotic weapon :P Seriously, I think you're working from a false premise that justiciars should be able to qualify for Exotic Weapon Master by virtue of their "proficiency" with manacles. But Britt has spoken, and I'm nobody in particular. Try asking WotC; there's question along the same lines in the FAQ:It seems telling to me that this item is specifically granted feat "compatibility" in its description, yet the manacles of the justiciar are not... yeah, i wasn't actually of the opinion that you should be able to qualify for EWM from justicar, i was just clarifying that you cant. and there is a table somewhere... though i don't know where it is, that list possible weapon focus's that would count for somethign else, like, a falchion = a great falchion, or a great bow = a greatbow, but again, i'm fairly certain, that lgh doesn't use it. i'm somebody in particular... though that's in no way relevant to this particular conversation... but i'm not actually voicing an opinion, im just trying to clarify what we already have covered... though i think some of what i said disagrees with mommy... and generally... i'm inclined to think disagreeing with britt, mommy or arv turns out to be embarrasing because its wrong... so what to do when they argue *grin*
Arvagor 01-09-07, 12:34 AM	and there is a table somewhere... though i don't know where it is, that list possible weapon focus's that would count for somethign else, like, a falchion = a great falchion, or a great bow = a greatbow, but again, i'm fairly certain, that lgh doesn't use it.Complete Adventurer, page 116. I honestly don't know if LG could be considered to use the table or not, as it extends the same benefits to some of the CW weapons that are described in the CV weapons such as the longstaff or broadblade short sword. That's more of a question for Britt... i'm somebody in particular...I may be somebody in a few weeks, but that's neither here nor there... :angelhide
Mommy was an Orc 01-09-07, 12:39 AM	Only weapons can be enchanted, and masterwork weapons above that. They are not treated as a masterwork light flail; a justiciar treats them as such. It is a function of the person, not of the item. And no, you cannot take WF (manacles). You would take WF(light flail) or (club), and that would apply to the masterwork or normal manacles, respectively. They have Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Manacles). The very fact that they call it Exotic Weapon Proficiency means it is actually an Exotic Weapon with which they are proficient. And Exotic Weapon Proficiency is the name of a feat. For which the Sample Character has EWP(Manacles). It isn't Exotic Manacle Techniques. Or Manacle Mastery. or something similar to that. They have proficiency in a weapon and a +1 BAB - they can obviously take WF: Manacles if they so choose or qualify for Exotic Weapon Master - they have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat - this should be clear cut. They can obviously self-enchant it as a weapon if they have the feats, because again, it is a weapon to them. If we're looking towards intent as well, the writer clearly intends for manacles to be treated as weapons by the Justiciars in all senses of the word - otherwise he would have named the ability with something other than the word weapon. If you as a Judge want to rule against this, I can see how you might arrived at the decision. But I don't think there's any basis in the rules for making that decision. And my understanding is that the Circle does not make judgments on the core rules unless given explicit permission. Further evidence: why does the sample justiciar, a 16th level character with 10 levels of justiciar, not have WF (manacles) or a set of magical manacles? If the intent was for the class to be able to enchant manacles or take WF (manacles), the sample Justiciar would have a set of +2 manacles rather than a +2 shortsword, and would have WF (manacles) instead of WF (short sword). The somewhat obvious reason? He's a TWF specialist wielding two of the same light weapon which he has gotten two feats in. He does have a set of magical manacles, just not of the weapon variety, that basically takes him to the poor house. He likely can't really afford a magical light flail or manacles. But the other reason is that it is difficult to take advantage of WF: Manacles unless there's some other feat he plans to take - and as a Ranger 6/Justiciar 10, he can't take Weapon Specialization or levels in Exotic Weapon Master(as he is a sample character and sample characters don't take levels in multiple PrCs). He can't even take WF: Manacles until 9th level for that matter - that's a really odd time to take WF when you can't use for WS, EWM, and you probably have a weapon that you've invested heavily in for the past 8 levels. And he doesn't have Improved Trip or some other feat that would let him take advantage of the Tripping functions of a Flail. He's mostly using manacles for the hogtie ability. And as to your earlier point - if WF: Flail was what was required, it would seem obvious that almost all Justiciars should want to take feats that involved WF: Flail so as to use them with Manacles later on - the sample build doesn't have WF: Flail, does it now? And as I pointed out earlier, the sample character actually has the feat EWP(Manacles)...
haferka 01-09-07, 12:43 AM	Improvised weapon... ARE weapons, for simplicity, the DM picks a weapon that most closely resembles the item you are trying to wield as a weapon. On the subject of weapons counting as another weapon... lets look as the Sun Blade from the DMG.. it is a bastard sword, that is wielded "as a short sword". lets compare this to the manacles: manacle, wielded "as a flail" or "as a club" looking at the sun blade description as a basis for understanding "as weapon X" it seems rather clear that Weapon focus, Specialization, etc.. feats would work for Club and Flail, but duplicate feats would not stack. Weapon Focus in both flail & club would NOT grant a +2 to hit (only a +1) with manacles.
haferka 01-09-07, 12:56 AM	I guess LG justicars will NEVER wield enchanted manacles... (Britt has spoken). Re: LGCS 597 Recommendations There will not be enchanting of improvised weapons, Core or otherwise.
Arvagor 01-09-07, 01:26 AM	On the subject of weapons counting as another weapon... lets look as the Sun Blade from the DMG.. it is a bastard sword, that is wielded "as a short sword".Not the best choice to use for comparison. The sun blade has the entire first paragraph of its description devoted to spelling out how weapon proficiency works in re: to the weapon; it also specifically allows for WF or WS to work with it, something that you will see on no other weapon or magic item in the DMG. That being said, I will retract some of my earlier statements. Based on something Mommy said, I took a closer look at the sample justiciar (I normally avoid the sample PCs, as in my experience, they are rife with errors). Having done so, I now believe the class was written with the intent that the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (manacles) class feature is meant to be a true bonus feat (and not just a class ability with a poorly chosen name), as the sample PC has EWP (manacles) included in his stat block along with his other feats. Also, his attack bonus for the dimensional shackles is given as +23 (doing 1d8+6 damage), which works out to BAB +16, Str +6, and +1 something else. Since they are magical manacles, and therefore of masterwork quality (specifically stated in the PC's equipment block), I can only presume that the remaining +1 to attack comes from the MW quality of the manacles. The rules still don't say either way whether this means the justiciar could also take WF (manacles) or qualify for EWM, but I would allow it in a home game. Based on the above, while I believe that MW manacles should also gain a +1 to hit (for being MW), I am not entirely sure that they could, in and of themselves, be enchanted as weapons. The DMG doesn't say either way, only that magic weapons must first be masterwork (DMG, page 283): Masterwork items are extraordinarily well-made items. They are more expensive, but they benefit the user with improved quality. They are not magical in any way. However, only masterwork items may be enhanced to become magic armor and weapons. (Items that are not weapons or armor may or may not be masterwork items.) This change does not mean that I advocate WF (light mace) automatically applying to (all) rods, or allowing Weapon Focus (improvised weapon).
haferka 01-09-07, 08:17 AM	This change does not mean that I advocate WF (light mace) automatically applying to (all) rods, or allowing Weapon Focus (improvised weapon). Not (all rods), just EVERY rod that does not specificly it is treated as something other than a light mace. The DMG states that most rods are treated "as light maces" while some are treated as a club or heavy mace. I would NOT consider all MW items to be of MW "Weapon" quality, these seem to be complely seperate properties for mundane items. However, a non-weapon MW item do seem to qualify for weapon enhancements as it IS masterwork. Lets say you purchase a MW tool for Animal handling. Lets call it a whip.. it makes sense. This would mean that the whip could then be enchanted as a +1 Weapon since it is MW quality. Same thing goes for the Manacles.
Mommy was an Orc 01-09-07, 09:20 AM	The rules still don't say either way whether this means the justiciar could also take WF (manacles) or qualify for EWM, but I would allow it in a home game. That's just it - they do say. If you accept that EWP(Manacles) is the same thing as the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat - and that's how the sample character has it, the character is proficient with an actual weapon that is defined as being exotic for them. Even if you ignore the sample character, the name of EWP is the same as EWP. By D&D rules, they're the same thing unless WotC is changing the entire nature of the thing(last printed principle). And to quote PHB page 94: Choose a type of exotic weapon...You understand how to use that type of exotic weapon in combat." By arguing that EWP(Manacles) is not EWP, people in essence are arguing that the EWP feat no longer exists and has been replaced by this. Yes, that sounds completely illogical, but that's the only way EWP(Manacles) is not the same thing. The prereqs for WF are being proficient in the weapon and having a +1 BAB. They have both the prereqs...
Madfox11 01-09-07, 05:11 PM	I would be a tad leery of the example justicar. If I remember correctly, he cannot even take justicar levels because of cross-class skill requirements. Mind you I don't have the books with me, and I might be misremembering things. The fact is that examples are examples, and they are not proof of how a rule works.
Mommy was an Orc 01-09-07, 05:44 PM	I would be a tad leery of the example justicar. If I remember correctly, he cannot even take justicar levels because of cross-class skill requirements. Mind you I don't have the books with me, and I might be misremembering things. The fact is that examples are examples, and they are not proof of how a rule works. I didn't bring up the example character. As Britt brought it into play, I feel free to point out how it helps me significantly more than it does him by actually specifically labelling the EWP as being the EWP feat which means it has to be a weapon. :) But I don't think the example character is necessary to come to the conclusion that the Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Manacles) must be the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat and therefore, Manacles must be considered a Weapon for all purposes that Justiciars might need them for - because that's in the language of the EWP feat. There's too much precedent all throughout D&D 3.0/3.5 to say otherwise. The only real question should be whether or not a generic caster can enchant a weapon that a Justiciar considers a weapon, but the generic caster does not. And that shouldn't prevent a Justiciar caster from enchanting his own weapon with the proper feat.
_m_ 01-09-07, 05:51 PM	But I don't think the example character is necessary to come to the conclusion that the Exotic Weapon Proficiency(Manacles) must be the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat and therefore, Manacles must be considered a Weapon for all purposes that Justiciars might need them for - because that's in the language of the EWP feat. There's too much precedent all throughout D&D 3.0/3.5 to say otherwise.. indeed. i read it as the EWP feat as well, but someone, i think it was arv, thought it was a class ability, not the actual feat. but given its called EWP, and the ewp feat is called... EWP, id have to say they are the same thing in all respects.
Arvagor 01-09-07, 07:14 PM	The prereqs for WF are being proficient in the weapon and having a +1 BAB. They have both the prereqs...Um, you need to read what you're quoting from me, mommy -- I said I would allow it. But as far as LG is concerned, I am nobody in particular, and Britt has spoken...
Mommy was an Orc 01-09-07, 07:29 PM	Um, you need to read what you're quoting from me, mommy -- I said I would allow it. But as far as LG is concerned, I am nobody in particular, and Britt has spoken... I did. There's a difference between allowing it and saying it is a core rules position that Justiciar be allowed to treat EWP as EWP...and I think the Circle has moved into making a ruling about the Core rules rather than LG.
_m_ 01-09-07, 07:36 PM	/grouphug
Mommy was an Orc 01-09-07, 07:42 PM	/grouphug :) If I seem insistent on this one, Britt's messing with one of my personal favorite PrCs in terms of balance, mechanics, and flavor. The writer who designed it did a great job. The problem for me, is that you can't enter it until realistically 8th, at which point, your LG career is half over.
Arvagor 01-09-07, 07:45 PM	I would be a tad leery of the example justicar. If I remember correctly, he cannot even take justicar levels because of cross-class skill requirements.And that's a fair point -- hence my trepidation to ever look at the example characters for anything. So yes, now that you've said that, I've run him through HeroForge, and several things show up. 1) they shorted him his +4 skill points for being human; 2) as best I can determine, he's a 26-point build (starting stats 14/14/13/9/14/10, 4 stat bumps in Str, and +4 belt); but most importantly 3) Madfox11 is correct -- a ranger 6 cannot qualify for justiciar because he is 0.5 ranks short on Gather Information at 6th level. Shows what I get for trusting the example is correct...
_m_ 01-09-07, 07:52 PM	:) If I seem insistent on this one, Britt's messing with one of my personal favorite PrCs in terms of balance, mechanics, and flavor. The writer who designed it did a great job. The problem for me, is that you can't enter it until realistically 8th, at which point, your LG career is half over. /comfort. i know what you mean, i'd be fair grumpy if someone started rulling mean things against my favourite class too. though i don't think there is a single rulling of any description about it, so im happy. as far as what i've read / contributed in / to this thread so far, i'm for magical manacles, w/focus manacles, and ewm from the manacles.
clannagh 01-09-07, 08:08 PM	Complete Adventurer, page 116. I honestly don't know if LG could be considered to use the table or not, as it extends the same benefits to some of the CW weapons that are described in the CV weapons such as the longstaff or broadblade short sword. That's more of a question for Britt... I may be somebody in a few weeks, but that's neither here nor there... :angelhide I have brought that table up before without any resolution. The background is basically that when Complete Warrior came out the new weapons like great bow required specific comperetence focus specialisation etc. However later "complete books" have consistently allowed new weapons to benefit from a more generic focus. This makes Complete Warrior at odds with the other books. The table in question more or less says that you can apply the same rules that the other newer books use to the older Complete Warrior as well. Unfortunately the Table is part of a sidebar and if I read LGCS correctly sidebars are specifically disallowed (this is why things like the whacky critical fails on a 1 to hit do not apply in LG .. its a DMG sidebar and hence not applicable). My interpretation ??? The sidebar and table SHOULD be allowable as it simply balances complete warrior with the later books HOWEVER under current LGCS its a sidebar and hence probably disallowed.