Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 guest844017479 Oct 06, 2009 13:48:39	The Ki Focus and/or feats associated with it are not showing on the character sheet.
#2 mdonais Oct 06, 2009 14:02:01	I gave myself a +3 ki focus and took the feat focused expertise (ki focus) and all the bonuses seemed to work. Both the item and the feat were listed on my character sheet. My assassin at-will power executioner's noose used the weapon and the feat properly. I could customize my attack and damage workspace to show executioner's noose and it looks correct. Could you be more specific in what isn't working? Thanks,
#3 guest844017479 Oct 06, 2009 14:50:36	I didn't realize the Ki Focus was an 'item', which I needed to equip.  Seems like it should be automatically equipped, since you can't un-equip it.
#4 keropie Oct 06, 2009 14:55:19	I am, however, confused about the damage it calculates... I have a test lvl 1 assassin with a +1 ki focus weilding a short sword.  For Inescapable Blade I have these attack strings: Magic Ki Focused Short Sword +1: +5 to hit, 1d4 + 0 damage Short Sword: +8 to hit, 1d6 + 0 damage   Make the Ki focus look awfully... awful?
#5 mdonais Oct 06, 2009 15:30:55	Right, I see what you are saying now. The powers tab of the builder seems to be doing the math correctly but the character sheet is just showing you unarmed attack and damage instead of your ki focused weapon damage. We are looking into it.
#6 guest742363515 Oct 06, 2009 16:04:39	I was going to comment that it is using unarmed dmg even though it says its using a Ki focused weapon but someone else noticed first. Are monks supposed to be able to use Ki focuses? I am used to Ki being a martial arts term so I tried adding it and it showed up on my monk power cards but it did not show up on the powercard for a fighter I tried. There isn't any real information in the CB about what the Ki focus is for. I would have expected a page to show up on the right with a brief desctiption of what a Ki focus is and who uses it. Also is the bonus from the Ki focus supposed to be added to the weapons' attack and dmg? Currently its listing 3 weapons on a random Assassin I made. Executioner's Noose Magic Ki Focus +1: +6 attack, 1d6+6 Dmg Magic Ki Focused Greatsword +1: +5 attack, 1d6+5 Dmg Greatsword: +5 attack, 1d6+5 Dmg This is with a Ki Focus +1 and a normal non-magic Greatsword. Ah on my monk the Ki Focus is only showing up on Dragon's Tail which uses an Implement, it's not showing up on any abilities that have the weapon Keyword instead. Is this correct?
#7 mdonais Oct 06, 2009 16:55:19	Eventually Monk and Assassin will both use Ki Focus and will work the same way exactly. The published monk is just the old playtest version so it doesn't work quite that way. When we update the monk, probably in november with the final monk text it will use ki focus as you intuited. Thanks.
#8 WotC_Trevor Oct 06, 2009 17:00:38	I just wanted to pop in to say I heart Mike for being so on top of this.
#9 Cailte Oct 12, 2009 6:52:13	I can find no wording in Ki Focus that makes them explicitly a Weapon and thus a legal target for Focused Expertise. (I'll conceed there is no explicit text that it is an Implement in general either at this time, simply text that Assassins can use them as implements.) The first paragraph has summative text of how they can be used, but this in and of itself is not a clear declaration they are a weapon, and is clarified later with the additional text: "You can also add its enhancement bonus to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of any weapon attack you make using a weapon with which you’re proficient." Which is itself further clarified in the last paragraph. This text makes it clear you are still attacking with the weapon, not the Ki Focus, and thus based on this text even if Focused Expertise was legal, the bonus would not apply to the attack as you are not attacking with the Ki Focus but the weapon. While I'm happy with the RAI interpretation that has gone into the CB, that doesn't match with the (somewhat vague) RAW that appears in the Dragon Article and CB. In short, while its cool that this was implemented, it appears to be an error.