====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ======
Mi, level 10
Human, Sorcerer
Spell Source: Storm Magic
Background: Dragon Coast, Curious Archeologist (Perception class skill)
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 10, Con 12, Dex 18, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 20.
STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 10, Con 12, Dex 16, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 16.
AC: 26 Fort: 19 Reflex: 24 Will: 25
HP: 69 Surges: 7 Surge Value: 17
TRAINED SKILLS
Perception +10, Arcana +10, History +10, Diplomacy +15, Bluff +15, Thievery +14
UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +9, Dungeoneering +5, Endurance +6, Heal +5, Insight +5, Intimidate +10, Nature +5, Religion +5, Stealth +9, Streetwise +10, Athletics +5
FEATS
Human: Armor Proficiency (Leather)
Level 1: Sorcerous Blade Channeling
Level 2: Sneak of Shadows
Level 4: Weapon Proficiency (Parrying dagger)
Level 6: Two-Weapon Fighting
Level 8: Two-Weapon Defense
Level 10: Dual Implement Spellcaster
POWERS
Bonus At-Will Power: Lightning Strike
Sorcerer at-will 1: Storm Walk
Sorcerer at-will 1: Dragonfrost
Sorcerer encounter 1: Thunder Slam
Sorcerer daily 1: Shocking Magnetism
Sorcerer utility 2: Fast Hands
Sorcerer encounter 3: Dancing Lightning
Sorcerer daily 5: Thunder Leap
Sorcerer utility 6: Spatial Trip
Sorcerer encounter 7: Thunder Wyrm's Jaws
Sorcerer daily 9: Winds of Change
Sorcerer utility 10: Fog Form
ITEMS
Adventurer's Kit, Climber's Kit, Dagger (2), Leather Armor, Thieves' Tools, Rhythm Blade Parrying dagger +2, Subtle Dagger +2, Laughing Death Leather Armor +2, Safewing Amulet +2
====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
Damage calculation shows
+5 Charisma
+4 Dex (Storm Power)
+2 Enhancmenet
+1 Two-Weapon Fighting
It should also have +2 from the Rhythm Blade Parrying Dagger due to Dual Implement Caster.
That would be an incorrect application of the Keyword rules. A parrying dagger is a dagger, and is thus a Sorcerer implement.
Afraid not. A parrying dagger is a light blade. Parrying daggers count as daggers ONLY for the purpose of Rogue Weapon Tactics.
You do not get to ignore the collective noun just because it has more than one rule item it applies to now.
Oh and Rogues are proficient with Dagger - the singular noun, and thus tied directly to the light blade named Dagger.
You don't get to ignore the rules of English unless the rules of 4E tell you to do so.
Sorcerers use 'the dagger' as an implement. Parrying Dagger is a separate weapon, not a subset of 'dagger', just as a living construct is not a subset of construct.
The same applies to implements, if you have dagger as an implement, you do not necessarily have parrying dagger as an implement.
Just like all the people who are proficient in daggers are not proficient in parrying dagger.
The same applies to implements, if you have dagger as an implement, you do not necessarily have parrying dagger as an implement.
*tiphat*
Wow your reply and my post were both at 1:54... that's erie.
So, which of us cast Time Stop?
Dagger - singular => Specific Item
Daggers - Plural => Group of Items.
Rogue Weapon Proficiencies (hey look note the plural) - list includes "Dagger", the singular.
Sorcerer Implement (odly singular) - list includes "Daggers", the plural, and "Staffs" the plural.
The plural for staff doesn't matter currently there is only one staff.
The plural for dagger does matter as there are now two items with the word "Dagger" in their name.
Oh and while I'm talking about it, being able to use a Parrying Dagger as an implement does absolutely nothing for making you proficient with it; holding a Parrying Dagger you are using as an implement is really bad if you need to actually use a dagger.
Salla is right, Cailte, and the fact that one of the designers posted to say that he's right should be convincing enough. Sorcerers cannot use Parrying Daggers as implements.
Actually Mike said:
Just like all the people who are proficient in daggers are not proficient in parrying dagger.
The same applies to implements, if you have dagger as an implement, you do not necessarily have parrying dagger as an implement.
Seeing how no one is proficient in Daggers, and the wording for Sorcerer Implements is "Daggers" I guess I'm right according to Mike. (Feel free to prove how "Daggers" isn't to be read with it's English Language meaning using the RAW, I'm happy to have you do so.)
Now if the RAI is that it only be "Dagger" get it fixed so the RAW says "Dagger" (and all the other plurals used in Implement listings while you are at it). If that isn't the case and "Daggers" is correct fix the builder to implement it correctly.
Would also be nice to have a definition of what an Implement actually is - might make defning how they actually work mechanically easier, when a non-Implement is now an Implement....
It might help to think of weapons/implements in terms of "Weapon A", "Weapon B", "Weapon C" etc., rather than "Dagger", "Parrying Dagger", "Drow Long Knife", etc.
The name is flavour, nothing more, but it is a very understandable mistake to make. Mechanically this is because a Parrying Dagger is distinct from a Dagger, being Defensive and therefore superior.
In short the 4E rules are silent on the matter, in the absence of explicit 4E rules the English language takes over in establishing the meaning of the RAW.
If "Parrying Dagger" was instead called "Parrying Knife/Stiletto/Blade", the confusion would not occur.
Absolutely. But better to fix the underlying problem than change the name of the Parrying Dagger.
In any case, this is the exception that proves the rule. "A rogue proficient with the parrying dagger can treat it as a dagger for the purpose of the Rogue Weapon Talent class feature." Since it's called out specifically that rogues treat a parrying dagger as a dagger (an exception), obviously the rule is the opposite -- a parrying dagger is not a dagger.
If a parrying dagger were a dagger, they wouldn't need to specify that it works like one for Rogues.
That said, I think it would be absolutely fine and appropriate to houserule that a parrying dagger is a type of dagger and can be used for any purpose a dagger can be used for -- such as being used as a Sorcerer implement or carrying an enchantment that works on "daggers" but not light blades (like Wyrmtooth Dagger, for example).
But, that would be a houserule, and thus not a problem with the charbuilder.
That text simply clarifies that when you have a Parrying Dagger it is in fact a dagger.
That is the exact same sort of text that appears in powers such as in Countering Thunderclap and similar powers with the Immediate Interrupt timing. Under the logic that they are the exception that proves the rule, Shield (for example) would not raise your defences and stop you from being struck, because it lacks the appropriate text.
In short presence of text that confirms the english language reading of rules text does not create exceptions to the rules, it is simply a reminder that you have read the rules correctly.
The words "you wield a dagger" are such that the answer to "Is a Parrying Dagger a dagger?" being yes is sufficient to qualify it - hence the text in the Parrying Dagger is a reminder. You can be sure if the text was not there, it would have to be in the FAQ - it was certainly asked enough when the Parrying Dagger was first spoiled from AP without that text.
I also seem to remember people arguing then it wasn't a dagger either - turns out they were wrong.
Actually that isn't an exception, Rogue Weapon Talent says: When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls.
That text simply clarifies that when you have a Parrying Dagger it is in fact a dagger.
It is an exception allowing the parrying dagger to be treated as a dagger for a specific purpose. The same thing appears on a Kukri.
I think plurals such as "Daggers" in the list of implements refer to the different magical combinations of Dagger+enchantment, such as Frost Dagger, Mage's Weapon Dagger, etc., rather than allowing both Dagger and Parrying Dagger to be used as implements. I am not sure why they chose to write the list of implements this way and not the list of weapon proficiencies. It would be nice to have consistency and I see how this could cause some to be confused and think a Parrying Dagger is allowed as an implement for a class that is uses Daggers. Perhaps a post on the errata forums would bring this to the attention of the right people.
Actually that isn't an exception, Rogue Weapon Talent says: When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls.
That text simply clarifies that when you have a Parrying Dagger it is in fact a dagger.
This is simply not the case. By this logic, all rogues and wizards are automatically proficient with "parrying dagger" because they have "dagger" on their proficiency list. That's obviously not true; parrying dagger is a different weapon from a dagger; it requires a separate proficiency feat; and it doesn't count as a dagger for any purpose except the one explicitly called out in its rule text.
That is the exact same sort of text that appears in powers such as in Countering Thunderclap and similar powers with the Immediate Interrupt timing. Under the logic that they are the exception that proves the rule, Shield (for example) would not raise your defences and stop you from being struck, because it lacks the appropriate text.
Not at all. The two powers have different effects -- a bonus to defenses as an interrupt clearly acts before the attack lands, while there could be argument about a push as an interrupt. It could be argued that the attack has already commenced by the time the push happens and thus wouldn't be canceled. I wouldn't agree with that, but it could be argued. In any case, forced movement is more complex (due to reach and so on), thus the clarification.
In short presence of text that confirms the english language reading of rules text does not create exceptions to the rules, it is simply a reminder that you have read the rules correctly.
No, it doesn't create an exception; it simply reinforces the existence of the rule. The exception proves the rule, it doesn't create it all by itself. In other words, we can already clearly see that a parrying dagger isn't a dagger because they have different weapon proficiencies, they can't carry the same enchantments, and so on.
I also seem to remember people arguing then it wasn't a dagger either - turns out they were wrong.
They were wrong because the devs added text that explicitly said they were wrong. As I said -- I don't see any balance issue with allowing your players to treat parrying daggers as daggers for all purposes (except proficiency), but it's not what the rules actually say.
That's the whole point here. You said "Hey, the CharBuilder is wrong here". The answer is, no, the char builder isn't wrong because the rules don't support what you're trying to do. If the devs change the rules later with an update, fine -- I will support that change. Unless and until they do, the rules are that parrying daggers aren't daggers, so there's nothing wrong with the CB tool.
Dagger singular is different to Daggers, one describes a thing, the other a group of things.
The rules do not support either position explicitly, they are silent on the matter.
Hopefully the next update will provide clarity on the matter (I know I brought up the issue with Mr. Bisland).
I'm pretty sure I covered the use of Dagger in the proficiency thing above, perhaps you should have read the whole thing.
Dagger singular is different to Daggers, one describes a thing, the other a group of things.
They're not different. Like it or not, implement proficiencies are always plural, weapon proficiencies are always singular.
Have a look at the Wizard:
Weapon Proficiencies: Dagger, quarterstaff
Implements: Orbs, staffs, wands
Compare to the Sorcerer:
Weapon Proficiencies: Simple melee, simple ranged
Implements: Daggers, staffs
Daggers is plural not to indicate a differentiation from "dagger", but merely because it's an implement.
The fact that the CB doesn't allow sorcs to use parrying daggers as implements is de facto evidence that you're wrong.
Further you are incorrect, not all implement classes use the plural; Druid, Bard, Cleric, Avenger, & Paladin do not.
Further only the Parrying Dagger is affected, no other implement has a situation where the Plural matters at all, as there is no "Staff" that is not a "Staff" by keyword or by being an Implement.
So the existence of other plurals is neither evidence for or against.
Again the rules are silent.
In the absence of explicit rules text I'm not willing to abandon the english language.
the CB isn't a proof
It's not 'proof' but it is very strong evidence. As is having most posters disagree. As is having a staff poster disagree.
That's a lot of evidence against your case.
I think you're reading too much into one 's'
My reading is at least supported by the conventions of the English language, which is the default means of interpreting the rules in the absence of a specific rule.
If my reading is right then the CB has the wrong implementation.
As I noted I drew this to the attention of the PtB for the update, explaining the problem, I'm happy to "wait and see" as it isn't like I'm about to start playing the character.
the conventions of the English language, which is the default means of interpreting the rules in the absence of a specific rule.
The conventions of the English language often have very little bearing on rules lawyering.
Intention and precedent usually are more important.
Even IF the CB is wrong, it's often best to not change it. Unneeded changes mostly just cause confusion.
So to make the case that it should be changed, being right is necessary but not sufficient. You need to show that the change NEEDS to happen for the designer's goals to be met.
And I'm not convinced that the designers intended sorcerers to use parrying daggers. They gave them cloth armor, AC is simply not high on the list.
There are other useful feats, imo swap out feats and move on.
I conceeded a good while ago that RAI might well be to exclude Parrying Daggers, the RAW could use clarity one way or the other however.
All swords
-
Dagger
Parrying Dagger
All daggers
-
Handaxe, Battleaxe, waraxe, greataxe, doubleaxe etc
All Axes
The point is here... that by suggesting a Parrying Dagger should be counted as a dagger because dagger is in it's name is a can of worms.
Suddenly, from what you're saying, if I'm proficient in a sword I'm now able to use them all. If I am proficient in a axe, I can suddenly use them all. If I'm proficient in the dagger, I can now use them all. This is the same for spears, polearms etc. The game clearly states one weapon is different from another.
What you're trying to do here is ignore common sense that the developers believe they shouldn't have to make clear and take advantage of it. One weapon is different from another. It would clearly state "Dagger and parrying dagger" or "All Heavy blades" etc. Keywords are very simple and straightforward and never used in the way you're stating. Class write ups are always clear on exactly what you can and can not use.
This isn't Legend of the Five Rings or Magic the Gathering where one keyword can mean many things.
Your character builder is ruling this correctly, no error here. RAW supports this just fine.
PS:
Implements: Rods, wands
Implements: Orbs, staffs, wands
Implements: Holy symbols
Implements: Holy symbol
Implements: Staffs, totems
Implements: Daggers, staffs
With rare exceptions, implements are usually pural to say "All staffs, orbs, or daggers" is to say all the magic items in that area: Goblin Dagger, Magic Dagger etc.
Just let him have his house-rule and let him imagine that it's RAW.
{Edit} I have no idea why this post is bolded.
Lots of "if this then something else might happen" where those something elses just do not exist. (Curiously the DeleriumZero fails to notice that all the axes are indeed axes hence why Dwarven Weapon Training gives you proficiency with even the superior ones... )
Lots of failure to read by people objecting to the plain English on the page. (DeleriumZero for example fails to recognise the meaning of the plural vs the singular - proficiency in sword would be useless for example, proficiency in swords is required to attain the rules state they suggest I'm implying.)
In short no one has been able to prove the RAW is not suportive of my reading, only that my reading is probably not RAI, which even I conceed is likely, just not supported by RAW.
Saying I'm intractable when people have failed to adress my argument, other than constantly repeating things I've already pointed out the flaws in is just being obstinate in saying "your wrong" and not even bothering to offer a proof as to why. (A proof of RAW not even the WotC employee could provide.)
That said I remain happy to "wait and see" for updates.