Proposal: Allow Weapons used as implements to use Magic Powers.

I don't postulate what does or does not take WotC the time to update anything, considering the delay it takes to do obvious things over in WA. My post was mainly to address Evo's question (i.e., its the closest thing we're likely to get form a CS/DevTeam member).

And, I do mean FAQ 14. And, it, in its own example, counters your example (though you may be doing fire damage if you've converted the weapon perviously, you only get the Fire keyword when you activate both at once). If you always gained the keyword, then there would be no reason for the FAQ entry; the entry on page 226 of the PH would be sufficient (as it reads exactly as you intend).

And I was thinking I was asking an innocent question when I asked it first... seems more like 'What come first, the egg or the chicken?' type of question.

stonegod said:

I don't postulate what does or does not take WotC the time to update anything, considering the delay it takes to do obvious things over in WA. My post was mainly to address Evo's question (i.e., its the closest thing we're likely to get form a CS/DevTeam member).

Click to expand...

I was saying that it really isn't any sort of answer. We have no direct information from the Dev team. As far as the poster in the other post finding consistent answers, that all depends on the question asked. CS seems very susceptible to leading questions, especially with gray areas. So if several people ask 'I don't think weapon implements can use weapons powers; is that right?', 9 times out of ten they don't find a clear answer and agree. However if someone asks the opposite question 'I can use weapon powers when I use it as an implement right?" the same thing happens. Without knowing the questions, it's impossible to see a pattern to CS's questions.

stonegod said:

And, I do mean FAQ 14. And, it, in its own example, counters your example (though you may be doing fire damage if you've converted the weapon perviously, you only get the Fire keyword when you activate both at once). If you always gained the keyword, then there would be no reason for the FAQ entry; the entry on page 226 of the PH would be sufficient (as it reads exactly as you intend).

Click to expand...

So how does a flaming weapon EVER turn damage into fire? You use the exact same action it turn on the power. If it doesn't work for implements then it doesn't work for weapons.

As to 'no reason for the FAQ entry', you ignored what I said last time. It clairifies that you only get keywords when you have the power turned on. Do you think the FAQ has to be telling you new information? It points out what the PHB said in response to a question.

THB said:

You know what? No. Frankly, I don't think melee attacks should gain additional keywords from the weapon power either.

Click to expand...

That's fine but you are really putting the swordmage in a tough spot. He only has weapons as implements, so now 1/2 his attacks can't use the power of his weapons. Somehow that doesn't seem right. Every other class gets to use there implement powers.

And if melee attacks shouldn't gain additional keywords from the weapon power either then what is the point of a flaming weapon's power? You never get to turn damage into fire?

elecgraystone said:

That's fine but you are really putting the swordmage in a tough spot. He only has weapons as implements, so now 1/2 his attacks can't use the power of his weapons. Somehow that doesn't seem right. Every other class gets to use there implement powers.

Click to expand...

That is a good point, but I'm not swayed. First, about one in three or four of swordmage powers are implement, not 50%. Second, there are a number of weapons that don't have powers that trigger on hits. And among the weapons that do have such powers, many of the better powers (Bloodclaw and Reckless, for example) explicitly only work with melee attacks, so you were never going to be able to Swordburst with them. Third, if you were concerned for Swordmages, why didn't you bring this up sooner? The only example people seem to be interested in is keyword abuse.

elecgraystone said:

And if melee attacks shouldn't gain additional keywords from the weapon power either then what is the point of a flaming weapon's power? You never get to turn damage into fire?

Click to expand...

No, you would still deal fire damage. The attack just wouldn't have the Fire keyword. So you could still kill trolls with it. Inconsistent? Sure, maybe a little.

I think THB responded to most of the above; I just have one correction: It was THB who voted NO, not I. While I will likely do so, I didn't want to vote until I think the discussion was done one way or the other. (THB's vote is here).

It seems that dragon 381 has made this proposal moot. If you look at page 38, Sorcerer Essentials, it talks about sorcerer implements. Weapons CAN already use their magic powers when used as implements and they point it out quite clearly.


"A dragon sorcerer who has chosen acid or poison as his resistance could use a mordant weapon to have the option of turning the damage dealt by his dagger implement’s attacks to those two damage types. Similarly, a cosmic sorcerer who spends a good deal of time in phase of the stars could use a radiant weapon dagger to change the damage dealt by his or her spells to radiant damage. Using the mordant weapon property is entirely at your option."

Hmm, the same Essentials series that didn't recommend Commander's Strike for the tactical warlord. Well, if they say so. I'm not entirely convinced, but there you go.

However, this proposal is not moot. We're allowed to vote for rule changes as well as clarifications. Speaking of which, I'm going to change my vote to yes, because I'm pretty much following whatever the most official ruling we have is.

elec, are you ever going to create that artificer? Oh, and 5/5 with Vampiric Embrace, in case you're curious .

TwoHeadsBarking said:

However, this proposal is not moot. We're allowed to vote for rule changes as well as clarifications.

Click to expand...

Well, the proposal was to allow something and the article makes it clear that it is already allowed (and now clarified). So it would seem that you'd need a proposal to disallow weapons used as implements to use magic powers, not allow it. That's what I meant by moot.

TwoHeadsBarking said:

elec, are you ever going to create that artificer?

Click to expand...

Some day I will, but I've been sick lately and I've barely been able to keep up with the adventure I'm in now. Once I'm better I'll try again to figure out the different ebberon character sheet format. Someone pointed out this article to me and I just had to post.

To keep things moving along (and cause I think it should be allowed anyway), I vote YES to allowing weapons used as implements to use the powers of the weapon while using implement powers.

This subject has come up on in our LFR community quite a lot and all honesty can become extremely powerful even at low levels. A Genasi Wizard with a Lightning dagger running promise of storms and adding his strength to his elemental attacks as well. Damage stacks quickly.

I don't know if anyone has seen or posted this link already. So I'll post it anyways.

Link

It's Customer service answering a ton of questions about implements and keywords. It's what we are using in our local LFR community.

Hope this helps some.