Arena Weapon Fighter Build Question

[Mad Hamish]

The wording on Arena Weapon Fighter Build is interesting
"You select two weapons as your arena weapons. If you are not already proficient with these weapons, you gain proficiency with them. In addition, any of your feats that grant feat bonuses to attack rolls or damage rolls with one of your arena weapons apply to your other arena weapon as well."

the wording is that if a feat grants feat bonuses to attack or damage rolls then the feat applies to the other weapon.
So if a Goliath picks Staff and Greatspear as his Arena Weapons he can select Staff Expertise and get +1 reach to all weapon attacks with his Greatspear
and Goliath GreatWeapon Prowess and get +2/3/4 to all attacks with his Greatspear.

Has there been anything clarifying that this isn't what was intended?

 

[Aulirophile]

This exact debate happened in the Fighter Handbook on CharOp not to long ago. Conclusion: Yeah, it works by RAW.

Particularly nasty when you can take an Arena weapon that counts as multiple types of a weapon (Spear/Axe, Heavy Blade/Polearm, etc).

 

[boolean]

I disagree. I think the obvious interpretation is:
"In addition, any of your feats that grant feat bonuses to attack rolls or damage rolls with one of your arena weapons apply [feat bonuses to attack rolls or damage rolls] to your other arena weapon as well."

 

[Obryn]

I disagree. I think the obvious interpretation is:
"In addition, any of your feats that grant feat bonuses to attack rolls or damage rolls with one of your arena weapons apply [feat bonuses to attack rolls or damage rolls] to your other arena weapon as well."

I see the exact wording, and I think it's pretty clear what that you've said is RAI. It's definitely how it works in my own game; our arena fighter dual-wields a gauntlet axe and a craghammer and has Bludgeon Expertise, and on Funneling Flurry I only let him slide the craghammer target an extra square.

Its apparent purpose is to let arena fighters use all sorts of weapons while conserving feats, like the 2e-era gladiators.

I can see the RAW argument, however, and agree that the feat likely needs errata'd. I mean, I also thought it was insane to argue that WotC intended untyped Expertise feats to stack, but they still had to errata that, too.

-O

 

[Aulirophile]

I disagree. I think the obvious interpretation is:
"In addition, any of your feats that grant feat bonuses to attack rolls or damage rolls with one of your arena weapons apply [feat bonuses to attack rolls or damage rolls] to your other arena weapon as well."

If that is what it said, but it doesn't. It says the feat applies, with the restriction that is has to add to attack or damage rolls. It is possible that it is just poorly phrased (God knows I'd bet money on it) but RAW you get all the side-benefits. This might even work in the OCB actually, I remember someone mentioning that...

 

[Mad Hamish]

I disagree. I think the obvious interpretation is:
"In addition, any of your feats that grant feat bonuses to attack rolls or damage rolls with one of your arena weapons apply [feat bonuses to attack rolls or damage rolls] to your other arena weapon as well."

It's not an obvious interpretation of what they've written.
It may well be what they intended to write and I can certainly see an argument for house ruling it but it's not an actual interpretation of the ability as written.

 

[pemerton]

This is one of those cases that makes me a bit frustrated by the whole "RAW" notion. Words don't have meaning on their own. They are used with a communicative purpose. Now the precise relationship between intention and meaning is a theoretically contested issue in philosophical linguistics, and a practically contested issue in courts of law. But that doesn't seem to be relevant here. Everyone is agreeing on what the intended meaning is. And once you have everyone agreeing on what the intended meaning is then, given that the words can bear having that construction put on them, we have worked out what the rules as written are.

A parallel example: consider a mutual recognition licensing statute that says "Any licence to practise as a plumber in state X also applies in state Y". Suppose that a person has a plumbing licence issued in State X. Suppose, furthermore, that in State X a licensed plumber is also permitted to operate as a gas fitter. In State Y, on the other hand, a plubming licence is not sufficient to operate as a gas fitter - a separate licence is needed. Does the mutual recognition statute, RAW, say that State X's licensed plumbers can also practise as gas fitters in State Y?

If everyone is agreed that no legislator intended mutual recognition to operate in such an expansive way, then it is clear what the mutual recognition statute says. It's meaning is Any licence to practise as a plumber in state X also applies in state Y, in so far as plumbing is concerned.

If it's good enough for statutory interpretation, I think it's good enough for the D&D rulebook.

EDIT: For maximum clarity, it seems to me that Boolean is obviously correct here. Although it's true that the same phrase could have been used to communicate some more expansive meaning, given that there is no one arguing that the authors actually intended such an expansive interpretation, its meaning is clear.

 

[Mad Hamish]

No, not everybody is agreeing what the intended meaning is.
I think it's likely that they only meant for the bonuses to apply but I'm not sure about it.

What they have actually written clearly says that the feat as a whole applies if they provide a feat bonus to hit or damage.
People are looking at that and thinking "Humh, it's too powerful as written. They probably meant for only the bonuses to apply"
Which is nothing like what was actually written.

 

[Aulirophile]

Well, but we're just saying we don't personally think it was intended. For all we know it was intended and that is why it was phrased that way (it wouldn't the oddest rule ever, after all). We can't know, short of a developer saying so. Opinions are never rules, no matter how sound they may be or how much community consensus is obtained. In the absence of clarification, you follow the written word.

Law is actually a great example of this, as no matter what you believe about a particular law, short of a Court actually validating that belief in a specific case, it isn't true in a legal sense. Precedents are kind of like FAQs, if you want to take the analogy further. Someone already went there, did that, and got an answer. Repeals and new laws are Errata. ^.^

 

[DracoSuave]

This is one of those things that makes me grumble too.

RAW... yeah.. you can do this shinanegan.

But I am convinced that's not how it's supposed to read.