Clawed Swordmage

[rhm001]

Ok. DracoSuave is correct that the power (as currently written; not sure whether there was a change) does not use the word "weapon." However, I do not believe that that fact is determinative. Why? Because the power DOES include a proficiency bonus. Not an enhancement bonus, not a power bonus, but a proficiency bonus. So you must have something to be proficient with, i.e., a weapon. Note that improvised weapons, such as a bare fist, do not include such a bonus, nor do attacks themselves.

That said, I might buy the argument that a character could only be proficient with it for the granted basic attack, and therefore would need to use it without the proficiency bonus for any non-basic attacks. (Basically, it would be an unarmed attack that did more damage. Could be helpful if you were disarmed or surprised.)

In addition, the argument that the basic attack would not require a free hand appears meritless. While it may be amusing to envision the armor growing its own extra clawed arm and attacking on your behalf, countless creatures in the MM have claw attacks; do you want those creatures to be holding magic items, weapons or other party members and then to make claw attacks against your character or other party members as well? And before anyone advances the "but an ITEM..." argument, there are plenty of magic creatures with claws; if a 6th level item can do it, a dragon or a lich probably can, too. Especially since THEIR claw attacks do not specify the need for a weapon or a free hand, either.

 

[James McMurray]

Ok. DracoSuave is correct that the power (as currently written; not sure whether there was a change) does not use the word "weapon."

The compiled and updated issue we've been quoting uses the word weapon twice.

 

[rhm001]

The compiled and updated issue we've been quoting uses the word weapon twice.

A fair point. Serves me right for just hitting the original link!

The compiled version does also refer explicitly to gaining "proficiency with this weapon, " further suggesting it could be used for other attacks (because if you could only make the basic attack, such a note would be completely redundant).

 

[Ibixat]

A fair point. Serves me right for just hitting the original link!

The compiled version does also refer explicitly to gaining "proficiency with this weapon, " further suggesting it could be used for other attacks (because if you could only make the basic attack, such a note would be completely redundant).

So which redundancy do you choose to ignore, the one telling you you have proficiency with it, or the one telling you you can make a basic attack with it?

The item is poorly edited and not clear on how it works.

 

[Mirtek]

A fair point. Serves me right for just hitting the original link!

The compiled version does also refer explicitly to gaining "proficiency with this weapon, " further suggesting it could be used for other attacks (because if you could only make the basic attack, such a note would be completely redundant).

Why would it be redundant? You also need the information about gaining proficiency for the melee basic attack. Otherweise it would be an MBA without the proficiency bonus for certain classes.

 

[DracoSuave]

The wording also uses 'This is a basic melee attack' where 'this' is the attack the property describes. To say that the property is something else is to say that 'this' is not, in fact, a basic melee attack.

In other words, you're calling the power a liar.

 

[Larrin]

I have to say that as far as i can tell, unless you are making the attack (which is a basic attack with a +3 1d8 one handed military light blade) there is no evidence you have the weapon. It says nothing about you having the weapon outside of making the attack, so unless you make the specifically allowed attack you don't have the weapon. When you decide to make the attack, suddenly you have a military light blade in one hand and you make the attack, then....its gone.

The weapon is very definitely include ONLY in the description of the attack, outside of the attack, I don't think it can be really argued to exist. If you aren't making the attack, then nothing in the description of the attack can really be used. I can't think of any other time in which a constant property (ie a weapon constantly at your disposal, or even something like DR 5 or +1 to teleport distance) is defined within a triggered property (ie a speacial attack the armour can make).

I see where the confusion comes from; You put on a piece of armour. You always benefit from the AC and any properties (DR, bonuse movement, darkvision). At will, encounter, Daily powers only come into play when triggered, nothing within them tells you what is always active just by putting on the armour. Feral armour has a property that you can make an attack. You can always make this attack. That is constant. What isn't constant is you actually making the attack. Without actually making the attack, you don't get the benefits ofmaking the attack, one of which is that you have a claw to make the attack with. BLAH! Not the best way to write a property. Either it should have been: property: you have a +3 1d8 blah weapon (thus you do have the weapon always) OR at will: you may make a +3 1d8 basic melee attack (thus you don't always have it). The way its written though, i think its the equivalent of having an at will that lets you make a basic attack with a weapon that only shows up when you use the power.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, as it's written, if you have feats/class features/items that work with light blades/BMA/weapon attacks in general they may certainly be used with it, so I can see why they did it this way.

Plus, as well, it has the at-will attack benefit of scaling damage at 21st level. Not that that's a selling point, but it's something to note.