Magic Weapons and Keyword Inheritance

[PrecociousApprentice]

Here is my answer to you Stalker0.

For your question #1, you are correct. The only keywords that are inherited are the damage and effect keywords, just as the quote you cited states.

For question #2, you are correct that the damage is all fire and that the power has the fire and radiant keyword. You are also correct that the sword doesn't have the keyword. It is the class and racial powers that are used with the sword that get it by default, hence the power has both radiant and fire keywords. Your explanation isn't correct otherwise, because anytime a flaming weapon is used with a class or racial power, the power gains the fire keyword, so unless a more specific rule comes into play, part of the damage is always fire. The At-Wil is not required for this, and actually makes partial fire damage impossible, as then All damage would be fire.

As a slight asside, damage doesn't have keywords. Damage has types, powers have keywords. Not strictly related, but I thought that I would clarify a point here.

For question #3, you are right on with this one. One directional only.

 

[Stalker0]

Your explanation isn't correct otherwise, because anytime a flaming weapon is used with a class or racial power, the power gains the fire keyword, so unless a more specific rule comes into play, part of the damage is always fire.

A flaming weapon doesn't have the fire keyword. Therefore, my class power can't inherit the fire keyword.

If I activate the first ability of the flaming weapon, my weapon now has the fire keyword, and my class powers would then gain the fire keyword. However, by using this power, I am turning all of my damage into fire damage. So there's no partial fire possible using this.

If I use my daily power and not my at-will, my weapon has the fire keyword, and so would my class power I use it with. However, now there's no clause converting all of my damage to fire damage. So if I used a radiant class power with this ability, I would do half fire, half radiant.

 

[DemonLord57]

A flaming weapon doesn't have the fire keyword. Therefore, my class power can't inherit the fire keyword.

If I activate the first ability of the flaming weapon, my weapon now has the fire keyword, and my class powers would then gain the fire keyword. However, by using this power, I am turning all of my damage into fire damage. So there's no partial fire possible using this.

If I use my daily power and not my at-will, my weapon has the fire keyword, and so would my class power I use it with. However, now there's no clause converting all of my damage to fire damage. So if I used a radiant class power with this ability, I would do half fire, half radiant.

Items do not have keywords. Damage does not have keywords. Let me make this clear:

Powers are the only thing that have keywords!

Okay, now that that is over with, because you are using a magic item that has a magic item power, the keywords of that magic item power get transferred to the class or racial power you are using the item with.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

Powers are the only thing that have keywords!

True, but it is a little confusing because there are five types of power keywords ; usage, power source, accessory, damage, and effect keywords.

Sometimes its hard to tell the difference between when someone is mentioning the damage keywords(from a power) or referring to damage type as damage keywords(a mildly incorrect and confusing application of the term).

 

[DemonLord57]

True, but it is a little confusing because there are five types of power keywords ; usage, power source, accessory, damage, and effect keywords.

Sometimes its hard to tell the difference between when someone is mentioning the damage keywords(from a power) or referring to damage type as damage keywords(a mildly incorrect and confusing application of the term).

Yes, but it was clear in this case. He said that he activated the at-will power, and suddenly his weapon had the fire keyword.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

The most amazing thing about this whole debate is that people are still misreading the PHB because they have preconcieved notions about how is should work. The rule is very straightforward about it's meaning. No ambuguity at all. It says what is says, people are just ignoring it.

 

[DemonLord57]

The most amazing thing about this whole debate is that people are still misreading the PHB because they have preconcieved notions about how is should work. The rule is very straightforward about it's meaning. No ambuguity at all. It says what is says, people are just ignoring it.

Yeah, let me quote myself from another board, since the situation was very similar to this.

It's not because you actually think, from an objective standpoint, that the rules support you, it's because you came to an assumption, and that assumption was violently torn away from you. People tend to assume that they are right, and when something contrary to what they believe is shown to them, react violently.

After all, why would you say (now talking to valinorbob)

Adding that one word clears up all confusion...

It's not confusing at all if you look at it. The rules are very clear on this issue. It's "confusing" to you because it violates a fundamental assumption you've made about magic items in general. Suddenly, all sorts of things have changed, and it's not like you thought it was. That's why it's "confusing" to you.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

From another board,

Customer (<other poster's name>) 07/03/2008 08:07 AM
Hi (long question, please read carefully). On page 226, under Power, the book states:

"When you use a magic item as part of a racial power or class power, the keywords of the item's power and the other power all apply. For instance, if a paladin uses a flaming sword to attack with a power that deals radiant damage, the power deals both fire damage and radiant damage."

This rule implies that, should a caster use an implement with a power when casting a spell, than the item's power's keyword would also apply to the spell cast. For example, if a wizard cast magic missile using Staff of Storms (item power keywords thunder and lightning), then the magic missile would deal normal AND thunder and lightning damage (presumably 1/3 damage of each type).

Now, several people on the discussion boards have received email responses from Customer Service (namely Paul and Tony), who have responded that spells cast using a Staff of Storms as an implement do not gain thunder and lightning.

My questions are

1) Which way does it work?
2) If the implement does not impart the power keywords on spells, then what does the orginally quoted rule mean?

Thanks.

********************
Page Number: page 226
Book Name: Player's Handbook, 4th Ed

<other poster's name>,

Unfortunately, there isn’t an official answer for the situation you describe. I’ve passed along this conversation to the game’s developers. Hopefully, we’ll see an update or FAQ entry covering it soon, but until then it’s up to the campaign’s Dungeon Master to decide. The DM is always the final arbiter on how they want their campaign to run. Have fun!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Joe
Customer Service Representative

Looks like custserve realized that at least some of them didn't know what they were talking about. There is an end in sight.

 

[DemonLord57]

From another board,
<quote>
Looks like custserve realized that at least some of them didn't know what they were talking about. There is an end in sight.

That is exactly the kind of answer I want when they don't know what they're talking about. That way people don't get confused and cite CustServ as an actual authority on things they have no idea about.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Exactly. It is OK to not know, even when you are supposed to, but less OK to be wrong when you are supposed to be right.