Magic Weapons and Keyword Inheritance

[DracoSuave]

Huh? No, using a weapon that has an item power that has a keyword for a class or racial power grants you the keywords of the item power on the class or racial power.


It says, quite clearly,
(emphasis mine)
So, when you use a magic item to use a racial or class power, (like a weapon or implement) you gain the keywords of the item's power in addition to the power you are using (the class or racial power).

Using a basic melee or basic ranged attack are not racial or class powers, so it doesn't apply there. However, on your class at-wills, it does apply.

All keywords apply. It does not give the keyword to the class or racial power... nor does the class or racial power give its keyword to the daily power.

Does a Brute Strike used with a vorpal weapon's power suddenly make that item power Reliable? No. Of course not.


However, if an enemy had vulnerability 5 to reliable, than the damage from the vorpal blade's power would also affect that vulnerability, because the -damage- applies the keywords of all powers contributing to it.


What you are doing is taking the words 'The keywords of the item's power and the other power all apply' and changing them to mean 'The keywords on the item are given to the other power.' That is -not- what it says at all. It is mentioning the -effect- of the power's combining. The item does not -effect- the class or racial power, it -effects- its target. In the case of flaming's at-will power, the -target- is the sword itself. This gives the sword's damage the fire keyword. It does not target any enemy whatsoever. So, while an enemy is taking damage with the fire keyword when you use this weapon, it is not being targeted by -any powers- with the fire keyword. That distinction is important.

For example, let's say you had an ability that had the Poison keyword, but dealt non-typed damage and had a debilitating effect. You use this on an enemy with vulnerability 10 to poison.

The enemy does not take 10 extra damage, because the -damage type- is what vulnerability is triggered by, not powers targetting it.

This also matters for ongoing damage. Ongoing damage caused by a power using a weapon's at-will ability gains the type of the weapon's damage, because it's -damage-. This means that if you have two powers that deal ongoing damage, and a frost weapon, you can use it's at-will to change the damage to cold damage, deal the ongoing damage with the first power and -have- it be cold damage, then spend an action point, cancel the weapon's at-will to make the damage normal again, and deal untyped ongoing damage, and have -both- stack on the target when normally that would not happen.

Damage type keywords and power keywords are not the same thing. A cold power is not automatically cold damaging, just like a poison power is not automatically poison damaging. It just usually works that way.

Powers don't inherit keywords from other powers, -effects- do.



Also, any statement that says 'flaming weapons always do fire damage' is completely ignoring one of their powers explicitly states you have the ability to turn that crap off, and that you explicitly use a free action to turn that crap on.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Also, any statement that says 'flaming weapons always do fire damage' is completely ignoring one of their powers explicitly states you have the ability to turn that crap off, and that you explicitly use a free action to turn that crap on.

This is not true. When a power used in an attack is made with a flaming weapon, but the at-will of the flaming weapon is off, then the power still gets the fire keyword. If that power had the radiant keyword for example, the damage is both radiant and fire. When you assign damage, 1/2 the damage rounded up is radiant, 1/2 the damage rounded down is fire. When you use the at-will of the flaming weapon, ALL of the damage is fire. This allows you to decide to override the keywords of the power with the weapons at-will, but you are never able to completely turn of the fire ability on a flaming weapon. the damage is either all fire or part fire. The same goes for frost weapons.

As for the rest of your post, this issue is pretty clearly stated in the PHB and has even been cleared up on several ocasions by custserve. Any powers used with a magic item, if those powers are either class or racial powers, inherit all the keywords for the powers of the magic item. Maybe a little more powerful than I would have guessed, but I quit guessing and just read it for exactly what it says. And what custserve has repeatedly said. Anything else would need an erata to make it so.

Using the example of Reliable is sorta a straw man (I hate that term) because I am pretty sure that there are no magic items that have reliable as a keyword on their powers. That would make it pretty rediculous, if not completely game breaking. But as it stands, it seems to be irrelevant to this discussion.

EDIT: It really seems like there needs to be an erata about how to deal with keywords. Fire keyword powers that only do cold damage because of added keywords should not exist. Erasing keywords, adding keywords, ensuring consistency between keywords and damage types, and inheriting keywords all need to be cleared up.

 

[DracoSuave]

Using the example of Reliable is sorta a straw man (I hate that term) because I am pretty sure that there are no magic items that have reliable as a keyword on their powers. That would make it pretty rediculous, if not completely game breaking. But as it stands, it seems to be irrelevant to this discussion.

But there are class powers that have Reliable. Fighters get them.

And if inheritance works one way, it works the other way as well.

The rule does not -explicitly- state that -powers- get the keywords. It says 'they all apply.' It does not say 'The item's keywords apply to the power's keywords.' It does not say 'The power's keywords apply to the item's keywords. It states 'The powers' keywords all apply. For instance, a flaming sword used to attack with a radiant power does both fire damage, and radiant damage.'

That -tells me- that it's the effect (The damage) that inherits the melding of the powers, NOT the powers themselves. See, I didn't -stop- reading at 'all apply.'

Which means I know FOR A FACT, that using the flaming sword's at will does not -replace- the keywords of the damage it deals with powers... because 'for instance, a flaming sword used to attack with a radiant power does both fire damage and radiant damage.'

I know FOR A FACT it does not replace the damage, because it says -explicitly- it does not. The fact people are even -making- that argument proves they've quoted the '...all apply.' out of context -completely.-

Using -your- logic, if class powers inherited item powers' keywords, then by -the same logic- item power's keywords inherit class power keywords. The use of Reliable is -very- relevant in that case, because unlike Fire, Cold, or Poison... Reliable is a keyword that has -RULES- attached to it. Which means keyword inheritance becomes -very relevant- whenever a fighter is involved.

Now... let's look at the -preceding- statement.

Like racial powers and class powers, magic items often have keywords that indicate their damage or effect types.

This first sentence tells us that this -entire paragraph- is talking about damage and/or effect types. That means that the paragraph is discussing what happens to the keywords of damage or effects.... NOT to powers.

Seriously, guys.

Stop taking it out of context and calling it an argument and concluding things OPPOSITE to the example IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH.

 

[DracoSuave]

Lastly, if items did cause all damage done with them to inherit all the keywords of their powers, than the at-will abilities of Flaming, frost, etc. are irrelevant, because

A) There's no point turning them on to deal that damage type because it already does automaticly.

B) There's no point turning it off afterwards.


By your interpretations, the powers for multiple weapons simply DO NOT WORK. They are redundant and are incapable of dealing their stated effects, which is to give the weapon that damage type to dealt with it.

Please, then, explain what the effect of those at-will abilities are.

Because it can't be to completely replace the damage of the weapon with powers with damage types... because -by your interpretation- the keywords of those powers ALSO automagicly apply, regardless of what the item power does or not.


You're not wrong because something explicitly says 'You're wrong.' You're wrong because you cannot logically be right.

 

[DemonLord57]

Dracosuave: You seem to misunderstand keywords. You don't "apply" keywords to damage. They are on the power, and they tell you what to do with the power. If the power has damage keywords, you distribute the damage equally between all of the damage keywords. That is how it works. There is no keyword to the damage dealt by a power, there is only the keyword of the power. When something deals cold damage, the damage does not have the cold keyword (and according to custserv, the power doesn't need to either, for some stupid reason). If you don't believe me, read page 55.

Not to sound insulting, but I keep trying to read your post and it kind of gives me a headache. Try being more clear with what you are trying to say. Again, not trying to be insulting, simply saying how it seems to me.

As for the at-will powers of the weapons, this has been explained multiple times already. When you use this power, all of the damage is converted into that type of damage. Otherwise, it may or may not all be that kind of damage, depending on whether or not you have other damage keywords on the power you are using.

Could you explain how you get to the interpretation that the power's keywords gain the class or racial power's keywords? Keep in mind that they are separate instances of powers, and not used simultaneously.

 

[Andur]

If you don't activate the at will ability, the keyword doesn't apply.

If you do activate the at will ability, then the keyword does apply, it doesn't replace anything, it just adds to the keyword list.

So an attack that had NO keywords would become ALL cold damage with a Frost Weapon's at will activated. However, if it had Fire and Radiant, then 1/3 the damage would be Fire, 1/3 Radiant, and 1/3 Cold.

The whole reason you can turn an at will ability on or off is so that you are not severely penalized for having the "wrong" magic weapon for an encounter.

 

[DemonLord57]

If you don't activate the at will ability, the keyword doesn't apply.

If you do activate the at will ability, then the keyword does apply, it doesn't replace anything, it just adds to the keyword list.

So an attack that had NO keywords would become ALL cold damage with a Frost Weapon's at will activated. However, if it had Fire and Radiant, then 1/3 the damage would be Fire, 1/3 Radiant, and 1/3 Cold.

The whole reason you can turn an at will ability on or off is so that you are not severely penalized for having the "wrong" magic weapon for an encounter.

Can you cite any text to back that up? Read page 226 again, it says it quite clearly, IMO. I don't see how it can really be interpreted in any other way...

 

[JDillard]

Ok. I'm having trouble with pg 226 as well, but I have a feeling I know what was intended.

You've got two different kinds of keywords. Damage keywords and Power keywords. So, take this:

Example Attack
Encounter, Divine, Radiant, Weapon
Target: 1 creature
Attack: St vs AC
Hit: 1w + strength modifier psychic damage

Here's how this would work:

This power would benefit from the Astral Fire feat (give +1 dmg to fire and radiant powers, radiant is in the "power keywords" box).

It would not benefit from the Dark Fury feat (give +1 dmg to psychic and necrotic powers). Even though the damage is psychic, the feat affects powers keywords, not damage keywords.

Conversely,

This power would do extra damage to creatures with Psychic Vulnerability. The damage keyword is psychic.

It would not do extra damage to creatures with Radiant Vulnerability. It's not doing radiant damage, just psychic damage.

So far this is all supported by the book, and WotC cust-service and so forth. Take a look at the discussion about illusion spells and psychic damage based on the Dragon magazine article. They were pretty adamant that just because psychic damage was dealt, doesn't mean the power also has to have psychic in the keywords.

So, next. Suppose you were using this power with a Flaming Sword:

You use the minor at-will to turn on the flaming damage.

Here's where it gets sticky, and people might disagree, but I'm pretty sure I know how it should be.

It still would not benefit from the Astral Fire feat. It would do the extra damage to a Fire Vulnerable creature.

Pg 226 has that one sentence written in a way that suggests:

When you use a weapon with a power, you add that weapon's keywords to that power's keywords.

I do not think that's what they meant, based off of the example they give directly after their statement: "if a Paladin uses a flaming sword to attack with a power that does radiant damage, the power deals both radiant damage and fire damage."

It says a sentence that talks about power keywords, then uses an example that discusses damage keywords. I'm thinking the prior sentence is the confusing one, and the damage bit is fine. I think the sentence before the example is *not* referring to Power keywords, it's referring to damage keywords.

This is also pretty well supported by common sense. Otherwise you end up with the weird situation like allowing someone to cast a Ray of Frost with the Fire keyword, simply because he's using a wand of scorching blast to cast it. That seems... patently odd.

 

[Andor]

You know, this whole thing could have been cleared up if the example on page 276 had used a flaming weapon. But no, they use a thunder power and a thunder weapon. *facepalm*

The rules kind of contradict thenselves anyway. Page 55 states that damage is divided evenly, but then most Magic weapons say "Critical: +1d6 type damage" which is specifying how much of the damage comes from that type. Saying "Critical: +1d6 damage and apply the type keyword to this power" would have been clearer.

What you are doing is taking the words 'The keywords of the item's power and the other power all apply' and changing them to mean 'The keywords on the item are given to the other power.' That is -not- what it says at all. It is mentioning the -effect- of the power's combining. The item does not -effect- the class or racial power, it -effects- its target. In the case of flaming's at-will power, the -target- is the sword itself. This gives the sword's damage the fire keyword. It does not target any enemy whatsoever. So, while an enemy is taking damage with the fire keyword when you use this weapon, it is not being targeted by -any powers- with the fire keyword. That distinction is important.

For example, let's say you had an ability that had the Poison keyword, but dealt non-typed damage and had a debilitating effect. You use this on an enemy with vulnerability 10 to poison.

The enemy does not take 10 extra damage, because the -damage type- is what vulnerability is triggered by, not powers targetting it.

This is just wrong. Page 55: "The other keywords define the fundamental effects of the power. For instance, a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword. A power that has the poison keyword might deal poison damage, or it might slow the target, immobilize the target, or stun the target. But the poison keyword indicates that it's a poison effect and other rules of the game relate to that fact in different ways."

There is no such thing as tacking the poison keyword onto a damageing effect and not dealing poison damage. There is no dealing fire damage with only the frost keyword. If it is fire and frost damage, then the fire and frost keywords apply and vice verse. You can't seperate the keywords and the effect.

Can you apply the poison keyword without triggering vulnerability? Sure. Any non-damaging poison effect dodges vulnerability because as you say damage triggers it.

Now.... the line on page 226: "When you use a magic item as part of a racial or class power, the keywords of the item's power and and the other power all apply."

You know... We need errata for that line. If we read it litterally then picking up an elemental weapon means you can spam your dailys all day long. Page 55 makes it quite clear that the usage categories are also keywords so now the weapons at-will applies to all your powers....

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Yeah, this whole thing really needs cleared up. The example on pg 55 states pretty clearly that a power that does damage does that keyword in damage. It also states that a keyword on a power doesn't necessarily do damage of that keywords type. Then it goes on to state that any time a power does damage and has multiple damage keywords, you take the damage and divide it between the keywords' types, rounding up for the first and down for the others. This means these things happen.

1) A power that does damage should gain the keyword for the damage type it causes.
2) A power can have a keyword and not do damage.
3) If a power does damage, then you divide the damage between the damage keyword types.

These are in direct violation of the ruling that custserve gave on the illusion powers. These powers do psychic damage, but custserve ruled that they do not gain the psychic keyword. Direct violation of the primary rules text, but that is the way they went even after this was pointed out. Go figure.

The text on page 226 pretty clearly states that when you use the magic item as part of using a class or racial power, then all the keywords for the item's power all apply. It does not state that when you use a magic item power, all the class or racial power keywords apply. This is explicitly a one directional relationship. There is also a very specific set of rules that relate to how magic item powers usages are handled that follows in this section of the PHB. Since specific trumps general in the rules, even if this relationship was two directional, then the general rule that reliable powers aren't expended if they do not hit is trumped by the specific rule about magic item usages that follws, and so item powers would not gain the reliable keyword from any fighter dailies.

There is a problem with the keyword text that has got to be cleared up for any of us to settle this. The question of what types of keywords can be inherited should be spelled out explicitly. We can clearly read that keywords can be inherited from items. I find it somewhat hard to believe that the Daily/Encounter/At-Will keywords can be inherited. That would certainly break the system. Damage and effect keywords seem somewhat reasonable, even if they allow some potent combinations. Accessory keywords seem to be redundant to have inherited, but this redundancy doesn't appear to break anything, so it doesn't matter. What about power source keywords? I am not aware of any power source interactions, but there could be.

Even as it stands, the only real inconsistencies are the ruling by custserve on the psychic keyword being added to the illusion powers and the possibility that when used with a magic item with an At-Will or Encounter power, a class or racial power can inherit that keyword as well as the others that it inherits. An easy erata to clear this up would be that the class or racial power inherits the damage and effect keywords (and possibly the powersource keywords), but not the Encounter/Daily/At-Will keywords. They would still need to clear up the custserve ruling on the power gaining a keyword for the damage type that it causes to fix the illusions though. That was a huge blunder, first on Dragon's part and then on custserves part.

EDIT: Thinking about the magic item's usage keywords (At-Will/Encounter/Daily), the text states that the power gains the keyword when used. If you use a daily class or racial power with an item posessing an At-Will or Encounter power, and it then gains the At-Will or Encounter keyword, then after the power is used it ceases to have the At-Will or Encounter keyword, is it expended because you have used it since taking an extended rest without using an ability that explicitly says that you retain it?