Magic Weapons and Keyword Inheritance

[Saeviomagy]

I thought it wasn't actually possible to get the effect we're discussing here (a fear-power wand granting the fear keyword to spells cast through it) because the implement doesn't actually have the fear keyword - it's merely one of the powers in the wand that has the keyword.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I thought it wasn't actually possible to get the effect we're discussing here (a fear-power wand granting the fear keyword to spells cast through it) because the implement doesn't actually have the fear keyword - it's merely one of the powers in the wand that has the keyword.

The effect relies on the wording:
"When you use a magic item as part of a racial power or a class power, the keywords of the item’s power and the other power all apply."

Are you using a magic item as part of a racial power or a class power? Yes, you're using the fear wand as an implement.

Therefore, the keywords of the item's power apply. The item's power has the Fear keyword.

What's missing is anything clarifying that the item's power whose keywords apply must actually be in use. If it said "When you use a magic item power as part of a racial power or a class power, the keywords of the item’s power and the other power all apply", there wouldn't be a case for the fear wand to grant the keyword except when the fear power was being used.

-Hyp.

 

[DemonLord57]

I thought it wasn't actually possible to get the effect we're discussing here (a fear-power wand granting the fear keyword to spells cast through it) because the implement doesn't actually have the fear keyword - it's merely one of the powers in the wand that has the keyword.

Items do not have keywords. However, according to the text on page 226, if you use a magic item (like a magic weapon or implement) as part of a class or racial power, the damage and effect keywords of the magic item's powers are applied to the power you are using. (the class or racial power)

edit: ninja'd again!

 

[Glak]

well I can see that none of you remember 2e. This 3e/M:tG (I love that game) way of thinking has no place in 4e. I am almost GLAD that the rules are so ambiguous and probably wrong. They simply require a little common sense to fix. Here is how I am going to play:

A "usage" is the combination of: a character, a power, a weapon/implement, and an action (standard, move, or minor).

A usage has whatever keywords make sense. If you have a flaming sword that is on the usage has the fire keyword, if the fire is off then obviously it doesn't. If a power deals fire damage then it has the fire keyword. If a power has the fire keyword then it deals (at least some) fire damage.

If the power deals radiant damage through a weapon, and you use it with a flaming weapon that is off, the damage is radiant. If you use it with flaming weapon that is on then the damage is both.

If the power deals radiant damage and you use it with a weapon that deals extra fire damage on a crit, then on a crit the base damage is radiant, the bonus damage is fire, and the usage has both keywords. If there is no crit then the damage is radiant and the only keyword on the usage is radiant.

Common sense guys, not rules lawyers. 3e brought us back to 1e, 4e brings us back to 2e

 

[Tonester]

Okay - I'm actually giggling a bit. This seriously is not complicated.

Please re-read my post again where I quoted the passages from the book.

You are confusing the Power Keywords such as, "At-Will, Divine, Reliable, Poison, Teleport, etc" with the keywords mentioned in the description of the power such as, "1[W] + Str Modifier radiant damage..."

PHB specifically states that the Power Keywords are used for resistances, vulnerabilities, immunities and interaction with other powers like a spell that blocks all powers with the Teleport Keyword.

Weapons are Implements for Powers. Just repeat that to yourselves over and over if you are confused. It is no different than a Holy Symbol or an Orb. If your weapon does "x fire damage" and your power has the Weapon Keyword and does "1[W] + Str Modifier poison damage" then the attack does half fire and half poison damage.

It seems that the only remaining issue is whether or not the at-will powers of elemental weapons overwrite ALL damage a power does. This is the only thing that the PHB is ambiguous on. I personally think people are over-analyzing this and it simply means the player can opt to add the fire/cold keyword to the attack or not. I don't think it overwrites all damage a power does - that seems obsurd to me. To me, it seems the PHB just means "this weapon can do fire damage or regular damage" and the player can basically decide at-will and for free on every attack with that weapon.

**EDIT**
Glak - exactly. I still have hope for these forums. haha

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

That is basically the point of this thread and the many custserve answers to this question.

It goes like this. If a magic item that posesses a power is used as an implement/weapon in conjunction with a class or racilal power, then the class or racial power gain any and all of the damage keywords and effect keywords for the power posessed by the magic item, whether the item power is used or not during the class or racial power use.

In stepwise fashion.

1)PC has magic item with a power that contains a keyword on the power.
2)PC uses a class or racial power and uses the aformentioned magic item as a weapon/implement in conjunction with said class or racial power.
3)The class or racial power gains any and all keywords that the magic item's power posesses.
4)It does not matter whether the magic item power was used during this interaction, the keywords are always inherited in this way.
5)Any triggered effects that are keyed off of using a power with any of the keywords now posessed by the class or racial power, including the ones inherited from the magic item's power, are now triggered.

 

[chitzk0i]

If a power deals fire damage then it has the fire keyword. If a power has the fire keyword then it deals (at least some) fire damage.

I don't think that's so obvious. The only text that indicates either of these relationships is the fire and radiant paladin example on page 226. Most powers definitely follow them, but the new illusion powers from Dragon magazine deal psychic damage but don't have that keyword.

If the power deals radiant damage through a weapon, and you use it with a flaming weapon that is off, the damage is radiant. If you use it with flaming weapon that is on then the damage is both.

The text of flaming weapon says that "all the damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage." If this power that deals radiant damage has the weapon keyword, it should do all fire damage, since the damage is dealt by the weapon.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

EDIT: Ninja'd!

As for whether the elemental weapons do ALL elemental damage when turned on, or PART elemental and PART any other damage keywords that apply, the elemental weapon descriptions explicitly state:

Power (At-Will, Fire/Cold): Free Action. All damage dealt by this weapon is fire/cold damage. Another free action returns the damage to normal.

This specific rule trumps other more general rules about what type of damage is in effect when this weapon damages an enemy. When the Free Action is taken to use the At-Will power of the weapon, ALL the damage cause by the weapon is fire/cold. When the free action is not taken to use the At-Will power of the weapon, then the normal rule applies. The normal rule is:

When damage of a power is described as more than one type, divide the damage evenly between the damage types (round up for the first damage type, round down for all others). For example, a power that deals 25 fire and thunder damage deals 13 fire damage and 12 thunder damage.

Thus, when "on" the elemental weapon does ALL fire/cold damage. When "off" the elemental weapons splits the damage between any damage keywords that apply to the power the weapon is being used with.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

well I can see that none of you remember 2e. This 3e/M:tG (I love that game) way of thinking has no place in 4e. I am almost GLAD that the rules are so ambiguous and probably wrong. They simply require a little common sense to fix. Here is how I am going to play:

A "usage" is the combination of: a character, a power, a weapon/implement, and an action (standard, move, or minor).

A usage has whatever keywords make sense. If you have a flaming sword that is on the usage has the fire keyword, if the fire is off then obviously it doesn't. If a power deals fire damage then it has the fire keyword. If a power has the fire keyword then it deals (at least some) fire damage.

If the power deals radiant damage through a weapon, and you use it with a flaming weapon that is off, the damage is radiant. If you use it with flaming weapon that is on then the damage is both.

If the power deals radiant damage and you use it with a weapon that deals extra fire damage on a crit, then on a crit the base damage is radiant, the bonus damage is fire, and the usage has both keywords. If there is no crit then the damage is radiant and the only keyword on the usage is radiant.

Common sense guys, not rules lawyers. 3e brought us back to 1e, 4e brings us back to 2e

I would completely agree with you if customer service hadn't explicitly disagreed. I don't get it either, but the people on this thread have legitimate confusion due in part to customer service responses and wording that isn't particularly descriptive. Not to mention the lack of examples in the PHB.

 

[Glak]

I don't think that's so obvious. The only text that indicates either of these relationships is the fire and radiant paladin example on page 226. Most powers definitely follow them, but the new illusion powers from Dragon magazine deal psychic damage but don't have that keyword.

see the thing with "obvious" is that it is *obvious*. There is no need for text to back things up. If something deals psychic damage then it has the psychic keyword, regardless of whether the text says so. The text is simply wrong. It is that easy. You're the DM, make things work.

You see, D&D is not actually a game. It is a game-like activity. Games have rules. D&D has guidelines. This was written in a WotC publication actually by one of their lead designers, long long ago.

The text of flaming weapon says that "all the damage dealt by this weapon is fire damage." If this power that deals radiant damage has the weapon keyword, it should do all fire damage, since the damage is dealt by the weapon.

ok, but as the DM, what do you want to do? You gave the item to the player, you decide what it does.

I would completely agree with you if customer service hadn't explicitly disagreed. I don't get it either, but the people on this thread have legitimate confusion due in part to customer service responses and wording that isn't particularly descriptive. Not to mention the lack of examples in the PHB.

so? Are you going to play in some D&D tournament for money? Or are you going to sit around with your buddies and have some fun? What is more fun, strictly adhering to a bunch of confusing rules or just using common sense? D&D is about sitting around a big table with the guys that you've known forever. It is about laughter, snacks, the crudely drawn character art, and a good story.