Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3426002" data-attributes="member: 141">NB: (I might misquote the text a bit in this post- I don't have the MIC with me.)Because the seeking ability says &quot;Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability.&quot;&nbsp; Specific trumps generic.It's listed with the abilities listed under &quot;Armor&quot; and so it makes sense to restrict it to armor.&nbsp; But it is not limited to &quot;Adamantine Full-plate&quot;.&nbsp; And an attempt to so restrict it would just be a rule 0.&nbsp; A restriction based on where the ability is given should be to items in that same category.&nbsp; You could rule that echo is restricted to specific weapons, but what's to prevent a player from saying &quot;I am making a specific weapon; the crystal echokatana of hong.&quot;?&nbsp; Or maybe they'll add it to a frost brand or other specific weapon.In the absence of specific text saying otherwise, I'd say that armor properties are appropriate for armor, and weapon properties are appropriate for weapons.&nbsp; The details of a particular ability might rule out some applications: if an ability enhances a slashing ability, it might not make sense to apply it to a bludgeoning weapon.&nbsp; Now I suppose you can say that the text at the beginning of the section on specific weapons rules out (as inappropriate) everything but the exact type of weapon listed there.&nbsp; Which can then be the base for further enhancements (treating the specific property as a flat cost, most likely).Thing is, you are taking an inferred rule (&quot;echo is inappropriate except on longswords&quot;) and saying it trumps a specifically stated rule (&quot;magical abilities can be applied with virtually no restrictions&quot;).&nbsp; Maybe this is a legitimate way of interpreting the rules, but I'd prefer to give precedence to something explicitly stated over something inferred to be implicit in the text.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cheiromancer, post: 3426002, member: 141"] [I]NB: (I might misquote the text a bit in this post- I don't have the MIC with me.)[/I] Because the seeking ability says "Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability." Specific trumps generic. It's listed with the abilities listed under "Armor" and so it makes sense to restrict it to armor. But it is not limited to "Adamantine Full-plate". And an attempt to so restrict it would just be a rule 0. A restriction based on where the ability is given should be to items in that same category. You could rule that echo is restricted to specific weapons, but what's to prevent a player from saying "I [b]am[/b] making a specific weapon; the [I]crystal echokatana of hong[/I]."? Or maybe they'll add it to a [I]frost brand[/I] or other specific weapon. In the absence of specific text saying otherwise, I'd say that armor properties are appropriate for armor, and weapon properties are appropriate for weapons. The details of a particular ability might rule out some applications: if an ability enhances a slashing ability, it might not make sense to apply it to a bludgeoning weapon. Now I suppose you can say that the text at the beginning of the section on specific weapons rules out (as inappropriate) everything but the exact type of weapon listed there. Which can then be the base for further enhancements (treating the specific property as a flat cost, most likely). Thing is, you are taking an inferred rule ("echo is inappropriate except on longswords") and saying it trumps a specifically stated rule ("magical abilities can be applied with virtually no restrictions"). Maybe this is a legitimate way of interpreting the rules, but I'd prefer to give precedence to something explicitly stated over something inferred to be implicit in the text. [/QUOTE]

Verification