Davachido
Explorer
I was under the impression that there is no 'dagger' property but there is a 'spear' property and the greatspear does have it. So I'd say yes you'd be obligated to call a greatspear a spear for monk weapons.
Interpretation of rules: Sorcerors, daggers and feats
- Thread starter Davachido
- Start date
I was under the impression that there is no 'dagger' property but there is a 'spear' property and the greatspear does have it. So I'd say yes you'd be obligated to call a greatspear a spear for monk weapons.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Spear is both a weapon and a weapon group name, so it could be ambiguous. I haven't even looked at the monk though, so I have no idea about that specifically.
By RAW though a Parrying Dagger is not a Dagger and cannot be used as a sorcerer implement. It IS however a light blade and could be used as a swordmage implement. So there are certain implementy things you can do with Parrying Daggers, but sorcerers will need to take a feat to do them, even if they can use a Mage's Parrying Dagger without needing the weapon proficiency. This is one good reason you don't see a LOT of use of parrying daggers. About the only real major use case for them is rogues with TWF/TWD, but its a pretty feat intensive way to get a little extra AC. I guess I could maybe see a beast master melee build ranger using one, though it would be a bit of a trade off on damage vs defense and again there are other good ways to spend a feat.
eamon
Explorer
I see what you're saying - and yes, there is no rule that defines a dagger weapon group, and no rule stating the parrying dagger is part of that group. I think the intent is indeed for the sorcerer's implements not to include the parrying dagger.
However, the reference to daggers isn't somehow magically precisely defined. It just says "daggers" - no specification of type. The game being described in plain English, it's not much of a stretch to interpret a parrying dagger as being a type of dagger. I think it's unwise not to accept the inherent fuzziness is such descriptions. Assuming the text is 100% rigorously defined requires all sorts of disambiguation which may cause disagreements, and the colloquial nature of the majority of the rules text underlines the fact that it's written in plain prose, not some kind of specification language.
From the perspective of the rules-keywords, it may seem that there is only one dagger, but conversely it's hard to argue that the parrying dagger is definitely not a type of dagger. And it's not without precedent that an implement category might be refering to more than one specific weapon; witness the swordmage.
It's certainly easy to see the argument that the term "spears" in the monk description refers to any spear, not just "the" spear - without checking the write-up, I can't say whether additional clarification and specification is given.
Edit: On review, I think I somewhat overstated my case. I'm pretty sure the intent isn't to include parrying daggers; the fact that the rules are fuzzy is true, but it's just not that relevant here - where weapon groups are always described using the obvious keyword-based mechanic. It's less clearcut for groups that share a name with a single weapon, unfortunately.
Last edited:
Dr_Ruminahui
First Post
Another place where this might arise is Rogue powers that apply to "Crossbows", a weapon that Rogues aren't even proficient in, but a weapon group under which the hand crossbow, which they are proficient in, falls.
eamon
Explorer
That's a great example! The rules just are vague in some spots, and then a bit of common sense will have to suffice. Or, at least, consistent, non-game-breaking sense ;-).
Similarly, the word "wield" isn't always used to mean the same thing.
Similar Threads
