Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5915018" data-attributes="member: 2011">Reread it. It does not state that. It's totally relevant.Nowhere here does it state &quot;attacks through the Holy Avenger&quot;.This says absolutely nothing about how the weapon is used.It's says that &quot;the item does x&quot;.It doesn't say &quot;when used to attack as a weapon, the item does x&quot;This is the wording that you yourself stated was not in the Prime Shot dagger, bolded below. That wording is not in the Holy Avenger either.You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that the dagger does not have that type of wording and then say that the Holy Avenger does when neither of them have that wording.In any case, Someone quoted the explicit Property AV rule that revised the vague PHB rule. When combined with the errata rule, it pretty much gives the answer.Again like Holy Avenger, this doesn't state anything about how the weapon is used, as a weapon or as an implement. It just states that the property only affects the weapon. The property does not affect any other item because it only affects the weapon (regardless of whether the weapoin is used as a weapon or as an implement).The errata rule then explicitly extends the magic of the weapon to implement attacks. It does NOT explicitly extend the magic of the weapon attack to implements that are not also the weapon. This is the rule that does not exist.There is no ambiguity here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 5915018, member: 2011"] Reread it. It does not state that. It's totally relevant. Nowhere here does it state "attacks through the Holy Avenger". This says absolutely nothing about how the weapon is used. It's says that "the item does x". It doesn't say "when used to attack as a weapon, the item does x" This is the wording that you yourself stated was not in the Prime Shot dagger, bolded below. That wording is not in the Holy Avenger either. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that the dagger does not have that type of wording and then say that the Holy Avenger does when neither of them have that wording. In any case, Someone quoted the explicit Property AV rule that revised the vague PHB rule. When combined with the errata rule, it pretty much gives the answer. Again like Holy Avenger, this doesn't state anything about how the weapon is used, as a weapon or as an implement. It just states that the property only affects the weapon. The property does not affect any other item because it only affects the weapon (regardless of whether the weapoin is used as a weapon or as an implement). The errata rule then explicitly extends the magic of the weapon to implement attacks. It does NOT explicitly extend the magic of the weapon attack to implements that are not also the weapon. This is the rule that does not exist. There is no ambiguity here. [/QUOTE]

Verification