Magic Item Keywords Question Answered

[Kraydak]

Thank god. Although I'm sure alot of people who've decided they like this mechanic the way CS was ruling it for a while will house rule.

Dracosuave, I don't think anyone on either side of this argument can claim objective correctness considering how ambiguous the text and various rulings are. Though I will be attending the celebration parties .

There is nothing in the slightest ambiguous about the PHB text: the FAQ is in blatant contradiction to the PHB. Errata is errata, the FAQ is for explanations of the rules-as-they-are, not as-they-might-have-been-meant-to-be.

 

[Thasmodious]

the FAQ is in blatant contradiction to the PHB.

No, it isn't. It's in blatant contradiction to your erroneous interpretation of the PHB. This is a clarification of what many people considered the clear implication of the rule (the power the magic item has, not the item itself, has the keywords).

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

There is nothing in the slightest ambiguous about the PHB text: the FAQ is in blatant contradiction to the PHB. Errata is errata, the FAQ is for explanations of the rules-as-they-are, not as-they-might-have-been-meant-to-be.

I'm a little confused at what your saying. I think the text in the PHB could be interpreted in this way(I certainly can see how it could be interpreted in the all keyword application reading as well). Obviously the person who wrote the text in the PHB thought it could have been.

 

[Kraydak]

No, it isn't. It's in blatant contradiction to your erroneous interpretation of the PHB. This is a clarification of what many people considered the clear implication of the rule (the power the magic item has, not the item itself, has the keywords).

Sigh. Go back and reread p226. You may want it to read like the FAQ. You may feel that it was meant to read like the FAQ. You may believe that an errant mouse click deleted a stray word in the document just before printing that would have caused it to read like the FAQ. The PHB, as printed, does not, however, read like the FAQ. Which makes the FAQ answer a matter for errata.

As soon as you are making appeal to "implications", you are in errata territory. FAQs are limited to RAW.

 

[Thasmodious]

Sigh. Go back and reread p226. You may want it to read like the FAQ. You may feel that it was meant to read like the FAQ. You may believe that an errant mouse click deleted a stray word in the document just before printing that would have caused it to read like the FAQ. The PHB, as printed, does not, however, read like the FAQ. Which makes the FAQ answer a matter for errata.

As soon as you are making appeal to "implications", you are in errata territory. FAQs are limited to RAW.

The FAQ for D&D products is both, that's why many of the FAQ answers include statements like "add this sentence to the last paragraph" or "replace the third paragraph with this one:"

And again, many people who read it exactly as WotC has now clarified thought the rule was already quite clear. Even the example given further clarified the position since a flaming sword only does fire damage when activated.

 

[Kraydak]

I'm a little confused at what your saying. I think the text in the PHB could be interpreted in this way(I certainly can see how it could be interpreted in the all keyword application reading as well). Obviously the person who wrote the text in the PHB thought it could have been.

(1) It really can't be (it would only take 1 word added to let it happen, mind).

(2) Now that I think on it more, the FAQ is even more messed up than the original. What the heck does "conjunction" mean in this context? You aren't using a Flaming weapon's at-will ability at the same time as you use a class attack: a Flaming weapon's at-will ability is its own free action.

 

[Kraydak]

The FAQ for D&D products is both, that's why many of the FAQ answers include statements like "add this sentence to the last paragraph" or "replace the third paragraph with this one:"

There is an errata (listed as "updates"). It is separate from (but linked to from) the FAQ. Key-word inheritance is not mentioned in the errata.

 

[am181d]

As soon as you are making appeal to "implications", you are in errata territory. FAQs are limited to RAW.

Next thing, you're going to tell us that FAQs can only include questions that have been asked frequently. While you're welcome to make the semantic argument, I don't see how it's relevant to how much fun people have playing a game.

 

[Kordeth]

(1) It really can't be (it would only take 1 word added to let it happen, mind).

It really can--the PHB talks about item power keywords quite extensively, there's one and only one instance where the phrase "item power" is omitted.

(2) Now that I think on it more, the FAQ is even more messed up than the original. What the heck does "conjunction" mean in this context? You aren't using a Flaming weapon's at-will ability at the same time as you use a class attack: a Flaming weapon's at-will ability is its own free action.

It makes perfect sense. The power of a flaming weapon (which has the Fire keyword) is to cause all damage the weapon inflicts to become fire damage. As long as that power is active, any attack power you use in conjunction with that weapon has the Fire keyword.

 

[Nifft]

This is a good fix.

Cheers, -- N