Magic Item Keywords Question Answered

[Rith the Wanderer]

(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.

Well I imagine the in conjunction part is referring to the effect of the Flaming weapon at will ability. The effect of the flaming weapon's ability is the fire damage, and using a power while under the effect of this ability (dealing fire damage) is a fine definition for "in conjunction" I think.

Where I, personally, think the ambiguity in the original PHB text is in the sentence "use a magic item as part of..." I'm not really sure what "use" (wield, hold, activating a power of?) means in that sentence. You may assume that it means wield, as in a weapon or implement, but I do think that is at best implied, and not spelled out.

I know I never even considered the possibility that it meant all the power keywords all the time until I read it on the boards.

 

[Kraydak]

If anyone cares, one of the reasons this really rubs me the wrong way is because I half-way expect (and really, really hope for) errata to remove all key-word inheritance. 95% of the issues due to keyword inheritance come from Lasting Frost+Frost Weapon (which works under both PHB and FAQ). If you are going to let *that* work, you should probably leave the PHB alone so everyone else can enjoy the fun.

 

[small pumpkin man]

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.

If it wasn't ambiguous there wouldn't be multiple 10 page threads arguing about it. Many people read it with the same meaning as the FAQ, so it's obviously a possible interpritation and the FAQ now tells us this interpretation is the intended one.

This is what the FAQ does.

 

[Seeker_of_Truth]

If it wasn't ambiguous there wouldn't be multiple 10 page threads arguing about it. Many people read it with the same meaning as the FAQ, so it's obviously a possible interpritation and the FAQ now tells us this interpretation is the intended one.

This is what the FAQ does.

I would go as far as saying that is custserv had never said that keyword inheritance worked when not using the item's power that the idea wouldn't have ever gained creedence. Because custserv originally ruled otherwise it gave people time to get used to the idea.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, I read it this way as having the most sense, but the RAW said otherwise (other than the section being about item power, not items in general).
Exactly what I wanted to see on the issue.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

If anyone cares, one of the reasons this really rubs me the wrong way is because I half-way expect (and really, really hope for) errata to remove all key-word inheritance. 95% of the issues due to keyword inheritance come from Lasting Frost+Frost Weapon (which works under both PHB and FAQ). If you are going to let *that* work, you should probably leave the PHB alone so everyone else can enjoy the fun.

I don't really think that was the problem. I think it was only problematic when it came to casters who had all their spells having multiple special effects (psychic lock, solid sound, resounding thunder, not to mention the cheat fest that is the Doomsayer ability when combined with a fear wand) all the time, when they are meant to be situational. The other problem I had was how little sense it made, at least to me.

 

[ki11erDM]

What the heck does "conjunction" mean in this context?

I think in this case “conjunction” is being used as an ☌. So maybe Cthulhu is coming or something.

 

[SadisticFishing]

Lasting Frost + Frost Weapon is pretty silly, especially in conjuction with that other one with combat advantage.

Silly. Tut tut. Ruins the fun of a rogue entirely. Not telling my group about THIS one.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

The rediculous thing about this interpretation is that it leaves some of the most powerful uses of keyword inheritance in the game, but only for some characters. Meleers are free to exploit this rule to no end, but casters are left in 3.x era?

It strips the more interesting uses, and leaves an entire class build that was made playable by the RAW as an epic sucktastic fail. Any starlock would be stupid to not multiclass into something else for paragon. Doomsayer is nerfed into the category of wasted space in the PHB by this interpretation.

Lasting Frost + Wintertouched + Rogue is OK, but allowing an entire class build to actually not suck without multiclassing is not OK? And to implement this change by contradicting multiple instances of cohesive text to clarify an otherwise useless rule after said clarification just tops it all off. This is the type of thing that, if it happened on April 1st, would be amusing. Now it is just confusing. I really don't understand their motivation.

Great job WotC. Way to go.

 

[Kordeth]

The rediculous thing about this interpretation is that it leaves some of the most powerful uses of keyword inheritance in the game, but only for some characters. Meleers are free to exploit this rule to no end, but casters are left in 3.x era?

More like "meleers are able to access and use those feats with equal facility to spellcasters." Remember most casters have powers with elemental keywords.

It strips the more interesting uses, and leaves an entire class build that was made playable by the RAW as an epic sucktastic fail. Any starlock would be stupid to not multiclass into something else for paragon. Doomsayer is nerfed into the category of wasted space in the PHB by this interpretation.

Lasting Frost + Wintertouched + Rogue is OK, but allowing an entire class build to actually not suck without multiclassing is not OK? And to implement this change by contradicting multiple instances of cohesive text to clarify an otherwise useless rule after said clarification just tops it all off. This is the type of thing that, if it happened on April 1st, would be amusing. Now it is just confusing. I really don't understand their motivation.

Great job WotC. Way to go.

There are better ways to fix the one power of the doomsayer that isn't so great than to allow weirdness like the "firefearball." Really, the only Doomsayer ability that's weak by the PHB is Doomsayer's Proclamation. That's hardly "utterly nerfed," and can easily be fixed by a) adding an additional effect to Fear powers that don't offer a save or b) giving the warlock more (save ends) Fear powers.