Magic Weapons and Keyword Inheritance

[Andor]

The trouble is the rule is still not clear. If I whack something with a life drinker sword is it necrotic damage? Does it suddenly become necrotic damage if I crit? Does the Dark Fury feat apply in either case?

Bear in mind that the Lifedrinker sword has no power, only a crit listing and a property. Whereas the rule on page 226 specify that it's keywords from powers that are inherited.

 

[DemonLord57]

So after further thinking about this subject, I am not sure that my initial conclusion that this was an extremely broken rule is correct. What it does is turn a lot of sub-par choices (all the feats that trigger off of damage and effect keywords) into relatively good choices. It also turns one really bad choice (Doomsayer) into a pretty fantastic choice. Seeing as this is the only choice for a single classed Starlock, I am in favor of making sure that their only choice doesn't suck.

I think that probably if we play with the custserve backed RAW for a while, we will find that this isn't really broken, and it actually is fun.
<snip>

I agree. When I first discovered this, I was surprised, and thought that this would lead to some fun times (brokeness). After I thought about it for a while, though, I realized that this is an awesome way to make the game more interesting mechanically, for all the reasons that you stated. So yeah, I think this should be fully supported by people (especially since it's RAW and probably RAI).

There are still some people in the thread talking about how it works differently, somehow.... I'm confused as to how they can possibly interpret it differently when seeing the text and numerous responses from CustServ. Generally people listen to one or the other of those....unless they are saying, "It's broken, so it's wrong." That doesn't really make sense, though.

 

[The Little Raven]

The trouble is the rule is still not clear.

It's pretty clear to me. I'll try and explain.

If I whack something with a life drinker sword is it necrotic damage?

No, why would it be? There's nothing under the Lifedrinking weapon that indicates that the weapon damage is changed to necrotic damage (which is explicitly called out in flaming, frost, and other weapons).

That's pretty clear.

Does it suddenly become necrotic damage if I crit?

No, the bonus 1d6 per enhancement plus is necrotic damage, but it does not convert the weapon damage into necrotic damage at any time. It's pretty clear.

Does the Dark Fury feat apply in either case?

No, because using a Lifedrinking weapon doesn't suddenly give your powers the Necrotic or Psychic keywords.

Bear in mind that the Lifedrinker sword has no power, only a crit listing and a property. Whereas the rule on page 226 specify that it's keywords from powers that are inherited.

The example is a flaming longsword, which has an at-will ability (free action) to change the weapon damage into fire damage, which gives a power used with it the fire keyword. As the Lifedrinking weapon does not convert the weapon damage into necrotic damage, it would not grant the Necrotic keyword to a power.

 

[Tale]

The trouble is the rule is still not clear. If I whack something with a life drinker sword is it necrotic damage? Does it suddenly become necrotic damage if I crit? Does the Dark Fury feat apply in either case?

Bear in mind that the Lifedrinker sword has no power, only a crit listing and a property. Whereas the rule on page 226 specify that it's keywords from powers that are inherited.

I thought it was pretty clear on this. The answer would be no. There's no necrotic keyword. You do do necrotic damage, but only with the specifically mentioned bonus due to crit.

 

[DracoSuave]

One main concern is that the rule breaks a lot of the game open if they decide to give the Swordmage a Stance or a Reliable power, because unlike the examples so far, those carry -actual- rules baggage, but are considered -effect- keywords. Reliable isn't so bad, but -Stance- will actually make powers broken.

Not broken in an overpowered sense, but broken in a 'How does a one time damage power carry a five minute duration' sense.

 

[DemonLord57]

One main concern is that the rule breaks a lot of the game open if they decide to give the Swordmage a Stance or a Reliable power, because unlike the examples so far, those carry -actual- rules baggage, but are considered -effect- keywords. Reliable isn't so bad, but -Stance- will actually make powers broken.

Not broken in an overpowered sense, but broken in a 'How does a one time damage power carry a five minute duration' sense.

Agreed. Hopefully they won't allow stance or reliable keywords on any encounter powers of classes that can use wands... that would be... interesting, to say the least. Legion's Hold, and if I miss someone, I don't expend it. Anyone. In a close burst 20. Yeah, that would be a little overpowered. (though this might actually be a problem with the reliable keyword, if it were fixed, reliable would still be quite good, just not ridiculously overpowered)

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

So after further thinking about this subject, I am not sure that my initial conclusion that this was an extremely broken rule is correct. What it does is turn a lot of sub-par choices (all the feats that trigger off of damage and effect keywords) into relatively good choices. It also turns one really bad choice (Doomsayer) into a pretty fantastic choice. Seeing as this is the only choice for a single classed Starlock, I am in favor of making sure that their only choice doesn't suck.

I think that probably if we play with the custserve backed RAW for a while, we will find that this isn't really broken, and it actually is fun.

The Rogue who uses a cold weapon to take advantage of the Wintertouched/Lasting Frost combo, you will add a couple of d6s to your damage every hit. Good, but when compared to the padded sumo effect of ballooning HP at higher levels, the extra damage might not even scale well.

The Doomsayer/Fear keyword might just allow a controller to control a little with his max 4 Daily spells with a save ends condition that lasts more than 1.5 rounds on average. Since there is only one spell that gives the unconscious condition, the other three won't even make them helpless, just not as good.

The fighter that applies an elemental keyword to all his powers may get an advantage from enemies that have vulnerability to that keyword, but he has to switch out weapons when facing enemies that are immune to it. There are trade offs for every choice. This is good.

Seems to me that this just adds more meaningful choices, and adds more meaning to choices in other areas of the game.

Saying that this is broken at this point may be a little premature. We should play with the rules as they are written and explained by custserve before we get too bent out of shape. I will likely have a campaign that has no magic items at some point. This was an interesting twist to the RAW that I was not anticipating, but it does make the game as written more cohesive and interesting, so I will play it as they tell me to for now. I can always change later.

Let me preface this by saying that I completely understand that the power inheriting is the RAW and has been supported by custserv, and is how the game is supposed to be played.

It just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would holding a fear wand make all your disintegrate's ongoing damage now a fear effect? Because your warlock friend is really scary the ongoing damage is harder to resist, because its now scary damage?

And BTW, if that warlock has a wizard buddy, that combo is pretty broken. Yes there is only one unconscious spell, but there are several stun spells. And even with just the spell focus ability the chance to succeed on any spell save for a regular monster drops to 20.25%. Thats ridiculous. Now the average stun spell is going to stun a fifth of the enemies hit for at least two rounds.

Not to mention how ridiculous it gets to drop the orb spec on a solo (6.25% at Wis 26? for a solo to be stunned/unconscious). That is a little bit game breaking, as the solo is going to take an average of 10 or 11 rounds to break out of that(I think? Someone correct me if my math is wrong). He'll be dead, even if it's "just" a stun and not unconscious. Now I understand that it has to hit first, but considering how many stun spells there are, one of them is going to hit, and when it does, its pretty much a death sentence.

I don't think that those builds that are made for one combo once a day are very interesting (thats why I used Wis 26, not 30, up there). I don't think they should be used to evaluate how broken a rule is because they are pretty easy to fix. But I think this one is such a broad rule that is so easily exploited by so many classes that it needs a fix(because, I'll say it again, I am not arguing the point that this is in fact what the rules are). That isn't even looking at how little sense I feel that it makes in game.

 

[Tale]

One main concern is that the rule breaks a lot of the game open if they decide to give the Swordmage a Stance or a Reliable power, because unlike the examples so far, those carry -actual- rules baggage, but are considered -effect- keywords. Reliable isn't so bad, but -Stance- will actually make powers broken.

Not broken in an overpowered sense, but broken in a 'How does a one time damage power carry a five minute duration' sense.

I'm not seeing it. Keyword inheritance is just the keywords being inherited by a power using the weapon or implement. You're not adding new effects. Durations won't change. As long as no item has a stance keyword, then stance will never be inherited. And thus this problem never shows up. Same for reliable.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

No, why would it be? There's nothing under the Lifedrinking weapon that indicates that the weapon damage is changed to necrotic damage (which is explicitly called out in flaming, frost, and other weapons).

You are right that it doesn't but wrong in why it doesn't. It doesn't because there is no power that has the necrotic keyword for the clas or racial power to inherit, so the inheritance rule doesn't apply.

When refering to the flaming and frost weapons giving both cold/fire damage as well as the radiant damage when used, it says nothing about if the At-Will of the weapon is used, just that the weapon is used. You cannot just assume that the At-Will is used. It doesn't say that. So it gains the cold/fire keyword to add to the radiant and then splits the damage between. If the At-Will had been active, then the damage would all be cold/fire as it states in the Frost/Flaming weapon entry. No At-Will weapon power was used though. The weapon was used, not the At-Will.

It just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would holding a fear wand make all your disintegrate's ongoing damage now a fear effect? Because your warlock friend is really scary the ongoing damage is harder to resist, because its now scary damage?

Does it make any more sense to have a power that deals cold and fire damage without the implement? Since you are channeling the power through the implement to get the enhancement bonus, I don't see why it shouldn't pick up a few characteristics of the implement on the way. Effect keywords still stay effects, even when damage is done, and damage keywords still stay damage even when there is an effect. No Fear damage, because fear is an effect, not damage. The disintigrate now has both a damage keyword and a fear keyword. The warlock is not scary, the wand makes the power have the fear keyword. Not exactly intuitive, but neither is magic, and that is what we are talking about.

And BTW, if that warlock has a wizard buddy, that combo is pretty broken. Yes there is only one unconscious spell, but there are several stun spells. And even with just the spell focus ability the chance to succeed on any spell save for a regular monster drops to 20.25%. Thats ridiculous. Now the average stun spell is going to stun a fifth of the enemies hit for at least two rounds.

Not to mention how ridiculous it gets to drop the orb spec on a solo (6.25% at Wis 26? for a solo to be stunned/unconscious). That is a little bit game breaking, as the solo is going to take an average of 10 or 11 rounds to break out of that(I think? Someone correct me if my math is wrong). He'll be dead, even if it's "just" a stun and not unconscious. Now I understand that it has to hit first, but considering how many stun spells there are, one of them is going to hit, and when it does, its pretty much a death sentence.

Seems to me that all this does is make the max 4 dailies actually really good instead of just a 1.5 round speedbump. I'm OK with that at this point. I may change my tune with some more playtime, but now I'm OK. Your math also didn't include the bonus to saves that solos and elites get. Just from memory I think it is something like +6 and +2 respectively. That changes things. And with a 26 wis, you gotta be 21st level at that point. I'm OK with that level of power at that epic level.

 

[The Little Raven]

When refering to the flaming and frost weapons giving both cold/fire damage as well as the radiant damage when used, it says nothing about if the At-Will of the weapon is used, just that the weapon is used.

In order to deal fire damage with a flaming weapon, you have to activate the at-will free action ability to convert it from weapon damage to fire damage. That is a power of the magic item.

"When you use a magic item as part of a racial power or a class power, the keywords of the item’s power and the other power all apply."

So, when using the at-will free action to convert it to fire damage, you add the keyword (it does not supercede the existing ones), so you would be dealing 1/2 fire, 1/2 radiant.

You cannot just assume that the At-Will is used.

No, it actively has to be used. However, if it is not active, then it's keyword does not apply.

It doesn't say that. So it gains the cold/fire keyword to add to the radiant and then splits the damage between. If the At-Will had been active, then the damage would all be cold/fire as it states in the Frost/Flaming weapon entry. No At-Will weapon power was used though. The weapon was used, not the At-Will.

Okay, let me play this out. The example will be using a paladin with a flaming longsword, as in the DMG.

By your explanation...

- Weapon set to "weapon damage."
Melee basic attack - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (weapon damage).
Holy Strike - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (half fire, half radiant).
Valiant Strike - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (fire damage).

- Weapon set to "fire damage."
Melee basic attack - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (fire damage).
Holy Strike - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (fire damage).
Valiant Strike - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (fire damage).

By my explanation...

- Weapon set to "weapon damage."
Melee basic attack - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (weapon damage).
Holy Strike - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (radiant damage).
Valiant Strike - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (weapon damage).

- Weapon set to "fire damage."
Melee basic attack - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (fire damage).
Holy Strike - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (half fire, half radiant).
Valiant Strike - Deals 1[W] plus Str bonus (fire damage).

To me, the weapon damage and fire damage are interchangeable, but it does not negate the existence of other damage types due to powers, and the example in the PHB seems to support this.