Monster Manual IV needs errata before its publishing?

[Stone Dog]

Whoa, I don't remember anyone saying that.

Okay, good. Sorry about that. I don't usually drink and post, but last night was right after a particularly fine party. Please continue as if I never was here!

 

[Christian]

The two positions that are being argued are that:

a) The bastard sword (and dwarven waraxe, etc.) is an exotic weapon, and there is therefore no such thing as MWP: bastard sword. This has the consequences that the only characters who can use these weapons two-handed without a -4 NWP are characters that have the EWP, or characters with the class feature 'proficient with all martial weapons'.

vs.

b) the bastard sword is an exotic one-handed weapon, or a martial two-handed weapon, and can be treated either way as necessary. So, a character could take MWP: bastard sword, and would be able to use one two-handed without penalty; a cleric of Mayaheine with the War domain can use a one two-handed, etc.

The 'bard with fifty MWP feats' is just a rhetorical device, an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of position a). I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that such a character would really be entitled to use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon; rather, the suggestion is that the MWP: bastard sword should be one of the feat options available to him. Otherwise, the only difference in melee proficiencies between this character and a fighter with no EWPs, except that the fighter can use the bastard sword two-handed and the bard cannot ... And if the bard takes the EWP, then he can use the bastard sword one-handed and the fighter cannot. There's no feat combination possible that the bard could take that would match the fighter's proficiency--the bard either falls short or exceeds the fighter's weapon abilities.

Personally, I really don't see what the point is about arguing over the RAW in this kind of case. Frankly, any DM who refuses to allow a character to take MWP: bastard sword & forces him to take the (superior) EWP: bastard sword feat because 'by the RAW, the bastard sword is an exotic weapon', is just being a hand-and-a-half. If you know what I mean.

 

[Stone Dog]

Frankly, any DM who refuses to allow a character to take MWP: bastard sword & forces him to take the (superior) EWP: bastard sword feat because 'by the RAW, the bastard sword is an exotic weapon', is just being a hand-and-a-half. If you know what I mean.

That was clever. Thanks for the laugh.

The only reason I would see for taking MWP over EWP would be that a player REALLY wants a bastard sword (like say, a katana) or a dwarven waraxe, but doesn't have a 13 STR.

Thanks for clarifying. The thread got a little murky there.

 

[Kem]

snip

Say what?

I'd allow the MWP Bastard Sword.

However saying that having 50 copies of MWP (that covers all 50 martial weapons) is exactly the same as having the Fighter's ability to use any martial weapon is false.

This is why I only quoted the last 2 lines of your post. I was really tired of seeing you state that they are the same logically, whereas logically they are precisely not the same, only effectively the same.

Besides no need to add a book, what happens if a character in your campaign wants to invent a new martial weapon? (Hence the God vs. Wizard with all/each spell example)

 

[calypso15]

Can't you see how weird is your way of reasoning?

Man what?

I will give you all the money I have.

vs.

I will give you all the money I ever have.

Are those the same statement?

Calypso

 

[glass]

Can't you see how weird is your way of reasoning? Let's suppose we have our nice brd with all MWPs in the books published. A new book arrives on the shelf, and contains 3 new martial weapons.

Kem never mentioned new books. He mentioned new inventions. Weaponsmiths do invent new weapons from time to time!


glass.

 

[Egres]

Man what?

I will give you all the money I have.

vs.

I will give you all the money I ever have.

Are those the same statement?

Calypso

1) Your money isn't limited by the amount of books a DM that doesn't exist will use.

2) Even in D&D the money isn't limited, while the martial weapons are.

 

[Egres]

Kem never mentioned new books. He mentioned new inventions. Weaponsmiths do invent new weapons from time to time!


glass.

New weapon invented, new feat taken.

That's not a problem.

 

[calypso15]

1) Your money isn't limited by the amount of books a DM that doesn't exist will use.

2) Even in D&D the money isn't limited, while the martial weapons are.

You didn't answer my question. Neither of your points are actually relevant.

Calypso

 

[glass]

New weapon invented, new feat taken. That's not a problem.

Unless by some enormous coincidence the timing is perfect, there will be a lag between the new weapon being invented and getting the feat. In the interim, you are not proficient. A fighter (or whatever) would be. QED.


glass.