Monster Manual IV needs errata before its publishing?

[Egres]

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

Calypso

I don't need to answer to your question, since it's flawed in its basis.

By the way, the answer is obviously no, they are different.

But, once again, that's meaningless, since money is fungible stuff, while MWs are not.

Can't you really understand the difference?

 

[Egres]

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.

Ah, finally I got the answer I was waiting for.

So, we have a bard that in this interim isn't proficient in the badaxe, the badhammer and the badrapier.

Now, you might want to explain why being proficent with them makes the fighter able to wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties.

 

[calypso15]

I don't need to answer to your question, since it's flawed in its basis.

By the way, the answer is obviously no, they are different.

But, once again, that's meaningless, since money is fungible stuff, while MWs are not.

Can't you really understand the difference?

Okay, after this, I give up. I don't know if you're being obtuse just so you can "win" or if you really don't get it.

If the statement "I will give you all the money I have." is different from "I will give you all the money I ever have." then so too are the following statements different:

"I am proficient with all the martial weapons that exist."

vs.

"I am proficient with all the martial weapons that will ever exist."

One is a snapshot. The first says: Set W contains all weapons that exist. Set P contains all weapons that I am proficient with. Set P contains all of the elements of Set W at time T. If, at some future point, the elements of W change, we can no longer guarantee that W and P are equal.

The other is continuous. It says Set W contains all weapons that exist. Set P contains Set W. Therefore, by its very nature, if Set W changes, that change is reflected in Set P.

I'm done arguing this. You either get it, or you don't, but I'm done.

Calypso

 

[Hypersmurf]

A similar example is wizards vs clerics and spell lists.

A cleric knows all spells on the cleric list. A wizard knows all the spells in his spellbook, which are drawn from the wizard list.

Let's say a wizard has scribed every spell on the wizard list from the PHB.

The cleric and the wizard both know every spell on their class list.

Then the DM says "Spells in the Spell Compendium now appear on the respective class lists."

The cleric still knows every spell on the cleric list. The wizard no longer knows every spell on the wizard list.

-Hyp.

 

[Egres]

Okay, after this, I give up. I don't know if you're being obtuse just so you can "win" or if you really don't get it.

If the statement "I will give you all the money I have." is different from "I will give you all the money I ever have." then so too are the following statements different:

"I am proficient with all the martial weapons that exist."

vs.

"I am proficient with all the martial weapons that will ever exist."

One is a snapshot. The first says: Set W contains all weapons that exist. Set P contains all weapons that I am proficient with. Set P contains all of the elements of Set W at time T. If, at some future point, the elements of W change, we can no longer guarantee that W and P are equal.

The other is continuous. It says Set W contains all weapons that exist. Set P contains Set W. Therefore, by its very nature, if Set W changes, that change is reflected in Set P.

If it's a timing issue, there aren't problems: my bard, with enough time, can get all the proficiences he needs.

Will he, then, be able to wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties?

Please, let me underline that this doesn't explain why your "snapshot proficiency" makes the fighter able to wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties, isn't it?

A similar example is wizards vs clerics and spell lists.

A cleric knows all spells on the cleric list. A wizard knows all the spells in his spellbook, which are drawn from the wizard list.

Let's say a wizard has scribed every spell on the wizard list from the PHB.

The cleric and the wizard both know every spell on their class list.

Then the DM says "Spells in the Spell Compendium now appear on the respective class lists."

The cleric still knows every spell on the cleric list. The wizard no longer knows every spell on the wizard list.

1) You are stil assuming that the DM will add more and more books, but you don't answer to my question in a close system.

2) Even with this endless book add, you didn't explain why being able to wield new weapons makes the fighter able to wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties.

 

[Hypersmurf]

2) Even with this endless book add, you didn't explain why being able to wield new weapons makes the fighter able to wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties.

Because the bastard sword is not a martial weapon... but when it is being used in two hands, it can be treated as though it were.

While it is being used in two hands, it is, in effect, a phantom entry in the set of martial weapons. But while it isn't, it isn't.

Just like the lion, whose two extra claw attacks don't exist when he is not pouncing or grappling; they are added to his list of natural attacks for a brief period, and then cease to exist again.

That's why they can't be affected by Magic Fang - because the natural attacks are not there to affect when the spell is cast - but they can benefit from Greater Magic Fang, which affects all natural attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[Egres]

Because the bastard sword is not a martial weapon... but when it is being used in two hands, it can be treated as though it were.

While it is being used in two hands, it is, in effect, a phantom entry in the set of martial weapons. But while it isn't, it isn't.

This doesn't explain anything.

1) Why my bard wouldn't be proficient with it in the time he's proficient in all martial weapons?

2) Why my bard wouldn't be proficient with it in a closed system, where no new books are allowed?

3) Why, even if new books are introduced, being proficient with new weapons allows a charcater to wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties?

Just like the lion, whose two extra claw attacks don't exist when he is not pouncing or grappling; they are added to his list of natural attacks for a brief period, and then cease to exist again.

That's why they can't be affected by Magic Fang - because the natural attacks are not there to affect when the spell is cast - but they can benefit from Greater Magic Fang, which affects all natural attacks.

I've already replied to these points.

1) Show me where the books state that I can't cast magic fang on the "back" claws of the creature.

2) Rake

A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks when it grapples its foe. Normally, a monster can attack with only one of its natural weapons while grappling, but a monster with the rake ability usually gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. Rake attacks are not subject to the usual -4 penalty for attacking with a natural weapon in a grapple.

A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.

Show me where this states that you are using "other" claws.

The way it's written, you can make extra attacks with your claws, the same you used to make your normal attacks.


3) This example has nothing to do with our issue.

 

[glass]

If it's a timing issue, there aren't problems:

It isn't a timing issue. The timing issue is just away of illustrating the point, it isn't the point.

my bard, with enough time, can get all the proficiences he needs.

No, he can't. He can get proficiency with each martial weapon that he knows about, possibly even each martial weapon proficiency that exists in the game (or will ever exist), but he can never get MWP (Bastard Sword) because it does not exist. The only way to get martial proficiency with a weapon that is not a martial weapon to be proficient with all (not each) martial weapons.

You can describe your bard a 'proficient with all martial weapons' in plain English, but he does not have the class ability 'proficient with all martial weapons' in game terms.

One last thought: If the bastard sword entry said 'you can use this in two hands if you are proficient with all martial weapons', then you'd have a point (although I'd still contest it), but it doesn't. It says you can use it as a martial weapon. There are two ways you can use a martial weapon without non-pro penalty; class (EDIT: or racial) proficiency and the MWP feat. Since no MWP feat applies, the former is the only option.


glass.

 

[glass]

1) You are stil assuming that the DM will add more and more books, but you don't answer to my question in a close system.

No! No such assumption is necessary. What happens if new books are added illustrates the difference, but the difference still exists whether new books are added or not.

At this point it seems unlikely that we'll convince you if we haven't already. Still, at least I learned a new word.


glass.

 

[Rystil Arden]

At this point it seems unlikely that we'll convince you if we haven't already. Still, at least I learned a new word.

I agree. As an observer, I must say this: glass, calypso, Hypersmurf, you gave it your honest best try. You stated the facts and tried to use examples reasonably, but no matter what you said, Egres ignored most everything and tried to pursue one analogy with the Bard and the proficiencies that even there you guys were correct. Bottom line--There are some times where there are definitely two sides to an argument and either could be correct. This is not one of those times, but by this point, it is clear that Egres is not going to give it up. I think it is clear to other observers (or at least to me) the side that has obviously been trying to make cogent useful points on the matter for over 100 posts, so it should be okay to just leave it at this and end the debate. Just my two cents.