Monster Manual IV needs errata before its publishing?

[Ashardalon]

Two questions - what's the ACP of a dragonskull shield? And what does the 'See text' next to the Favored Class: Fighter refer to?

1) If it is a dragoncraft shield (Draconomicon), the Armor Check Penalty is reduced by 2 (rather than 1 for a normal masterwork weapon). Heavy steel shields have a -2 ACP.
2) Presumably, there should be an Advanced Godslayer or Godslayer Characters section which was missed in the excerpt. If not, it's an error.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Are you saying that I can't take the feat Martial Weapon proficiency: Bastard Sword?

Only if I can take Martial Weapon proficiency: Spiked Chain

 

[Hypersmurf]

1) If it is a dragoncraft shield (Draconomicon), the Armor Check Penalty is reduced by 2 (rather than 1 for a normal masterwork weapon). Heavy steel shields have a -2 ACP.

So in this case, even if the Godslayer were not proficient with the shield, he would suffer a -0 penalty on all attack rolls?

I'd think they could live with that ... and it wouldn't represent an error in the stat block

-Hyp.

 

[Egres]

Only if I can take Martial Weapon proficiency: Spiked Chain

Nope.

If you admit that being proficient in all martial weapons allows you to wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties, you must admit that you are also proficient in it.

Thus, there's a MWP bastard sword.

These are not, strictly, monstrous humanoids not indicated as wearing armor; they are indicated as occasionally wearing light armor.

Actually, the fact that they "occasionally" wear armor or pants is meaningless, and you know that.

The monster table doesn't list any armor, thus the creature isn't proficient with shields.

And, about the dragoncraft shield, that's possiible, but we can't check.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you admit that being proficient in all martial weapons allows you to wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties, you must admit that you are also proficient in it.

Thus, there's a MWP bastard sword.

If I'm proficient in shortsword, I can wield a Sunblade without a proficiency penalty. The Sunblade is not a shortsword, but it can be wielded as one, using proficiency in shortsword... rather than proficiency in bastard sword.

The bastard sword is not a martial weapon, but it can be wielded as one, using proficiency in martial weapons... rather than proficiency in bastard sword.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Let's, however, take the hypothetical position for the moment that there does exist a separate MWP (Bastard Sword) feat, in addition to the EWP (Bastard Sword) feat.

If we know that a Type grants 'proficiency in bastard sword' to a creature, how do we determine which feat this refers to? One? All?

Well, one way to determine it would be to find a published example of such a creature, and reverse engineer its stat block to see which feat(s) WotC consider it to possess.

There's one that fits the bill - the Bluespawn Godslayer. By examining its attack bonus etc, we can see that WotC clearly consider a creature ''proficient in bastard sword" to enjoy the benefits of the EWP feat. We can't tell whether it also possesses the MWP feat from the numbers shown, but since the benefits of that feat are wholly contained within the EWP feat anyway, it's not important to the question at hand.

-Hyp.

 

[Egres]

The bastard sword is not a martial weapon, but it can be wielded as one, using proficiency in martial weapons... rather than proficiency in bastard sword.

-Hyp.

Imagine a character that takes every single MWP in the game, wasting an impressive amount of feats.

Would he be proficient in the bastard sword?

 

[Egres]

Let's, however, take the hypothetical position for the moment that there does exist a separate MWP (Bastard Sword) feat, in addition to the EWP (Bastard Sword) feat.

If we know that a Type grants 'proficiency in bastard sword' to a creature, how do we determine which feat this refers to? One? All?

Well, one way to determine it would be to find a published example of such a creature, and reverse engineer its stat block to see which feat(s) WotC consider it to possess.

Naaah.

It's a simple mistake, nothing more.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, the fact that they "occasionally" wear armor or pants is meaningless, and you know that.

The monster table doesn't list any armor, thus the creature isn't proficient with shields.

The table doesn't indicate any armor, but the text indicates that they sometimes do.

Monstrous humanoids are "Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types." The text describes them as sometimes wearing light armor.

Would you consider an ogre who takes off his hide armor to lose proficiency with shields, because you are now describing him as not wearing armor?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Imagine a character that takes every single MWP in the game, wasting an impressive amount of feats.

Would he be proficient in the bastard sword?

I would say no. But he could spend one more feat on EWP to gain that proficiency.

-Hyp.