Monster Manual IV needs errata before its publishing?

[Egres]

Can you cast Magic Fang on a lion's Rake attack?

The lion has three natural weapons; two claws and a bite. When he is pouncing or grappling, he gains two extra claw attacks that can be used to Rake. When he is not pouncing or grappling, he doesn't have those two extra claw attacks.

So when he's not pouncing or grappling, the two extra claw attacks do not exist to target with Magic Fang.

Let's assume for a moment that one can cast Magic Fang multiple times on a single creature. I can cast it on every single natural weapon the lion possesses - three. And yet when he pounces, he makes five attacks, two of which are non-magical.

Now let's cast Greater Magic Fang on the lion instead, which makes all of his natural weapons magical. When he pounces, he makes five attacks... and all of them are magical.

See how casting Magic Fang on every natural weapon the lion possesses, and casting Greater Magic Fang to affect 'all natural weapons', results in a different number of weapons being magical?

I can take Martial Weapon Proficiency in every martial weapon that exists, and yet when someone picks up a bastard sword with both hands, there's one I missed...

-Hyp.

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.

I'm still waiting an answer to my question: is my bard, proficient with all the weapons in the game, since we are using the core and 3 sourcebooks in my example, proficient with all martial weapons?

 

[Animal]

egres. look. there's a linguistic trick which i've mentioned.
your bard might be proficient with all MWs listed in the book. but he doesn't have fighter's "proficiency with all MWs". to gain proficiency in every martial weapon listed in the book and to be proficient with all martial weapons may sound quite similiar but effectively these cases are absolutely different.
can you understand it?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm still waiting an answer to my question: is my bard, proficient with all the weapons in the game, since we are using the core and 3 sourcebooks in my example, proficient with all martial weapons?

No, he is not.
He doesn't have a class or feat or similar ability that says "The character is proficient with all martial weapons".
He just has a list of Martial Weapon Profiency Feats, but they don't give the "Meta"-information, that he is proficient with all Martial Weapons.

A help here: You might not that the class description of the classes that are proficient with all martial weapons do not state that the character gains the Martial Weapon Profiency feat for every class. IIRC, the "profiency-related" feats like Weapon Focus do not require the feat Martial Weapon PRofiency (specific weapon), but just the proficiency in this weapon - Which can either be gained by the feat or by a class or racial feature.

 

[saucercrab]

I can take Martial Weapon Proficiency in every martial weapon that exists, and yet when someone picks up a bastard sword with both hands, there's one I missed...

-Hyp.

But that feat does exist.

 

[Egres]

No, he is not.
He doesn't have a class or feat or similar ability that says "The character is proficient with all martial weapons".
He just has a list of Martial Weapon Profiency Feats, but they don't give the "Meta"-information, that he is proficient with all Martial Weapons.

A help here: You might not that the class description of the classes that are proficient with all martial weapons do not state that the character gains the Martial Weapon Profiency feat for every class. IIRC, the "profiency-related" feats like Weapon Focus do not require the feat Martial Weapon PRofiency (specific weapon), but just the proficiency in this weapon - Which can either be gained by the feat or by a class or racial feature.

Your reasonement doesn't explain way being able to handle more martial weapons than my bard allows the fighter to wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties.

Maybe because you also have the MWP bastard sword, like Shabbuti Shanardanda?

Not to mention that if there are only 50 MWs in the world, being proficient with them makes me proficient with all martial weapons.

That's plain logic.

 

[Kem]

Not to mention that if there are only 50 MWs in the world, being proficient with them makes me proficient with all martial weapons.

That's plain logic.

False Logic. There are cases that having each available is not the same as having all available.

As soon as a new one is invented, you no longer have proficiency with all Martial Weapons. Only the ones on your list. If you truely had proficiency with all martial weapons, then when a new one is invented, you automatically have the ability to use it.

That same bard who has all so many martial weapon feats, who happens to be a human. Turns into a dwarf. He cannot use the Dwarven Urgosh (or whatever that fun toy is called) even though it is considered a martial weapons for dwarves. Whereas a Fighter could.

Its the same difference between a God's "Knowledge of all Spells" and a Wizard who happens to have collected every spell allowed in that campaign into his spellbook.

(If someone wanted to take martial weapon prof Bastard Sword, I wouldn't care. However, never would I let that allow the person to use it one handed until they got another feat spent on exotic weapon prof for it. Not even a sunblade if they didn't have short sword proficiency)

 

[frankthedm]

As for the inapplicability of MWP (bastard sword), what will you do now for the poor cleric of a deity with whip as a favored weapon? He gets MWP (whip), so what does that do?

MWP (whip) does Squat.

Sage Advice advised against making war gods with exotic weapons IIRC, on the other hand, the sage also said in the same article it would not be terribly unbalancing to allow said cleric, with said deity and war domain, to receive the EWP.

As it happens few war deities play around with fancy toys, sticking with the Meat and Potatoes of martial weapons.

 

[Egres]

False Logic. There are cases that having each available is not the same as having all available.

As soon as a new one is invented, you no longer have proficiency with all Martial Weapons. Only the ones on your list. If you truely had proficiency with all martial weapons, then when a new one is invented, you automatically have the ability to use it.

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.

Now:

1) You are assuming that the DM uses this new book

2) You are assuming that this DM uses all of the new MWs

3) You are assuming that somewhere in the world 3 new MWs pop up from thin air.

So, let's call these new MWs badsword, badaxe and badhammer.

How exactly being proficient with them makes the fighter able to wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties?

No to mention that, automatically having the ability to use a new weapon (an optional weapon) as soon as it enters in the game doesn't explain why a fighter can wield a bastard sword two handed without penalties, since the bastard sword is a core weapon.

And, what would happen if the DM states that no new books will be used in his campaign?

 

[Stone Dog]

Okay, let me see if I have the argument right. Ignoring a bunch of stuff about a critter's stat blocks for the moment. The facts are...

A bastard sword is too large to use in one hand without special training.

A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

So some people on this thread are claiming that a fighter proficient in all martial weapons takes a -4 penalty while using the blade in two hands if the fighter doesn't have EWP(bastard sword). The fighter would take this penalty even though the text says that it is the one handed part that takes the special training. This same fighter who can already swing around two-handed slashing weapons that are heavier than a bastard sword without difficulty.

Is that about right?

Seriously, the fighter is just using the thing as a two-handed sword. He is already proficient in TWO OTHER two handed swords (falchion, greatsword), but still takes a penalty using THIS two handed sword because it is too heavy to be wielded in one hand without training.

And there is something about a bard trying to take MWP Bastard Sword to use the thing two handed. People have a problem with this? Is it so terribly wrong to allow a bard to burn a feat slot to swing a d10 bit of sharpened metal in two hands without -4 to attack roles?

A conversation could go something like this.

Player- I'd like to use a bastard sword two handed as a martial weapon.

GM- Okay.

Player- I roll to hit.

GM- Take a -4 because you don't have the exotic weapon proficiency.

Player- But I'm using it as a martial weapon right now and I DO have the martial weapon proficiency.

GM- Using it as a martial weapon doesn't mean that it is a martial weapon.

Player- But I'm using it as a martial weapon, doesn't that mean that I should use martial weapon rules?

GM- No, you would still need the Exotic Weapon feat because it is still an exotic weapon.

Player- ... buy your own damn soda next week.

 

[saucercrab]

So some people on this thread are claiming that a fighter proficient in all martial weapons takes a -4 penalty while using the blade in two hands if the fighter doesn't have EWP(bastard sword). The fighter would take this penalty even though the text says that it is the one handed part that takes the special training. This same fighter who can already swing around two-handed slashing weapons that are heavier than a bastard sword without difficulty.

Is that about right?

Whoa, I don't remember anyone saying that.