Skeleton template

[Infiniti2000]

Sure, it makes sense (which is why I said 'odd as that may sound' above). I just disagree, because the template specifically says that the skeleton retains all weapon proficiencies, and proficiencies from feats, as I read it, are included in all proficiencies.

No, it doesn't retain "all weapon proficiencies". It retains "weapon proficiencies of the base creature". In the case of a human fighter with EWP (b.sword), the base creature is the human, not the fighter with a feat because the feat is lost.

So, what weapon proficiencies does a human have? Only simple.

Now, on the other hand, undead are also proficient with "any weapons mentioned in its entry". Because it's a template, it has no entry. Or, maybe its entry is when you stat it up. So, in that case you can technically give a skeleton proficiency with any weapon you want just by listing it in its entry (no feat required). Same thing with armor! So, in the example above, if the fighter becomes a skeleton while wearing the scabbard with his b.sword, then he retains proficiency with bastard swords. If he were also wearing plate mail at the time, he would be proficiency with all armor and shields.

Let this be a lesson to necromancers everywhere. Before creating your undead hordes of skeletons, outfit them with nice equipment.

 

[Knight Otu]

No, it doesn't retain "all weapon proficiencies". It retains "weapon proficiencies of the base creature". In the case of a human fighter with EWP (b.sword), the base creature is the human, not the fighter with a feat because the feat is lost.

Err, the base creature is still "a human fighter with EWP (b.sword)" (More precisely, the base creature is a non-undead corporeal creature that has a skeletal system). Its the template that causes him to lose most of his stuff, not being a human. That's the reason why there is a Human Warrior Skeleton among the samples (wielding a martial weapon, even).

 

[Infiniti2000]

Err, the base creature is still "a human fighter with EWP (b.sword)" (More precisely, the base creature is a non-undead corporeal creature that has a skeletal system). Its the template that causes him to lose most of his stuff, not being a human. That's the reason why there is a Human Warrior Skeleton among the samples (wielding a martial weapon, even).

Okay, after rereading skeleton, I agree. The deciding point was the fact that skeleton is an acquired template. That, in fact, requires a classed human. A human without a class level could never become a skeleton.

I'd agree then that the example fighter I put forward retains proficiency in the b.sword and all martial/simple weapons.

 

[frankthedm]

Okay, after rereading skeleton, I agree. The deciding point was the fact that skeleton is an acquired template. That, in fact, requires a classed human. A human without a class level could never become a skeleton.

A human without a class level doesn't exist. The first level commoner represents the bottom rung of humaniods that don't have a fractional hit die [kobold] or 2 hit dice like a gnoll.

But yes, the bones of a warrior, notably an orc warrior are a better choice than a human commoner.

 

[Infiniti2000]

A human without a class level doesn't exist.

He does if it's an inherited template. That's the difference.

Of course, you have to apply the template and then add class levels to 'create' the human, but at the point the template is applied there are no class levels.