Unintended +3 to hit (questionable phrasing?) SOLVED: p275

[loisel]

Pages 55 (last paragraph), continuing into page 56.

Oh, good catch. So I think you have to read very tightly: "proficiency bonus... from your weapon" and "associated keyword". From this tight reading, the only possible bonuses are 1) from a feat, proficiency (if there's a weapon tag) and 2) from the item itself, enhancement (if there's a weapon or implement tag).

This pushes the problem somewhere else. For example, the feat sweeping flail, p206, is neither 1) nor 2). So possibly it doesn't give a bonus to attack (absurd reading of p56). More likely, p56 doesn't list all the possibilities.

I agree with you, I don't think you should gain the prof bonus, but I think the easiest fix is to write that in the paragon path.

 

[loisel]

I would recommend 275, as its specifically addresses that weapons proficiency only applies to weapon keywords. Absent that, I'd agree with the OP that proficiency bonuses apply to attacks that your implement apply to.

Nailed it.

 

[malraux]

This pushes the problem somewhere else. For example, the feat sweeping flail, p206, is neither 1) nor 2). So possibly it doesn't give a bonus to attack (absurd reading of p56). More likely, p56 doesn't list all the possibilities.

If the basic melee attack used in association with this has the weapon keyword, then it'll still get the prof bonus.