|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
OK. I have a player who plans on using a Aldori Dueling Sword for his weapon and in order to be proficient in it at level one he is taking a level in Monk (Wanderer) and using the level one ability to get proficiency in said sword.
At 1st level, the wanderer gains either one additional language known or proficiency in one exotic or martial weapon. At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, the wanderer may gain an additional language known or may retrain her weapon proficiency from this ability to a different exotic or martial weapon.
This ability replaces the bonus feat gained at 1st level.
Sword, Aldori Dueling
Used primarily by the Aldori swordlords who rule Brevoy, these swords are a bit over 3 feet long, very slightly curved, and sharp only along the outer edge.
Benefit: An Aldori dueling sword may be used as a Martial Weapon (in which case it functions as a longsword), but if you have the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Aldori dueling sword), you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls with an Aldori dueling sword sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon. You can also wield an Aldori dueling sword in two hands in order to apply 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus to damage.
He is taking the Weapon Finesse feat and I am thinking that the Wanderers Far Traveler ability does not qualify as the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Aldori dueling sword) to meet the requirements to get the weapon finesse part of the swords ability.
Opinions?
It does not count as the feat. It would have to say so, but I don't think it is OP to allow it as a houserule.
In other words being proficient with a weapon is not the same as having a feat.
|
|
Its cleared up, I have ruled that it does not count as the feat.
It did not work they way he wanted it to work anyway so he is switching weapons.
I pointed the Monk part out to him and suggested Fighter as a alternative for better BaB and HP but he wants to be able to Flurry Shurikens and needs Imp.Unarmed Strike for some things he needs later on, plus the little save bonus is nice as well.
He always makes slightly odd characters.
I don't understand why you would rule it as not counting as a feat for that. The feat and the class feature do the exact same thing, give proficiency with an exotic weapon. As for the wording on the what you can do with the sword, it looks like that prereq is only there to show that there are essentially two versions of the same weapon (like the bastard sword), with one being finesse-able and one not.
It does not matter if they do the same thing. By the rules you must possess the feat. Being proficient with weapon ____ is not the same as having a feat that gives you proficiency in it.
As an example the Red Mantis example has
Feats: "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (sawtooth sabre)" as a prerequisite. There are ways to get proficiency with this weapon and others without getting the feat.
Now if the prerequisite was proficiency with the sawtooth sabre that would be different.
As an example with the Eldritch Knight
Weapon Proficiency: Must be proficient with all martial weapons.
As you can see being just being proficient, and having a feat are not the same.
|
|
I don't understand why you would rule it as not counting as a feat for that. The feat and the class feature do the exact same thing, give proficiency with an exotic weapon. As for the wording on the what you can do with the sword, it looks like that prereq is only there to show that there are essentially two versions of the same weapon (like the bastard sword), with one being finesse-able and one not.
As Wraithstrike pointed out by RAW they are different.
I also play 100% by RAW I have Zero houserules in my games.
I also do not like players trying to sneak or cheese the rules for their benefit. Not that this case was sneaky or cheesy.
All of the Core Rulebook classes use very similar language as the "Far Traveler" ability when they grant proficiencies to classes.
Now look at the relevant proficiency feats. All of the ones for armor have as a "Special" that "[classes] automatically have [this feat] as a bonus feat".
For instance, "Armor Proficiency, Heavy" has "Special: Fighters and paladins automatically have Heavy Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it."
Similarly, "Armor Proficiency, Medium" has "Special: Barbarians, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers automatically have Medium Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it."
I think that makes it pretty clear that the intent of the language "[class/character] is proficient with [armor/weapon]" is that the actual feat is granted as a bonus feat.
That is not true "Are", and there is no general rule to support that.
As an example the pallys, barbarians, and fighters also are proficient with all martial weapons, but they are not assumed to have those feats as bonus feats.
By the same token Far Traveler would not grant the exotic weapon proficiency feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a very odd view. Do you think that makes more sense than the alternative?
The "Medium Armor Proficiency" feat requires the "Light Armor Proficiency" feat as a prerequisite. It doesn't simply say "proficiency with light armor".
Do you believe that an alchemist (not included as one of the classes in the "Special" line, since it's not from the CRB) would have to take the Light Armor Proficiency feat before they could take the Medium Armor Proficiency feat, or do you think the language "they are also proficient with light armor" is sufficient to fulfil the requirement?
It is not an odd view. There is no general rule that says proficiency is the same as having a feat. Half-Orcs as an example are proficient with certain weapons, just like elves are. They don't get free feats though. If the feats did not matter then the Red Mantis Assassin would not call for the feat. It would only call for proficiency.
As for the alchemist it does have the Light armor proficiency feat.
Armor Proficiency, Light (Combat)
You are skilled at wearing light armor.
Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks.
Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which he is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving.
Special: except monks, sorcerers, and wizards automatically have Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
Edit:That includes any class made after the CRB. Hopefully they remember to write in certain classes that they don't get it.
And you can be sure that it's not just another case of two different people writing things in slightly different ways?
Personally, I'm 100% sure that the intent is that "is proficient with" functions the exact same way as having the feat itself, for all purposes. And note that I'm not saying that lightly. I'm well aware that you're virtually always correct when it comes to rules disputes.
Since you apparently "got me" on the Light Armor Proficiency bit.. What about the fact that the "Heavy Armor Proficiency" feat requires the "Medium Armor Proficiency" feat, which no non-core classes automatically get as part of that feat's Special line? Do you believe that an Oracle or Inquisitor would need to select both feats in order to wear heavy armor with proficiency?
Edit: Also note that I never said the rules specifically stated this. I said I believe that's what the intent is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing that suggests I'm right:
The Ultimate Combat version of the "Rapid Reload" feat has as its prerequisites: "Weapon Proficiency (crossbow type chosen) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearm)."
The Gunslinger class says "Gunslingers are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, and with all firearms. They are proficient with all light armor."
I don't think it's possible to argue that the intent in this case is that Gunslingers will have to take an additional feat before they can take the "Rapid Reload" feat. Thus, the "Gunslingers are proficient with ..., and with all firearms" must mean the same thing as "Gunslingers have the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearm) feat".
I think Paizo needs to make rule to make armor consistent across the board. However getting a free feat for armor makes sense so that upgrading is easier. There is no reason to do the same for weapons since you don't upgrade.
Also saying Barbarians have all martial weapon proficiency feats is not that much more than saying Barbarians are proficient with all martial weapons, if they wanted it to work that way. It would also take care of situations where a PrC specifically called for a feat instead of proficiency.
I look at the ability listed by the OP as another way to gain proficiency. It should not however be looked at as a feat, without saying you can bonus feat X*. At every 4th level you may change out bonus feat X.
*Whatever exotic weapon is desired.
Last example:When X(sawtooth sabre) counts as Y(longsword), as an example, it is normally stated. This ability has no such statement.
Even in core the sun blade has such wording.
PS:I do understand we are discussing RAI. :)
Unless they believe the two wording choices are interchangeable, in which case it would be unnecessary to fix one of the choices (although making it clear would certainly be a good thing) :)
Did you see my Rapid Reload / Gunslinger post?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being proficient with the weapon counts as having the needed proficiency feat.
To even think otherwise is madness.
If it were otherwise, then any player with proficiency gained through class or racial ability would never be able to take a number feats relating to the weapons that they are proficient with.
As I said, madness.
You are assuming the the source of proficiency is feats, from my understandign. I am not. The ability in the opening source is just another way to gain proficiency. Just because a feat can do it, that does not mean all choices default back to a feat.
As for your example it says "Weapon Proficiency (crossbow type chosen) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearm)"
There is no feat called "weapon proficiency". That means you just need to be proficient in whatever crossbow you choose to use rapid reload with, and since it can be take multiple times you just apply it to a different crossbow every time.
By the same token you should just need proficiency in the firearm you intend to use it with, not a feat.
The instructions say "Choose a type of crossbow (hand, light, heavy) or a single type of one-handed or two-handed firearm that you are proficient with. You can reload such a weapon quickly."
Being proficient with the weapon counts as having the needed proficiency feat.
To even think otherwise is madness.
If it were otherwise, then any player with proficiency gained through class or racial ability would never be able to take a number feats relating to the weapons that they are proficient with.
As I said, madness.
Feats such as weapon focus don't require you to have a feat. They only call for proficiency. You can be proficient just by being race X.
Example:
Weapon Focus (Combat)
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
As you can see no feat is required, only proficiency is. It does not matter if I get it from a feat, class, or trait.
edit:speaking of traits.
Heirloom Weapon
You carry a non-masterwork simple or martial weapon that has been passed down from generation to generation in your family.
*Benefit: When you select this trait, choose one of the following benefits:
proficiency with that specific weapon
We know that traits are supposed are supposed to be less than feats so this also shows that feats are not the sole source of proficiency.
edit2:
At its core, a character trait is approximately equal in power to half a feat,
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also play 100% by RAW I have Zero houserules in my games.
Since the main question of the thread has been answered, I assume it's okay to go a little bit OT... How does this work? Do you even use rules that are completely stupid (like the perception rules)? I've been thinking of making The Raw Wastes in my campaign setting, a minor lawful neutral plane where all the stupid parts of the rules apply (you can't see the tarrasque at 200 ft, if you die from something other than damage you can still act etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I knew someone was going to go after the 100% RAW statement.
<Grabs soda and chips>
The reason it says "Weapon Proficiency (crossbow type chosen)" is because there exists crossbows in both the Simple weapon group and in the Exotic weapon group. It would take up quite a bit of additional space to say "Simple Weapon Proficiency (crossbow type chosen) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (crossbow type chosen)".
Also, the "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" in the Rapid Reload feat is hyperlinked back to the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat (in the PRD).
It's also the way all other feat prerequisites in all other feats are written, with capital letters at the start of each word. Only feat prerequisites are written that way, as far as I can see from a quick look.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, you think a Grippli can't take the Net Adept feat?
You think Tengu can't take the Taldan Duelist feat?
Whether it is the Martial Weapon Proficiency or Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, or a class or racial granted proficiency, it's all treated the same.
Otherwise, it's all just madness.
Batsh*t madness.
The game most likely assumes you will have to take the feat to gain proficiency, and did not account for the gunslinger. It should just call for proficiency like it does with the crossbows, and like weapon focus does. For some reason the Aldori swordlord is being restrictive by actually calling out the feat instead of just calling out proficiency. I think most GM's would ignore it, but I can't say the RAI is that all proficiency points you back to a feat since there there is nothing to show that is the only way to gain proficiency especially after I just posted a trait that allows it.
Yes by RAW you would may need the exotic weapon feat to take rapid reload. RAI I am willing to bet proficiency is enough.
Of course now I am wondering if whoever wrote the swordlord intended to be that restrictive. Personally, it should not matter if the proficiecy came from a feat or a race etc....Either you know how to use the weapon or you don't.
Considering the feat was re-written specifically for the Ultimate Combat book, where both firearms and the Gunslinger were introduced to the game, I'm pretty certain it did account for the gunslinger.
The original CRB version of the feat didn't mention firearms at all, since they weren't introduced in the game yet.
So, you think a Grippli can't take the Net Adept feat?
You think Tengu can't take the Taldan Duelist feat?
Whether it is the Martial Weapon Proficiency or Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, or a class or racial granted proficiency, it's all treated the same.
Otherwise, it's all just madness.
Batsh*t madness.
RAW-no dice
RAI-I am unsure since I agree that it seems silly. I think it needs an FAQ. I know I would allow it, but I can see the logic behind "Make them spend the feat also. The resource use is part of admission..."
Personally, it should not matter if the proficiecy came from a feat or a race etc....Either you know how to use the weapon or you don't.
That's what I'm saying. If the two (having the feat, and having proficiency with the item) are interchangeable, which is what I believe, then it all works the same way.
Considering the feat was re-written specifically for the Ultimate Combat book, where both firearms and the Gunslinger were introduced to the game, I'm pretty certain it did account for the gunslinger.
The original CRB version of the feat didn't mention firearms at all, since they weren't introduced in the game yet.
IIRC the feat came from the Golarion campaign book, since it did have firearms.
Personally, it should not matter if the proficiecy came from a feat or a race etc....Either you know how to use the weapon or you don't.That's what I'm saying. If the two (having the feat, and having proficiency with the item) are interchangeable, which is what I believe, then it all works the same way.
I had to turn down the dial from RAW to "is this reasonable". :)
Either way, it was republished in Ultimate Combat, alongside the rules for firearms and the rules for the Gunslinger class. I think it's unlikely that Paizo would miss fixing it if they thought it needed fixing.
Edited:
I had to turn down the dial from RAW to "is this reasonable". :)
I think that's my cue to go to bed :)
|
Of course now I am wondering if whoever wrote the swordlord intended to be that restrictive. Personally, it should not matter if the proficiecy came from a feat or a race etc....Either you know how to use the weapon or you don't.
And this is why I would treat the two as equivalent. It seems really bizarre to me that a race with Weapon Familiarity with an exotic weapon would be unable to take feats related to that weapon (like Net Adept) or enter prestige classes focused on that weapon without wasting an extra feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
Since with Rapid Reload there's at least one instance of a feat requiring "Exotic Weapon Proficiency" as a prerequisite when the clear intent is "proficient with weapon," it seems to me that the two are used interchangeably.
As far as whether he can use Weapon Finesse with it based on the Far Traveler ability--absolutely. Just the same as how a Tengu can automatically wield a Bastard Sword one-handed. Proficiency in Aldori Dueling Sword means the ability to use it with Weapon Finesse; otherwise, it's a longsword.
Now, whether Far Traveler qualifies you for feats or PrCs that require a proficiency feat is another question. In any sane ruling, the answer is yes, but that's the area where the RAW is fuzzy.
|
|
I also play 100% by RAW I have Zero houserules in my games.Since the main question of the thread has been answered, I assume it's okay to go a little bit OT... How does this work? Do you even use rules that are completely stupid (like the perception rules)? I've been thinking of making The Raw Wastes in my campaign setting, a minor lawful neutral plane where all the stupid parts of the rules apply (you can't see the tarrasque at 200 ft, if you die from something other than damage you can still act etc).
Whats wrong with the perception rules?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that proficiency with an exotic weapon is not equal to Exotic Weapon Proficiency with said weapon seems absurd.
If it was the intent of the developers to be that restrictive I'd like to think they would express that better.
It's not unreasonable to assume the two are the same, so ruling otherwise seems unreasonable.