| claymade |
So, playing a Bard, about to take Craft Magic Arms and Armor next level, and so was perusing the various weapon abilities that might be able to synergize with the various buffs and debuffs I'm throwing out.
But then I came across the FAQ entry for Defending weapons which explained that "Merely holding a defending weapon is not sufficient. Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits. Therefore, if you don't make an attack roll with a defending weapon on your turn, you don't gain its defensive benefit."
And while the particular example being used was for the Defending property, Defending uses the same language about what the "wielder" can do as the other properties which (up until that point) I'd assumed were just passive bonuses. (e.g. stuff like Menacing, Ominous, Courageous, etc.) So does the same "attack required" criteria for Defending apply to all of those weapon properties as well? That seems to be what the FAQ is saying.
Except, applying that across the board that seems to make the Intimidate buff part of the Ominous ability, in particular, pretty near to useless. It applies a bonus to Intimidate checks... which are (for most characters) a standard action, which means that you can't make the attack roll you need to have the Ominous ability activate in the first place.
Is this really the intended way that Ominous is supposed to work? I mean, the bonus still isn't completely useless, as long as you have a feat like Cornugon Smash which lets you make an Intimidate check on the same turn as the required attack roll... but that really seems a more niche sort of thing than I would have expected, and I wanted to make sure I'm really interpreting this right.
| Kazaan |
It seems that way. If just "holding" a defending weapon isn't sufficient for it to enhance your defense, then just "holding" an ominous weapon isn't sufficient to make you more intimidating; I see nothing in the description of the 'ominous' weapon property to state otherwise. The idea is to prevent "token weapons" such as a Wizard simply hanging onto a defending dagger to get free defense for negligible cost. The idea of the Defending weapon is that it "transfers" its enhancement value to your AC so your attacks with the weapon are less effective while your defense is more effective. Ominous is a bit more 'on the fence' though, since it doesn't defer enhancement bonus to intimidate checks; it functions just the same whether you actually use it or not. However, the description of the ability does say that it "... trails a shadowy haze behind every stroke, and moans a menacing dirge in battle." which would seem to imply that it's only a noticeable effect when it's being used "as a weapon". That leads me to conclude that, yes, it must be used in some form of attack in conjunction with some way to get an intimidate check.
Options include, but are not limited to:
Demoralize (intimidate as free action on non-lethal damage)
Dread Rider (intimidate as free action after charge)
Intimidating Glare (intimidate as move action)
Bullying Blow (intimidate as free action after attack)
Dazzling Display (intimidate as full-round action "while wielding weapon with weapon focus") {this explicitly counts as "wielding" the weapon even without an attack}
Boar Ferocity (intimidate as free action after Boar Shred)
Gory Finish (intimidate as swift action after downing opponent to negative HP)
Cornugon Smash (intimidate as free action after Power Attack)
| Kazaan |
Additionally, I think it'd be acceptable to say you can use the "Manipulate an Item" action (a move action) to "brandish" a weapon and benefit from its special ability, even without making an attack with it. In other words, you "swing at nothing" as a move action and that lets you demonstrate the ominous weapon to gain the bonus to Intimidate checks, or demonstrate the defending weapon to gain the bonus to AC, so on and so forth.
| claymade |
It seems that way. If just "holding" a defending weapon isn't sufficient for it to enhance your defense, then just "holding" an ominous weapon isn't sufficient to make you more intimidating; I see nothing in the description of the 'ominous' weapon property to state otherwise.
Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. So it's pretty much useless for my purposes, as I don't have any of those feats that would let me actually use that bonus.
Dazzling Display (intimidate as full-round action "while wielding weapon with weapon focus") {this explicitly counts as "wielding" the weapon even without an attack}
I don't think this one would work, actually. As best I can read it, the requirement of "wielding" for the weapon ability isn't the same requirement as the requirement from the FAQ to actually make an attack. "Wielding" elsewhere in the CRB doesn't in and of itself imply an attack. For instance, in the combat section: "Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature." Do you need to have made an attack that turn to get the reach weapon benefit?
So as far as I can see, the requirement from the FAQ to--specifically--make an attack roll with the weapon in order for it's benefit to activate isn't part of the requirement to be "wielding" it, but rather a separate requirement that just generally applies to all weapon abilities. Thus, despite the fact that you are indeed "wielding" the weapon you're Dazzling Displaying with (and, by my read of the feat, need to be wielding it first in order to DD) you're still not making any kind of attack roll with it, so you'd be fulfilling one of the requirements for Ominous working, but not the other.
Additionally, I think it'd be acceptable to say you can use the "Manipulate an Item" action (a move action) to "brandish" a weapon and benefit from its special ability, even without making an attack with it. In other words, you "swing at nothing" as a move action and that lets you demonstrate the ominous weapon to gain the bonus to Intimidate checks, or demonstrate the defending weapon to gain the bonus to AC, so on and so forth.
Yeah, were I, personally, DMing I might well allow that as well if one of my players wanted to do it... but I don't think it'd work by RAW.
| Kazaan |
Mainly, the difference is "is the weapon itself being used". There's a big difference between casting a spell while happening to be holding a defending dagger and using a weapon with which you have Weapon Focus to swing about in an intimidating manner. Wield usually refers to making an attack, but other actions which involve the weapon for non-attack purposes would also suffice, which is why Dazzling Display is included in my list. To illustrate, when you're using a Defending weapon, it "knows" to attack in such a manner as to put you in the best position to not get hit; it guides your attacks to sacrifice potential damage in favor of greater defensive positioning. That's why it doesn't work when it's just hanging at your side while casting a spell; in that case, the presence of the defending weapon is merely incidental. But, if an Ominous weapon trails shadows when you swing it about and hums dirges when it "feels" like it's in combat (remember, these are magically enchanted weapons), then swinging the weapon about in a Dazzling Display would plausibly trigger that magical effect and make the display that much more intimidating. By contrast, if you're insulting their manhood while the weapon hangs incidentally at your side, it's not going to do much for you.
Manipulate an Item is a catch-all action which includes certain set actions such as storing/retrieving items, opening doors, lifting objects, etc. but there's nothing limiting it from "manipulating" items in more creative fashions. Also, it mechanizes the benefit; you must spend an action to gain the benefit of the weapon. RAW may not explicitly allow it, but it implicitly allows it while not explicitly prohibiting it. I always go with Implicit Allowance - Explicit Prohibition = Legal.