Fortuitous Weapon Enhancement


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

46 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

So lurking around these forums I stumbled upon a fellow who said that you must be able to make additional AoOs, like per Combat Reflexes, to benefit from Fortuitous ability.
Why? It says that it grants you more AoOs. It doesn't say that enemies you hit with your AoO provoke additional AoO, it says you can make a second AoO.
Can someone explain? Because I can't really interpret it that way.

Grand Lodge

Sergeek The Mad wrote:

So lurking around these forums I stumbled upon a fellow who said that you must be able to make additional AoOs, like per Combat Reflexes, to benefit from Fortuitous ability.

Why? It says that it grants you more AoOs. It doesn't say that enemies you hit with your AoO provoke additional AoO, it says you can make a second AoO.
Can someone explain? Because I can't really interpret it that way.

Here, read THIS thread about it.

Basically, it says you may make a second AoO. You are limited to one AoO per round unless you have Combat Reflexes (or something similar).

If it said something like "once per round after making an attack of opportunity you may make a free attack at -5" then you wouldn't need combat reflexes. So the debate is whether it's a free AoOor whether it consumes an AoO.


claudekennilol wrote:
You are limited to one AoO per round unless you have Combat Reflexes (or something similar).

But won't specific rules trample the general ones?

claudekennilol wrote:
Here, read THIS thread about it.

It supports both points well.

There was no official clarification on that subject?

Grand Lodge

Sergeek The Mad wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
You are limited to one AoO per round unless you have Combat Reflexes (or something similar).
But won't specific rules trample the general ones?

That's like saying if I provoke twice by doing something like trying to trip you then trying to disarm you (without having the feats to not provoke), that you get an AoO against me for each even though you you don't have Combat Reflexes. They both specifically provoke. Does that negate the rule about you only get one AoO per turn because they both specifically provoke?

Quote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Here, read THIS thread about it.

It supports both points well.

There was no official clarification on that subject?

Nope, that thread is only a few weeks old


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's a bad comparison. The weapon enchantment specifically says that you get an extra AoO. Provoking says nothing of the sort.

Once again, your interpretation falls into the 'developers are idiots' category, whereby they created an enchantment utterly useless to a large majority of PCs.


claudekennilol wrote:
That's like saying if I provoke twice by doing something like trying to trip you then trying to disarm you (without having the feats to not provoke), that you get an AoO against me for each even though you you don't have Combat Reflexes. They both specifically provoke. Does that negate the rule about you only get one AoO per turn because they both specifically provoke?

No, it doesn't negate the rule, because it is specifically stated in trip/disarm rules that those maneuvers provoke, not allow your enemy to make an AoO. But I see nothing about "the target you hit with Fortuitous weapon provokes additional attack of opportunity". You're just making it, and only the initial attack must be provoked.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Once again, your interpretation falls into the 'developers are idiots' category, whereby they created an enchantment utterly useless to a large majority of PCs.

I'm not implying anything, but there is a huge amount of situational abilities, as well as abilities which are more of a hindrance than help. You can't really judge mechanics like that, it's 3.X after all.

Grand Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:

That's a bad comparison. The weapon enchantment specifically says that you get an extra AoO. Provoking says nothing of the sort.

Once again, your interpretation falls into the 'developers are idiots' category, whereby they created an enchantment utterly useless to a large majority of PCs.

I wouldn't call them idiots at all. And I never claimed that to be my interpretation. I presented both interpretations. If you follow the text to read that you only get extra AoOs if you have extra AoOs to spend, then it's only useful if your character has invested in that being useful (i.e. have Combat Reflexes (or something similar)). In my experience, a large number of characters have Combat Reflexes. Sure, my comparison isn't perfect, but how can you spend a second if you don't have a second to spend.

If I give you a dollar and tell you that you can buy two candy bars, but each candy bar costs a dollar, are you going to make the clerk sell you two for a single dollar?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Look at the inspired enhancement, or the grayflame enhancement or the furious enhencement. Lots of enhancements are only useful to people who have certain class features or certain feats. Having fortuitous need combat reflexes/something to get extra AoO to use seems in line with other +1 enhancements. Getting a free attack from speed is a +4 right? 2d6 from holy is a +2, so I don't feel that it can be too strong.

Shadow Lodge

Mighty Cleaving is a good example. It gives you an extra attack only while using the Cleave feat, and is thus only useful to characters with that feat, and only useful to them in a situation where they are using that feat while facing three or more enemies that are all adjacent to each other.

Fortuitous is probably useful to more PCs more of the time than Mighty Cleaving.


claudekennilol wrote:
If I give you a dollar and tell you that you can buy two candy bars, but each candy bar costs a dollar, are you going to make the clerk sell you two for a single dollar?

I understand from where you're coming from, and I would agree, if ability description didn't say outright that it grants you more AoOs.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Getting a free attack from speed is a +4 right? 2d6 from holy is a +2, so I don't feel that it can be too strong.

And there is dueling ability. So, yes, as I said before - ruling things buy powerlevel is not a wise thing to do.

Weirdo wrote:
Mighty Cleaving is a good example.

It specifically calls for the Cleave feat though.

Grand Lodge

Sergeek The Mad wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
If I give you a dollar and tell you that you can buy two candy bars, but each candy bar costs a dollar, are you going to make the clerk sell you two for a single dollar?

I understand from where you're coming from, and I would agree, if ability description didn't say outright that it grants you more AoOs.

The description doesn't say you may take more AoOs than you are able.

d20pfsrd wrote:

This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty.

It's exactly like my candy bar analogy.

Here's the same analogy said differently.

You have a dollar in your pocket.
There's a sign at the store that says "buy one candy bar for a dollar and you can buy the second one half off". Does the sign grant you any more dollars to buy more candy bars?

You have one AoO available.
Someone provokes and you hit them, you can now make a second AoO.
Does that mean you you can make a second even though you only have one or is it granting you a second?


This one looks fairly clear to me. The quality "grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity". Nothing about provoking a second AoO. Grants more AoO.


Kifaru wrote:
This one looks fairly clear to me. The quality "grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity". Nothing about provoking a second AoO. Grants more AoO.

A Sale grants the buyer more purchasing power. When the buyer of a candy buys a candy, he can buy a second candy in the same purchase for half off.

Now this is formatted the same as the enhancement, but clearly wouldn't allow someone with 1 dollar to buy 2 candies that are normally 1 dollar.

Also I'm not sure yet which way I feel is the correct way, both of them seem to have support.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only on these boards can a sentence that says:

"grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity"

be read as not granting the wielder more attacks of opportunity.


The candy bar analogy would be more appropriate as "candy! Two for one!" The feat clearly states that you get more for your purchasing power.


There are no 1/2 AoOs. It's strictly a buy one, get one free situation.

Shadow Lodge

I personally believe that "you may make an AoO" means the same thing as "your opponent provokes an AoO." As I pointed out on the linked thread, the Greater Trip + Vicious Stomp FAQ (found here) uses "take an AoO" when the feats themselves use "provokes an AoO", suggesting the two phrases are interchangeable. If it meant for the attack not to consume one of your available AoO it would have said "you may make a free attack with the weapon" or "you may make an additional attack with the weapon as a free action."

However as there seems to be some disagreement I'll mark it as an FAQ.

More abilities with the "make an AoO" wording, which might be affected by a ruling that you can make an AoO without using an AoO:

Combat Patrol:
Benefit: As a full-round action, you may set up a combat patrol, increasing your threatened area by 5 feet for every 5 points of your base attack bonus. Until the beginning of your next turn, you may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity. You may move as part of these attacks, provided your total movement before your next turn does not exceed your speed. Any movement you make provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.

Crane Wing:
Benefit: You take only a –1 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against an opponent, that opponent’s first attack that misses you provokes an attack of opportunity from you. In addition, when you deflect an attack using Crane Wing while taking the total defense action, you may make an attack of opportunity against that opponent (even though you could not normally do so while taking the total defense action).

Snake Fang:
Benefit: While using the Snake Style feat, when an opponent’s attack misses you, you can make an unarmed strike against that opponent as an attack of opportunity. If this attack of opportunity hits, you can spend an immediate action to make another unarmed strike against the same opponent.

Sergeek The Mad wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Mighty Cleaving is a good example.
It specifically calls for the Cleave feat though.

Yes, because it needs to. The cleave feat is its own action. Combat Reflexes is not it's own action, it improves your ability to use the AoO action, thus referring to the AoO mechanic (which is limited in use) is sufficient. And it's not the only effect that grants extra AoO - others include the Quick Reflexes rage power and the Kensai's Superior Reflexes ability, and Elven Battle Training.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Only on these boards can a sentence that says:

"grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity"

be read as not granting the wielder more attacks of opportunity.

If you didn't have a Fortuitous weapon, you would only be able to take one AoO per provoking action. Thus, the Fortuitous weapon allows you to make an extra AoO that you would not have been able to make earlier. I have a bloodrager who gets 2 AoO per round, and even with a reach weapon and Snake Fang I find I more often run into situations where only one AoO is provoked than situations where 3 or more are provoked. Fortuitous would therefore, in most situations, allow me to make more AoO.


Using your definition, this statement:

"grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity"

is definitively false for the majority of the people who would pick up the weapon (those without combat reflexes).

If I have 1 AoO available, and I pick up the weapon, the enchantment grants me more attacks of opportunity. That means more than 1.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Only on these boards can a sentence that says:

"grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity"

be read as not granting the wielder more attacks of opportunity.

+1


_Ozy_ wrote:

Using your definition, this statement:

"grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity"

is definitively false for the majority of the people who would pick up the weapon (those without combat reflexes).

If I have 1 AoO available, and I pick up the weapon, the enchantment grants me more attacks of opportunity. That means more than 1.

actually if you needed combat reflexes then the majority if people getting the enhancement would have that and people who didn't wouldn't get that enhancement. Look at what you said and apply it to mighty cleaving


Yes, let's look at that enchantment:

Quote:
A mighty cleaving weapon allows a wielder using the Cleave feat to make one additional attack if the first attack hits, as long as the next foe is adjacent to the first and also within reach.

Ok, now find the term Combat Reflexes in the Fortuitous enchantment and you will have a good point.

Now, let's go ahead and extend your logic to the Mighty Cleave enchantment. Since normally one can't take more than a single cleave attack using the cleave feat, then clearly unless you have an iterative attack left to use for the might cleave enchantment you can't actually take that 'additional attack'. Because 'additional attack' obviously doesn't mean you get an extra attack, even though it says you do.

That, in effect, is exactly what you guys are arguing for the Fortuitous enchantment.


I thought the answer to this would be easy, but it turns out there's a wording clarity problem in the rules going on here.
There are actually two different (hidden) definitions of Attack of Opportunity.

Definition 1:
An Attack of Opportunity is what happens when a creature performs an action which leaves it vulnerable.

Definition 2:
An Attack of Opportunity is the actual attack, or ability to attack, when presented with a vulnerable creature from the above definition.

Fortuitous wrote:
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty.

A) If you read this ability with definition 1 in mind, this weapon causes the foe to provoke a second time. You would need Combat Reflexes to take advantage of it.

B) If instead, you read it with definition 2, the weapon grants you the ability to make another AoO against that foe this round. However, the foe would need to provoke a second time in order for you to make this additional AoO.

C) Finally, you can also read it such that it includes both definitions 1 AND 2. In this case, the foe provokes a second time AND you can make an additional AoO against it.

Now, which of these is the correct way to read the ability?
To me, it seems A or C is most likely intended, but it's really completely up to GM's interpretation without official clarification.
I would lean towards option C, personally.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Yes, let's look at that enchantment:

Quote:
A mighty cleaving weapon allows a wielder using the Cleave feat to make one additional attack if the first attack hits, as long as the next foe is adjacent to the first and also within reach.

Ok, now find the term Combat Reflexes in the Fortuitous enchantment and you will have a good point.

Now, let's go ahead and extend your logic to the Mighty Cleave enchantment. Since normally one can't take more than a single cleave attack using the cleave feat, then clearly unless you have an iterative attack left to use for the might cleave enchantment you can't actually take that 'additional attack'. Because 'additional attack' obviously doesn't mean you get an extra attack, even though it says you do.

That, in effect, is exactly what you guys are arguing for the Fortuitous enchantment.

Fine perhaps a bad example.

grayflame:
This weapon responds to channeled positive and negative energy.

When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon, it ignites with a strange gray flame that sheds light as a torch, increases the weapon's enhancement bonus by +1, and deals +1d6 damage (as the divine power from flame strike) to creatures struck by the weapon. This flame lasts for 1 round for every d6 of damage or healing the channeling normally provides. When charged with positive energy, the flame is a silvery gray, good creatures are immune to the weapon's extra damage, and the weapon counts as a good and silver weapon for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. When charged with negative energy, the flame is an ashen gray, evil creatures are immune to the weapon's extra damage, and the weapon counts as an evil and cold iron weapon for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

Obviously you don't need the Channel Energy class feature to use this ability, since it doesn't say I need it.
Spell Storing:
A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance of having a spell stored in it already. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.
Here the spell caster can cast any spell, even ones not on his spell list.

Ki Intensifying:
After a successful strike with a ki intensifying weapon, the wielder can spend 1 ki point as a swift action to perform a combat maneuver to bull rush, disarm, reposition, or trip as a free action without provoking attacks of opportunity. Any bonuses or penalties applicable to the weapon attack also apply to this combat maneuver check. The wielder cannot move from her space as a part of the chosen maneuver.
Doesn't say I need to have a ki pool or points left in my Ki pool as it says I can spend a ki point to do it.


Byakko wrote:

I thought the answer to this would be easy, but it turns out there's a wording clarity problem in the rules going on here.

There are actually two different (hidden) definitions of Attack of Opportunity.

Definition 1:
An Attack of Opportunity is what happens when a creature performs an action which leaves it vulnerable.

Definition 2:
An Attack of Opportunity is the actual attack, or ability to attack, when presented with a vulnerable creature from the above definition.

Fortuitous wrote:
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty.

A) If you read this ability with definition 1 in mind, this weapon causes the foe to provoke a second time. You would need Combat Reflexes to take advantage of it.

B) If instead, you read it with definition 2, the weapon grants you the ability to make another AoO against that foe this round. However, the foe would need to provoke a second time in order for you to make this additional AoO.

C) Finally, you can also read it such that it includes both definitions 1 AND 2. In this case, the foe provokes a second time AND you can make an additional AoO against it.

Now, which of these is the correct way to read the ability?
To me, it seems A or C is most likely intended, but it's really completely up to GM's interpretation without official clarification.
I would lean towards option C, personally.

How on earth would an enchantment that you are wielding cause a foe to provoke again? For doing what? That operates completely against the rules for provoking. Secondly, if it did cause a foe to provoke a second time, then that foe would provoke AoOs from ALL potential attackers around it.

Neither A nor C make any sense whatsoever. B is just what happens when someone has combat reflexes, except they don't get penalized with a -5 to hit, so it's even worse than the feat. If the enchantment just wanted to give people an extra AoO, it would have been written like the Shaman Wandering Battle spirit ability:

Quote:
Battle Master (Ex): The shaman makes an extra attack of opportunity each round. This ability stacks with the attacks of opportunity granted by the Combat Reflexes feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm inclined to think the weapon grants the extra attack and the author just got a little wordy. It probably should read:

Quote:
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty.


Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Yes, let's look at that enchantment:

Quote:
A mighty cleaving weapon allows a wielder using the Cleave feat to make one additional attack if the first attack hits, as long as the next foe is adjacent to the first and also within reach.

Ok, now find the term Combat Reflexes in the Fortuitous enchantment and you will have a good point.

Now, let's go ahead and extend your logic to the Mighty Cleave enchantment. Since normally one can't take more than a single cleave attack using the cleave feat, then clearly unless you have an iterative attack left to use for the might cleave enchantment you can't actually take that 'additional attack'. Because 'additional attack' obviously doesn't mean you get an extra attack, even though it says you do.

That, in effect, is exactly what you guys are arguing for the Fortuitous enchantment.

Fine perhaps a bad example.

** spoiler omitted **Obviously you don't need the Channel Energy class feature to use this ability, since it doesn't say I need it.
[spoiler=Spell...
Greyflame:
Quote:
When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon

again, the relevant necessary ability is specifically called out. Where again is combat reflexes mentioned in the fortuitous enchantment?

Spell Storing: frankly have no idea what you're on about with this one, the enchantment is awesome for everyone, even more so for non-spellcasters.

Ki Intensifying:

Quote:
The weapon channels and amplifies the wielder's ki, allowing her to use her special ki attacks through the weapon as though they were unarmed attacks.

It also specifically calls out the use of ki points, in the ability.

Once again, the relevant ability is listed in the description. Are you sure these examples demonstrate your point?


Ozy:

Why wouldn't a magic weapon be able to cause a foe to provoke again? There's far stranger things magic can do in this game. Also, there's plenty of examples of where a creature can provoke an AoO from one creature but not others.

All 3 of those readings are actually perfectly valid. Try not to get caught up in what is actually "good" and "makes sense", and instead look at what the rules actually say.

I'm also surprised that you say option C makes no sense... as it causes the result you're advocating. heh.


Byakko wrote:

Why wouldn't a magic weapon be able to cause a foe to provoke again? There's far stranger things magic can do in this game. Also, there's plenty of examples of where a creature can provoke an AoO from one creature but not others.

All 3 of those readings are actually perfectly valid. Try not to get caught up in what is actually "good" and "makes sense", and instead look at what the rules actually say.

Because nowhere in the enchantment does it say the word 'provoke', nor does it say 'provoke against the wielder'.

So at this point, you're just inventing stuff out of thin air.

At some point, Occam's Razor is going to get an AoO against you.


Fine, Ozy, have it your way. The weapon enchantment doesn't cause the foe to provoke a second time.

You may now take your second attack of opportunity.... but wait, the foe only provoked once, and you're not allowed to make two AoO versus the same action.
Guess you don't get that second attack after all. (unless they provoke again)

You're basically arguing for reading B.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Greyflame:

Quote:


When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon
again, the relevant necessary ability is specifically called out. Where again is combat reflexes mentioned in the fortuitous enchantment?

No, my fighter will spend a swift action to "channel energy" through the weapon. Nothing says it has to be the clerics channel energy class feature.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Spell Storing: frankly have no idea what you're on about with this one, the enchantment is awesome for everyone, even more so for non-spellcasters.

I'm saying that it says a spellcaster can cast any spell into the weapon. Meaning my lv1 bard will cast inflict serious wounds into the weapon. Since it doesn't say I can cast any spell I know or can cast into it but ANY spell.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Ki Intensifying:

Quote:
The weapon channels and amplifies the wielder's ki, allowing her to use her special ki attacks through the weapon as though they were unarmed attacks.
It also specifically calls out the use of ki points, in the ability.

Once again, the relevant ability is listed in the description. Are you sure these examples demonstrate your point?

Nothing says you need a ki pool to use this ability or to be able to expend the ki point to use the special effects. It says I can do so, thus it's giving me the ability to do so. So my lv1 fighter will do so.


Of course I'm not.

I'm saying that the enchantment does exactly what it says you can do because specific overrides general. You get two attacks for one provocation, basically you get a second iterative AoO attack at -5.

Otherwise this enchantment would be in every way worse than combat reflexes. Thus it would be useless for those without the feat, and now useless for those with the feat.

That is, unless you want to claim that Mighty Cleave doesn't work because you can only cleave once. Again, that's what you're arguing, that the general rules are overriding the specific wording of an enchantment.


Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Greyflame:

Quote:


When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon
again, the relevant necessary ability is specifically called out. Where again is combat reflexes mentioned in the fortuitous enchantment?

No, my fighter will spend a swift action to "channel energy" through the weapon. Nothing says it has to be the clerics channel energy class feature.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Spell Storing: frankly have no idea what you're on about with this one, the enchantment is awesome for everyone, even more so for non-spellcasters.

I'm saying that it says a spellcaster can cast any spell into the weapon. Meaning my lv1 bard will cast inflict serious wounds into the weapon. Since it doesn't say I can cast any spell I know or can cast into it but ANY spell.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Ki Intensifying:

Quote:
The weapon channels and amplifies the wielder's ki, allowing her to use her special ki attacks through the weapon as though they were unarmed attacks.
It also specifically calls out the use of ki points, in the ability.

Once again, the relevant ability is listed in the description. Are you sure these examples demonstrate your point?

Nothing says you need a ki pool to use this ability or to be able to expend the ki point to use the special effects. It says I can do so, thus it's giving me the ability to do so. So my lv1 fighter will do so.

You're either trolling or being deliberately obtuse.

You don't HAVE those abilities listed unless you have channel energy, or a ki pool. The people with those abilities specified in the enchantment can use it.

However, EVERYONE has the capability to perform an AoO. And yet, you would say that everyone who has the specific ability listed in the Fortuitous enchantment can't actually use the enchantment, unless they have a feat that isn't even mentioned in the enchantment (like Mighty Cleave).

You argument makes absolutely no sense.


I don't know Mighty Cleave off the back of my head, so not going to touch that.

Specific trumps general, but there is no specific rule here that says you can ignore the limit of one AoO per AoO provocation.

The items says you can make an additional AoO at a -5 penalty. Thus, if they provoke twice, and you have this weapon, you can now take a second AoO at a -5 penalty. No where does it says you get this second AoO against the same provocation. (with reading B)

Again, this isn't how I would rule it, but this is a legal reading.

Also, there's plenty of perfectly horrid and useless enhancements out there, so usefulness isn't a terribly strong argument.

-------------

You have a strong tendency to argue based on what you feel is RAI while completely ignoring RAW. I'm not saying this to insult and it's a very good stance to take while GMing, in general. However, I feel it's also important that we get RAW to align reasonably well RAI, especially where confusion does exist. Ignoring these logical discrepancies doesn't help us acquire better official rules.


RAW says specific overrides general.

Specific says the weapon grants you more AoOs, and defines that as the ability to take an extra AoO with a -5 to hit.

This is all RAW.

You guys have a tendency to ignore the fact that specific overrides general, and therefore misunderstand what simple language like:

You get to take an extra AoO at -5 to hit

actually means. Instead you invent this convoluted architecture of extra provocations that only work for the wielder, and only if you have a feat that the enhancement never mentions.

This is why I mention Occam's razor. You need about 3 or 4 extra assumptions that aren't mentioned anywhere in the enchantment to try to have it make any sense using your interpretation.

I just need one: that the words mean what they say.

I've said before that there should be some mechanism of wagering on this site to represent how sure you are of your interpretation. In other instances, I've mentioned wagering $100 that a dev FAQ would support my interpretation.

The language is so clear on this, I would easily wager $1000, and consider it a fool's bet to bet against me.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Greyflame:

Quote:


When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon
again, the relevant necessary ability is specifically called out. Where again is combat reflexes mentioned in the fortuitous enchantment?

No, my fighter will spend a swift action to "channel energy" through the weapon. Nothing says it has to be the clerics channel energy class feature.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Spell Storing: frankly have no idea what you're on about with this one, the enchantment is awesome for everyone, even more so for non-spellcasters.

I'm saying that it says a spellcaster can cast any spell into the weapon. Meaning my lv1 bard will cast inflict serious wounds into the weapon. Since it doesn't say I can cast any spell I know or can cast into it but ANY spell.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Ki Intensifying:

Quote:
The weapon channels and amplifies the wielder's ki, allowing her to use her special ki attacks through the weapon as though they were unarmed attacks.
It also specifically calls out the use of ki points, in the ability.

Once again, the relevant ability is listed in the description. Are you sure these examples demonstrate your point?

Nothing says you need a ki pool to use this ability or to be able to expend the ki point to use the special effects. It says I can do so, thus it's giving me the ability to do so. So my lv1 fighter will do so.

You're either trolling or being deliberately obtuse.

You don't HAVE those abilities listed unless you have channel energy, or a ki pool. The people with those abilities specified in the enchantment can use it.

However, EVERYONE has the capability to perform an AoO. And yet, you would say that everyone who has the specific ability listed in the Fortuitous enchantment can't actually use the enchantment, unless they have a feat that isn't even mentioned in the enchantment (like Mighty Cleave).

You argument makes absolutely no sense.

I'm using that the specific rules in the enhancements overrides the general rules. The nothing in those enhancement as listed prevents any of my interpretations do they? if you're saying that there's no ambiguity in what the enhancement is allowing, that you don't need an available AoO to make an AoO, then I don't see why you'd have a problem with any of these interpretations. If there's something you feel is different please explain so that I may understand where you're coming from.


You have an available AoO, the enchantment gives you an extra one at -5 to hit. If you were using one of your 'normal' AoOs, you wouldn't have the -5 to hit.

That's why the enchantment says 'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

Tell me, if I don't have combat reflexes, which of course the enchantment never mentions, how do I get 'more' attacks of opportunity, which is what the RAW says.

In your mind, is 1 more than 1?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ozy, the only one making extra assumptions and adding extra unstated rules here is you. You're making stuff up to have the item do what you feel it should do, none of which is backed up by anything more than your opinion.

While your intuition is often decent, the fact that you constantly ignore and deny alternate readings is a pretty good indication that you're not looking objectively at these rules issues. Making wagers is pretty pointless since in most cases I feel your intuition is correct... just not solidly supported by the -actual- RAW.

Anyway, this is yet another quickly devolving thread. I take my leave.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
How on earth would an enchantment that you are wielding cause a foe to provoke again? For doing what? That operates completely against the rules for provoking. Secondly, if it did cause a foe to provoke a second time, then that foe would provoke AoOs from ALL potential attackers around it.

Vicious Stomp shows it is possible for an opponent to provoke from only one person (and that it's possible for an ability of person A to cause person B to provoke AoO). Combat Maneuvers also provoke only from the target of the maneuver, and Snake Fang and Crane Wing allow you to make an AoO against your opponent, but your allies don't get this opportunity.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Quote:
When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon
again, the relevant necessary ability is specifically called out. Where again is combat reflexes mentioned in the fortuitous enchantment?

It's not appropriate to mention because it works if you have the Quick Reflexes rage power, the Superior Reflexes kensai ability, the elven battle training feat (and are using the appropriate weapon), or, as you pointed out, the shaman wandering battle spirit. Combat Reflexes is not actually required.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Tell me, if I don't have combat reflexes, which of course the enchantment never mentions, how do I get 'more' attacks of opportunity, which is what the RAW says.

I explained that.

I am fighting one opponent. I have 2 AoO per round. The opponent leaves my threatened square. I make an AoO against him. With a Fortuitous weapon, I make a second AoO at a -5 penalty (consuming my second available AoO). I have now made more AoO this round thanks to my Fortuitous weapon.

_Ozy_ wrote:

I'm saying that the enchantment does exactly what it says you can do because specific overrides general. You get two attacks for one provocation, basically you get a second iterative AoO attack at -5.

Otherwise this enchantment would be in every way worse than combat reflexes. Thus it would be useless for those without the feat, and now useless for those with the feat.

It's fine to allow a second AoO if and only if you have AoO remaining. In these cases it's useful when you:

1) Have an ability that grants you multiple AoO in a round
2) Often do not use up all those AoO because your opponents don't provoke frequently enough.

I have two characters currently who could use this enchantment, a reach bloodrager (with the Quick Reflexes rage power, not Combat Reflexes) and a tripping monk (with Combat Reflexes).

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

I'm inclined to think the weapon grants the extra attack and the author just got a little wordy. It probably should read:

Quote:
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty.

It's possible that's the intent, however it's not what the property actually says. Hence, FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Byakko wrote:

Ozy, the only one making extra assumptions and adding extra unstated rules here is you. You're making stuff up to have the item do what you feel it should do, none of which is backed up by anything more than your opinion.

While your intuition is often decent, the fact that you constantly ignore and deny alternate readings is a pretty good indication that you're not looking objectively at these rules issues. Making wagers is pretty pointless since in most cases I feel your intuition is correct... just not solidly supported by the -actual- RAW.

Anyway, this is yet another quickly devolving thread. I take my leave.

I disagree quite strenuously. The only assumptions I'm making are these:

RAW says specific trumps general.

The specific wording of the Fortuitous enchantment that says:

'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

is true for anyone who wields that weapon, since there is no indication that any special ability or feat like combat reflexes is required.

That's it. Those are the only two assumptions.


Weirdo wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
How on earth would an enchantment that you are wielding cause a foe to provoke again? For doing what? That operates completely against the rules for provoking. Secondly, if it did cause a foe to provoke a second time, then that foe would provoke AoOs from ALL potential attackers around it.
Vicious Stomp shows it is possible for an opponent to provoke from only one person (and that it's possible for an ability of person A to cause person B to provoke AoO). Combat Maneuvers also provoke only from the target of the maneuver, and Snake Fang and Crane Wing allow you to make an AoO against your opponent, but your allies don't get this opportunity.

And you know what's common among all of those things you list? I'll highlight it for you:

Quote:
Benefit: Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

Find the equivalent statement in Fortuitous, and I'll shut the hell up.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Byakko wrote:

Ozy, the only one making extra assumptions and adding extra unstated rules here is you. You're making stuff up to have the item do what you feel it should do, none of which is backed up by anything more than your opinion.

While your intuition is often decent, the fact that you constantly ignore and deny alternate readings is a pretty good indication that you're not looking objectively at these rules issues. Making wagers is pretty pointless since in most cases I feel your intuition is correct... just not solidly supported by the -actual- RAW.

Anyway, this is yet another quickly devolving thread. I take my leave.

I disagree quite strenuously. The only assumptions I'm making are these:

RAW says specific trumps general.

The specific wording of the Fortuitous enchantment that says:

'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

is true for anyone who wields that weapon, since there is no indication that any special ability or feat like combat reflexes is required.

That's it. Those are the only two assumptions.

So just to clarify, you're okay with a my lv1 bard will cast inflict serious wounds into a spell storing weapon. Since it doesn't say I can cast any spell I know or can cast into it but ANY spell. It says a spellcaster must do it, but nothing more than that.

and you're okay with my lv1 fighter using a ki intensifying weapon since nothing says you need a ki pool to use the ability or to be able to expend the ki point to use the special effects. It says I can do so, thus it's giving me the ability to do so. I don't normally have any ki, but this says I can expend a ki point to do a maneuver, it doesn't say I need a ki pool or need to have an available ki point.

Since RAW says specific trumps general and both of these say I can do it, right?


Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Byakko wrote:

Ozy, the only one making extra assumptions and adding extra unstated rules here is you. You're making stuff up to have the item do what you feel it should do, none of which is backed up by anything more than your opinion.

While your intuition is often decent, the fact that you constantly ignore and deny alternate readings is a pretty good indication that you're not looking objectively at these rules issues. Making wagers is pretty pointless since in most cases I feel your intuition is correct... just not solidly supported by the -actual- RAW.

Anyway, this is yet another quickly devolving thread. I take my leave.

I disagree quite strenuously. The only assumptions I'm making are these:

RAW says specific trumps general.

The specific wording of the Fortuitous enchantment that says:

'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

is true for anyone who wields that weapon, since there is no indication that any special ability or feat like combat reflexes is required.

That's it. Those are the only two assumptions.

So just to clarify, you're okay with a my lv1 bard will cast inflict serious wounds into a spell storing weapon. Since it doesn't say I can cast any spell I know or can cast into it but ANY spell. It says a spellcaster must do it, but nothing more than that.

and you're okay with my lv1 fighter using a ki intensifying weapon since nothing says you need a ki pool to use the ability or to be able to expend the ki point to use the special effects. It says I can do so, thus it's giving me the ability to do so. I don't normally have any ki, but this says I can expend a ki point to do a maneuver, it doesn't say I need a ki pool or need to have an available ki point.

Since RAW says specific trumps general and both of these say I can do it, right?

Of course your bard can cast cure serious wounds into a spell storing weapon, all he needs is a scroll of cure serious wounds and a UMD check. Nothing in the spellstoring ability modifies your ability to cast spells, unlike the fortuitous enchantment that specifically and deliberately modifies the number of AoOs granted to the wielder.

If you have a ki point, you can spend it. You can't spend something you don't have, and unlike the Fortuitous enchantment, that particular enchantment does not grant you any additional ki points.

Seriously, you're arguing in a somewhat idiotic fashion. It's like you don't know what the word 'more' means.

So, once again, I'm a wielder with normally 1 AoO. The enchantment specifically and deliberately says I get 'more' AoOs.

How many do I get? It's a pretty simple question.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Vicious Stomp shows it is possible for an opponent to provoke from only one person (and that it's possible for an ability of person A to cause person B to provoke AoO). Combat Maneuvers also provoke only from the target of the maneuver, and Snake Fang and Crane Wing allow you to make an AoO against your opponent, but your allies don't get this opportunity.

And you know what's common among all of those things you list? I'll highlight it for you:

Quote:
Benefit: Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

The use of the word provokes is not common among all those things.

Snake Fang: While using the Snake Style feat, when an opponent’s attack misses you, you can make an unarmed strike against that opponent as an attack of opportunity.

Crane Riposte: In addition, when you deflect an attack using Crane Wing while taking the total defense action, you may make an attack of opportunity against that opponent.

Fortuitous: Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty.

If I can use Snake Fang to take an unlimited number of attacks against people who miss me (one per miss), because it says I get to make an AoO, not that my opponent provokes one, great! I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, though.


Read those feats again, notice what is missing from them that is present in the Fortuitous enchantment in the parts that you bolded.

Also realize that you missed this part of the Fortuitous enchantment:

'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

Now, please point out to me similar verbiage in either snake fang or crane riposte.

And finally, please tell me why Fortuitous, but none of the other feats you listed are restricted to 'Once per round'. Could it perhaps be because those other feats are naturally limited by your AoOs, whereas Fortuitous GRANTS an AoO, and therefore can only GRANT an extra AoO once per round?

Nah, that would make way too much sense.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Of course your bard can cast cure serious wounds into a spell storing weapon, all he needs is a scroll of cure serious wounds and a UMD check. Nothing in the spellstoring ability modifies your ability to cast spells, unlike the fortuitous enchantment that specifically and deliberately modifies the number of AoOs granted to the wielder.

We disagree on the bolded point. I believe that a specific modification of the AoO you can take would look like "this attack of opportunity doesn't count against the number of AoO you can make in a round."

I do not believe "this weapon allows you to make more AoO" qualifies as being specific and deliberate since I have presented a plausible alternative interpretation, namely that the opportunity to take more than one AoO per provoking action results in more AoOs taken, even if you're still limited by the same maximum number of AoO in a round.


I've yet to see you naysayers provide a reasonable interpretation for this phrase:

'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

grant: to give something

more: extra, additional

Just what the hell do you guys claim this sentence means? Nothing?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

I disagree quite strenuously. The only assumptions I'm making are these:

RAW says specific trumps general.

The specific wording of the Fortuitous enchantment that says:

'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

is true for anyone who wields that weapon, since there is no indication that any special ability or feat like combat reflexes is required.

That's it. Those are the only two assumptions.

So just to clarify, you're okay with a my lv1 bard will cast inflict serious wounds into a spell storing weapon. Since it doesn't say I can cast any spell I know or can cast into it but ANY spell. It says a spellcaster must do it, but nothing more than that.

and you're okay with my lv1 fighter using a ki intensifying weapon since nothing says you need a ki pool to use the ability or to be able to expend the ki point to use the special effects. It says I can do so, thus it's giving me the ability to do so. I don't normally have any ki, but this says I can expend a ki point to do a maneuver, it doesn't say I need a ki pool or need to have an available ki point.

Since RAW says specific trumps general and both of these say I can do it, right?

Of course your bard can cast cure serious wounds into a spell storing weapon, all he needs is a scroll of cure serious wounds and a UMD check. Nothing in the spellstoring ability modifies your ability to cast spells, unlike the fortuitous enchantment that specifically and deliberately modifies the number of AoOs granted to the wielder.

If you have a ki point, you can spend it. You can't spend something you don't have, and unlike the Fortuitous enchantment, that particular enchantment does not grant you any additional ki points.

Seriously, you're arguing in a somewhat idiotic fashion. It's like you don't know what the word 'more' means.

So, once again, I'm a wielder with normally 1 AoO. The enchantment specifically and deliberately says I get 'more' AoOs.

How many do I get? It's a pretty simple question.

Seriously you're arguing like you don't know what the word 'can' means.

Nothing in spell storing says I have to be capable of casting the spell to put it into the weapon. It says I "can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it." It just says I need to be a spellcaster. I'm a wielder and can normally cast bard spells, what spells can I cast to put into this item, any.

The Ki Intensifying says "the wielder can spend 1 ki point as a swift action to perform a combat maneuver" Thus it's granting me the ability to spend a ki point that I don't have. I'm a wielder that normally can't expend a ki point as I don't have ki, but this ability says I can.

I'm only making 2 assumptions for both of these items to work this way.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:

Read those feats again, notice what is missing from them that is present in the Fortuitous enchantment in the parts that you bolded.

Also realize that you missed this part of the Fortuitous enchantment:

'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

Now, please point out to me similar verbiage in either snake fang or crane riposte.

And finally, please tell me why Fortuitous, but none of the other feats you listed are restricted to 'Once per round'. Could it perhaps be because those other feats are naturally limited by your AoOs, whereas Fortuitous GRANTS an AoO, and therefore can only GRANT an extra AoO once per round?

Nah, that would make way too much sense.

Why call it an AoO if it's not intended to be limited by the number of AoO you can take per round?

Compare Panther Claw, which gives you something that looks like an AoO but doesn't follow the same limit:

While using Panther Style, you can spend a free action, instead of spending a swift action, to make a retaliatory unarmed strike. You can make a number of retaliatory unarmed strikes on your turn equal to your Wisdom modifier.


Weirdo wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Of course your bard can cast cure serious wounds into a spell storing weapon, all he needs is a scroll of cure serious wounds and a UMD check. Nothing in the spellstoring ability modifies your ability to cast spells, unlike the fortuitous enchantment that specifically and deliberately modifies the number of AoOs granted to the wielder.

We disagree on the bolded point. I believe that a specific modification of the AoO you can take would look like "this attack of opportunity doesn't count against the number of AoO you can make in a round."

I do not believe "this weapon allows you to make more AoO" qualifies as being specific and deliberate since I have presented a plausible alternative interpretation, namely that the opportunity to take more than one AoO per provoking action results in more AoOs taken, even if you're still limited by the same maximum number of AoO in a round.

Well, good thing that's not what it says then.

Allowing someone to take more than one AoO per action is not 'granting' them 'more' AoOs, it's allowing them to use the AoOs that they already have. Furthermore, your interpretation is just patently not true for the majority of PCs out there who don't happen to have combat reflexes, a feat that is not mentioned, directly or indirectly, by the enchantment.


Weirdo wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Read those feats again, notice what is missing from them that is present in the Fortuitous enchantment in the parts that you bolded.

Also realize that you missed this part of the Fortuitous enchantment:

'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

Now, please point out to me similar verbiage in either snake fang or crane riposte.

And finally, please tell me why Fortuitous, but none of the other feats you listed are restricted to 'Once per round'. Could it perhaps be because those other feats are naturally limited by your AoOs, whereas Fortuitous GRANTS an AoO, and therefore can only GRANT an extra AoO once per round?

Nah, that would make way too much sense.

Why call it an AoO if it's not intended to be limited by the number of AoO you can take per round?

Compare Panther Claw, which gives you something that looks like an AoO but doesn't follow the same limit:

While using Panther Style, you can spend a free action, instead of spending a swift action, to make a retaliatory unarmed strike. You can make a number of retaliatory unarmed strikes on your turn equal to your Wisdom modifier.

Because the attack is taken as a normal AoO, just with an additional penalty. Unlike Panther Claw, you don't get to attack for non-provoking actions using the enchantment.

Effectively, it gives you a free iterative AoO.

That's why it's called an AoO.

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Fortuitous Weapon Enhancement All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.