Does the Blade of the Sword-Saint's rule allowing it to be used "as though the wielder were unarmed" mean anything other that what it says after the ":"?
The line is question is "In addition to its more common properties, this weapon can be employed as though the wielder were unarmed: the wielder benefits from feats such as Deflect Arrows or Snatch Arrows (although he can redirect attacks but not catch them if he has no hands free), and a monk treats the blade as a monk weapon for use in his flurry of blows."
What examples are you looking for exactly? I can't say for sure whether the line is expansive enough to include nonlisted examples I have yet to hear.
At best, I can see an argument for somatic components...if that was relevant.
For example, is an attack with the sword an unarmed attack, since you are attacking unarmed. Is an attack while unarmed an unarmed strike? Would is get an unarmed fighter's weapon training?
I'm more or less trying to figure out how it interects with other parts of the game that deal with you being unarmed. The part after the ":" is about having a free hand and working with flurry, and don't have anything directly to do with being unarmed so I'm curious why it's there if there isn't more meaning to it.
It is there for crane style, most likely. This was a weapon released prior to the nerf on that feat, and it had similar mechanics as deflect arrows.
It would have made a perfect accompaniment to that build, allowing 2 handed power attacks during the flurry with crit fishing (thus lowering the turtled nature of the build), and still allowing you to maintain your defenses.
...also, just checking, but this isn't a pummeling style thread, right? Not something trying to get an 18-20 weapon in on that 'punch'? Sorry if I sound suspicious...just we were some of the most vocal commenters in that debate, if I remember right.
|
I would say those are two separate clauses.
1) A monk treats it as a monk weapon for flurry.
2) Any action that normally requires you to have an empty hand (or two) functions while wielding the blade. So you can deflect arrows, use somatic components, lay on hands, or make a grapple check without taking a minus on your roll.
As Mark Seifter loves to say "this item is an example of poor design." If you were to try to exploit it, you can claim that since you are treated as unarmed you can draw a wand or another weapon and wield it in the same hand as the blade. Clearly that makes no sense.
So the way I believe it is supposed to be read an attack with the sword is not an unarmed strike. It wouldn't get unarmed fighter weapon training. All that clause does is let you take actions that normally require a free hand.
|
|
...also, just checking, but this isn't a pummeling style thread, right? Not something trying to get an 18-20 weapon in on that 'punch'? Sorry if I sound suspicious...just we were some of the most vocal commenters in that debate, if I remember right.
Oh good grief. I didn't even consider that feat. I would say no to that because Pummeling Style requires you to make an Unarmed Strike, not to be unarmed.
lemeres: A character for an upcoming game wants one and I'm trying to make sure I know how it works.
Belafon: LOL It may be true "this item is an example of poor design." I'd love to know though. The other thread was only answered by 'question unclear' so i tried to make my question as clear as possible.
Kazaan: That was my first take but if that's true why even add "In addition to its more common properties, this weapon can be employed as though the wielder were unarmed" when it's much easier/clear to say "you are counted as having a free hand for feats such as Deflect Arrows or Snatch Arrows (although he can redirect attacks but not catch them if he has no hands free), and a monk treats the blade as a monk weapon for use in his flurry of blows." It is less wordy and gets the point across. it's not even clear if you get to treat yourself as having a free hand for things other than feats, as that's the only thing called out. IMO they left a LOT to guess work and assumption.
|
|
I don't think you'll get a FAQ answer. The most you can hope for is errata in the next printing of the book but that seems unlikely. The other bad part of the design is the line "in the hands of a monk, it becomes an instrument of deadly utility." Is that flavor text or does that mean the following sentences only apply if the wielder is a monk? Clearly the weapon is meant for monks but someone else might want to use it. Can they?
I don't think you'll get a FAQ answer. The most you can hope for is errata in the next printing of the book but that seems unlikely. The other bad part of the design is the line "in the hands of a monk, it becomes an instrument of deadly utility." Is that flavor text or does that mean the following sentences only apply if the wielder is a monk? Clearly the weapon is meant for monks but someone else might want to use it. Can they?
I'd be cool with an unofficial post by someone like Mark. In this instance, I'd be happy knowing what the intent is if a RAW answer/clarification isn't possible.