Yar!
Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but the APG errata, prd, and forum searches yielded no answer.
THIS is the property in question.
Huntsman: A Huntsman weapon helps it wielder locate and capture quarry. When the weapon is held in hand, the wielder gains an enhancement bonus on Survival checks made to track any creature the weapon has damaged in the past day. It deals +1d6 damage to creatures the wielder has tracked with Survival in the past day.
Simply put: how much of an enhancement bonus does it grant to Survival checks?
~P
I would say the total enhancement bonus of the weapon, but that is just a guess...
That would be my guess too. But that is just a terrible ability, so granting a larger bonus would surely be warrented. Compared to buying an item that gives +5 compentence bonus to all survival checks for 2500 gp, and spending your enhancement bonus to the weapon on something that isn't really situational, huntsman seems like a quite bad choice.
Yar.
Seeing as it's a +1 property, it being equal to the enhancement bonus of the weapon probably makes the most sense. However, it's really odd that it doesn't actually say that. Part of me hopes that it's meant to be a flat +4 like what Dueling gives to initiatives when held, though Dueling is a flat GP addition and not a +1 enchantment.
Heck, I can even see someone (very unlikely, but possible, as there are abilities that follow this mechanic) thinking that the bonus is equal to the damage you've inflicted on the target creature (the Enforcer feat works like this, as an example).
Personally, I'm leaning towards it being equal to the enhancement bonus of the weapon itself, but without it actually saying so, this still needs to be asked.
Also, bumping this back up in the hopes for some more faq hits so that this omission eventually gets amended in the next errata/print.
~P
Yar.
I hate posting after myself, but I want to make sure this gets clarified. Bringing it up for the weekend seems like a good idea.
~P
Yar!
I posted this in the Products sub-forum in hopes that it gets clarified in a future printing / errata. However, I'm hoping to perhaps get some official unofficial clarification on this matter at the moment (I also don't want this missing info to be forgotten again).
Surely more people believe that a missing numerical mechanic is worth fixing.
:)
~P
The bonus to tracking is not really the key purpose of this weapon. The +1d6 damage is. The bonus to tracking is just an extra that could be useful or not.
As for the wording it's looks like it's missing a few words. Should be "When the weapon is held in hand, the wielder gains the weapon's enhancement bonus as an enhancement bonus on Survival checks made to track any creature the weapon has damaged in the past day."
The follwing scenario happened in my campaign a while ago, but I have been dying to ask this question to validate my ruling.... I hope.
A PC rogue had a dagger with the huntsman ability. While the PC's were in combat with a foe, he decided to spend a round tracking that foe... during the fight.
Then he expected to attack that foe the following round - with the +1d6 hunstman bonus.
I ruled that he had to track, and then attack a given foe in 2 separate encounters - rather then tracking one round and the attacking the next.
Was I wrong in that ruling? I suspect that I was, and of course he did not agree. But I felt like he was slapping me in the face.
If the guy wanted to spend 1 round not contributing to combat so he could gain a bonus later, I think that's okay--not much different than spending a round moving into a position where he could flank.
Just make sure he makes that Survival check on the hard dungeon floor.... :)
If the guy wanted to spend 1 round not contributing to combat so he could gain a bonus later, I think that's okay--not much different than spending a round moving into a position where he could flank.
Just make sure he makes that Survival check on the hard dungeon floor.... :)
Cool, input from a developer is always nice. Thanks. Now I feel kind of bad for not letting it work.
The player's was of a similar opinion. He felt like +1d6 was a small enough bonus, so I should just let it work.
But at the time I was incensed. I felt like he was making a fool of me. He said his intended use was RAW, but I felt that it was clearly not RAI.
Am I alone in being upset by what he wanted to do?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No need to get upset about it. Next time, just say, "I'm ruling it this way for now so we can get on with the combat, we can discuss it later." That gives both sides time to think about the rules... and gather evidence. :)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No need to get upset about it. Next time, just say, "I'm ruling it this way for now so we can get on with the combat, we can discuss it later." That gives both sides time to think about the rules... and gather evidence. :)
Sean,
How can there be any bonus for wielding the weapon while tracking? Per the Defending Weapon FAQ, you can't gain benefits for 'wielding' a weapon unless you actually attack with it. Since Huntsman and Defending both use the exact same terminology (while wielding the weapon), then it would seem that Huntsman really doesn't give any bonus to tracking, since you can't attack with the weapon and still track (unless you do something silly like attacking the tracks with it, but if you already see the track to attack, you don't need the bonus).This is honestly two different powers with the exact same wording that appear to be working in exactly the opposite way. It seems you mean that having the weapon in hand helps while tracking, but having the weapon in hand doesn't work for defending, despite it being exactly the same sort of setup and wording.
The follwing scenario happened in my campaign a while ago, but I have been dying to ask this question to validate my ruling.... I hope.
A PC rogue had a dagger with the huntsman ability. While the PC's were in combat with a foe, he decided to spend a round tracking that foe... during the fight.
Then he expected to attack that foe the following round - with the +1d6 hunstman bonus.
I ruled that he had to track, and then attack a given foe in 2 separate encounters - rather then tracking one round and the attacking the next.
Was I wrong in that ruling? I suspect that I was, and of course he did not agree. But I felt like he was slapping me in the face.
To me this seems kind of silly. "Tracking" something implies that you are following the creatures tracks or some trace of the creature (especially since you have to use survival). Taking 6 seconds out of combat to stare at a boot print a giant made is not tracking, it's being scatterbrained. I would not give him the bonus for the weapon, small or not unless he fulfilled the actual requirements of the enchantment.
Good point. Huntsman should refer to "bearer" rather than "wielder" in some places for that reason. Something like this:
Huntsman: A huntsman weapon helps its bearer locate and capture quarry. When the weapon is held in hand, the bearer gains the weapon's enhancement bonus as a bonus on Survival checks made to track any creature the weapon has damaged in the past day. It deals +1d6 damage to creatures the wielder has tracked with Survival in the past day.
Good point. Huntsman should refer to "bearer" rather than "wielder" in some places for that reason. Something like this:
Huntsman: A huntsman weapon helps its bearer locate and capture quarry. When the weapon is held in hand, the bearer gains the weapon's enhancement bonus as a bonus on Survival checks made to track any creature the weapon has damaged in the past day. It deals +1d6 damage to creatures the wielder has tracked with Survival in the past day.
That would avoid the issue of confusion, since the two powers are practically the same as written, but one works only while attacking and the other works by just holding it in your hand. I would say just keeping your hand on the hilt of the weapon (assuming it's a sword or knife) works just as well as holding it aloft like a talisman. :)
Speaking logically, an *attempt* to track something is not a "tracking" of something. I wouldn't think the bonus would apply. Syntactically speaking, it's required that he has tracked the creature, not that he has failed to track the creature. Going with the latter ruling, one could simply say, "I attempt to track all enemies," and expect to get a bonus even though he (obviously) failed.