Training Magic Weapon


Rules Questions


Do I need to meet prerequisites for the feat, that I can get from this crazy ability?

http://archivesofnethys.com/MagicWeaponsDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Training


And another question: if my character wileds two small quartestaffs in each hand, and each head of staff is enchanted by "training" with different feats, do I get 4 feats for "free"? Thanks!


It's a bad magic enhancement ability that should have never been produced and is too open to abuse.

That being said, you do need to meet the requirements of the feat to use it from the weapon, but you could potentially benefit from multiple instances of training weapons.


No requirments? Wat? So I can have stunning critical on 8th level? for example? Or even eralier?


Uh, pretty sure Claxon said you do need to meet the requirements.

It also says right there in the description:

Training wrote:
Popular among those who seek to impersonate skilled warriors, a training weapon grants one combat feat to the wielder as long as the weapon is drawn and in hand. The feat is chosen when this special ability is placed on the weapon. That feat cannot be used as a prerequisite for any other feats and functions for the wielder only if she meets its prerequisites. Once chosen, the feat stored in the weapon cannot be changed.

No 8th-level Stunning Critical for you. : )

I agree that it's not a well-designed ability. I can see keeping a bandolier of +1 training daggers and effectively having all the situational combat feats one could afford for around 8,000 gp a pop (or around 4,000 gp if there's a friendly crafter in the party.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's exactly the sort of abuse it's very open to.


Abusable yes, but also helpful for feat-starved classes that want to do a feat heavy style. Just shove the kapstone feats into yer weapons and vaboom! You can do all the crazy stuff now, or even put some of your regular feats towards secondary and maybe even flavor/non-combat stuff.

Sucks when you walk into an anti magic zone, get disarmmed, or have yer weapon destroyed.


Thanks a lot!


Claxon wrote:
That's exactly the sort of abuse it's very open to.

Abuse? Dip one level in Occultist, take the Transmutation Implement, use Legacy Weapon to add Training whenever you need it. Hee hee!


It is indeed abusable, that's why my group limits you to one Training weapon. Picking up a second one replaces the effects of the first.


Honestly just like how paladins and magus have a set list, so should have training. It needs a bit more curbing than it has. Even something simple like "three times enhancement bonus in BAB requirement" would have been a start? I don't know.

But yes very abusable if allowed by classes that can choose it on the fly to enhance a weapon. Best to ban that.


Cavall wrote:
But yes very abusable if allowed by classes that can choose it on the fly to enhance a weapon. Best to ban that.

I exclude any parameterized property from all on-the-fly abilities: bane, heretical, miserable, treasonous, training, patriotic, fervent. They're all priced on the assumption that the parameter will limit their usage, and if used on the fly it doesn't.

The Exchange

Gisher wrote:
Claxon wrote:
That's exactly the sort of abuse it's very open to.
Abuse? Dip one level in Occultist, take the Transmutation Implement, use Legacy Weapon to add Training whenever you need it. Hee hee!

Other easy abuses:

-Fighter with Warrior Spirit Advanced Weapon Training. Add Training to your weapon with whatever feat you need - on the fly!

-Single level dip into Staff Magus gets you Quarterstaff Master as a free feat. Now you can dual-wield quarterstaffs and enchant each end with different Trainings for a total of 4 feats.

-Play a Kasatha (or other race with multiple hands) to increase the number of Training enchants you can use. Combine with Quarterstaff Master for a truly ridiculous number of extra feats at only 8000 gp each.


I can understand the reluctance to let this weapon enhancement be restricted, but ... really? There are classes that get many things similar to this (martial flexibility for instance) and that's not even taking into account that the CREATOR of the enchantment must have the feat in question (and any prerequisites) to enchant the item (or be present for it) with the feat. Adding the Training property isn't going to do anything if you don't supply the feat.

Outside of actually crafting the item manually (ie, on the fly), you don't even have the opportunity to use a higher DC spellcraft (or specific crafting check) roll to ignore the prerequisites (training weapon property without the feat is useless). Crafting the item property would require a fairly high DC or the presence of a trained NPC with the feat to aid in crafting. I believe a lot of the mechanics behind this issue are either being ignored or overlooked.

The Exchange

DeathlessOne wrote:
I can understand the reluctance to let this weapon enhancement be restricted, but ... really? There are classes that get many things similar to this (martial flexibility for instance)...

That’s a fair comparison in some ways but there’s two key differences.

1. Those class abilities - like the brawler’s - are (in theory) taken into account when the class is initially balanced.
2. Even though Gisher and I mentioned adding abilities on the fly, the real power of the enchantment is that allows any class to essentially BUY extra feats. Which is not how the game is balanced (and many Paizo designers have said is a big design no-no).

Quote:

. . . and that's not even taking into account that the CREATOR of the enchantment must have the feat in question (and any prerequisites) to enchant the item (or be present for it) with the feat. Adding the Training property isn't going to do anything if you don't supply the feat.

Outside of actually crafting the item manually (ie, on the fly), you don't even have the opportunity to use a higher DC spellcraft (or specific crafting check) roll to ignore the prerequisites (training weapon property without the feat is useless). Crafting the item property would require a fairly high DC or the presence of a trained NPC with the feat to aid in crafting. I believe a lot of the mechanics behind this issue are either being ignored or overlooked.

So, this can be two separate things. “On the fly” and permanent enchantments. For permanent enchantments, you are absolutely right. In campaigns where the GM maintains tight control over what is available, Training is fine and can even allow for some clever storytelling. But in campaigns that use a “magic-mart” (everything is available) approach, it gets out of hand. I don’t think anyone is saying “this should never have been published,” just that it is really not something the GM should allow players to use without restrictions.

The two “on the fly” abilities mentioned (Legacy Weapon and Warrior Spirit) are supernatural abilities that allow you to add enhancement bonuses or weapon special properties to a weapon for a short duration a limited number of times per day. There’s no checks to make and no limitations (for these two abilities, at least). Which, when combined with Training, means that you can essentially use them as Martial Flexibility.


Belafon wrote:
The two “on the fly” abilities mentioned (Legacy Weapon and Warrior Spirit) are supernatural abilities that allow you to add enhancement bonuses or weapon special properties to a weapon for a short duration a limited number of times per day. There’s no checks to make and no limitations (for these two abilities, at least). Which, when combined with Training, means that you can essentially use them as Martial Flexibility.

The only problem I have with this (and i did not get into in my last post) is that this "training" enchantment is somewhat unique with what other weapon enchantments offer. It provides a bonus feat (which can be any) but it's description stipulates that it must be one that the creator has. Normally, this doesn't matter with most weapon enchantments because what those abilities offer are not something that is dependent on the creator's knowledge. They simple DO something once they are in effect. Training specifically gives the user access to a combat feat that the creator knew. The only way to get around lacking a requirement for the crafting of an enchantment (normally) is to increase the DC of the checks or have someone provide that requirement participate in the crafting.

This is one of the grey areas where existing rules are in conflict. You can add the enchantment, that is not in question, but you can not add a feat you do not possess. It effectively makes the "Training" weapon enchantment an unusable ability for that particular instance, since most times you can't just give the weapon to someone else.

The easiest solution is to just let the player make use of their 'faux martial flexibility' ability. It is really not that powerful in the grand scheme of things. It is most likely the path I would go. However, it is important to know that there is a rule conflict issue here.


The bit about the creator knowing the combat feat is in the crafting requirements. It is relevant when one is crafting. It is not relevant when one is not crafting. Using the various "I give my weapon/armor/whatever a bonus/property temporarily" class features is not crafting. You can tell because they never reference the crafting rules. You can also tell because if crafting requirements kicked in, they would absolutely need Craft Magic Arms And Armor, since that feat---unlike a training weapon's combat feat---cannot be skipped when crafting by adding 5 to the DC or by any other mechanism.

I hope paladins, warpriests, etc at your table don't all need Craft Magic Arms And Armor to use their basic class features.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
I hope paladins, warpriests, etc at your table don't all need Craft Magic Arms And Armor to use their basic class features.

I was pretty descriptive of why the Training weapon property was different than most of the other weapon enchantments (and how i would actually treat it in my games), so I am just going to assume you chose to ignore that part of my post. Regardless, adding the 'Training' weapon property is only possible through three different methods (that I know of) outside of actually enchanting the weapon through the item creation feat, so you don't have to worry about me limiting Paladins or Warpriests at my table. I appreciate the concern, however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathlessOne wrote:
it's description stipulates that it must be one that the creator has.

This is objectively wrong. What you're referring to isn't in the "description" section as defined by the CRB (pg.460), but in the "construction requirements" section. Since Warrior Spirit and Legacy Weapon don't craft the weapon, but "imbue" it with the enchantment, that section is utterly irrelevant.

Belafon wrote:

Other easy abuses:

-Single level dip into Staff Magus gets you Quarterstaff Master as a free feat. Now you can dual-wield quarterstaffs and enchant each end with different Trainings for a total of 4 feats.

So now you're 32.000gp down, lost a level, can't cast most spells, and only have crappy weapons. I'm sorry, but where does the "abuse" part start?

Belafon wrote:
-Play a Kasatha (or other race with multiple hands) to increase the number of Training enchants you can use. Combine with Quarterstaff Master for a truly ridiculous number of extra feats at only 8000 gp each.

And your GM will probably thank you, because that's about the least powerful use of extra arms.

You all seem to be forgetting that we're talking about a martial or gish character (casters don't really want that many combat feats), that has to either weaken their main weapon (hello damage reduction), or sacrifice a hand. Also, by the time 8k gold can be considered a 'small price', not only do the characters have a fairly large number of feats already, but the value of combat feats declines.

Seriously, on what character would you actually make use of "a bandolier of +1 training daggers" or a training/training quarterstaff?


Derklord wrote:
This is objectively wrong. What you're referring to isn't in the "description" section as defined by the CRB (pg.460), but in the "construction requirements" section. Since Warrior Spirit and Legacy Weapon don't craft the weapon, but "imbue" it with the enchantment, that section is utterly irrelevant.

I am not saying that the character can not place the enchantment on the weapon. He certainly can. However, it would not be effective because he already has access to the feats he already has. The weapon ability 'Training' grants access to a feat in which the creator of the enchantment already has. (If you want to argue over the meaning of the word, let's cut to the chase and point out that a temporary enchantment is still created through the imbuing of the ability. It is still created.) That bit of information is in the 'special' section of the requirements for creating the weapon enchantment, which is still part of the enchantment 'description' (I do not mean what the game refers to as a description, that is just a summary of what it does). If you want to argue over that definition, let's instead say "weapon ability information entry".

Again, I've already stated how I would use the ability in my games (effectively treating it like the Martial Flexibility class ability), but I once more stress that there is a rules issue here. One that should not be overlooked.


You can always fail to meet a prerequisite to magic item creation (other than the magic item creation feat itself) by accepting a -5 penalty to your Spellcraft (or other appropriate skill) check. That nicely sidesteps any problems with making Training weapons to meet all situations.

Warrior Spirit, though, does not seem to require that you meet construction prerequisites for the abilities you may grant your weapons at all; otherwise it would need a rule about caster level and item creation feat (Craft Magic Arms andArmor), and, probably, to address the need to make a spellcraft (or other) check. It appears that Legacy weapon is worded similarly. Thus, for those, you do not need to meet any of the ordinary crafting prerequisites; you just need sufficient advancement in the class ability and a suitable weapon.

If Training listed information about the creator in the "Description" section of its listing (ie, effectiely, the effects of the enchantment) then you may have a point about it being useless, but it doesn't; it only lists the thing about the creator in the "Construction Requirements" section, which is irrelevant to the gien class abilities.

Training wrote:
Popular among those who seek to impersonate skilled warriors, a training weapon grants one combat feat to the wielder as long as the weapon is drawn and in hand. The feat is chosen when this special ability is placed on the weapon. That feat cannot be used as a prerequisite for any other feats and functions for the wielder only if she meets its prerequisites. Once chosen, the feat stored in the weapon cannot be changed.

The Exchange

Let’s try to keep this polite, please.

Some answers:

Quote:
Seriously, on what character would you actually make use of "a bandolier of +1 training daggers" or a training/training quarterstaff?

I can’t speak to the bandolier of daggers, but I was involved in a long in-person conversation about “silly things to do with training quarterstaffs” between games one day.

  • The original Kasatha idea was a Cleave fighter build just carrying two quarterstaffs (because you don’t actually have to be wielding the training weapon, just have it in hand, any double weapon would work) but using a big two-hander for actually attacking. There are a number of cleave feats (or feats that work well with cleave) that have low BAB requirements, several feat requirements, and don’t serve as prereqs for anything else. Furious Focus, Improved Surprise Follow-through, Improved Cleaving Finish, among others. The idea was to gradually magic-mart those feats to the quarterstaffs as you leveled up and gained money.
  • Then somebody said “hey, what about Quarterstaff Master?” We quickly agreed it wasn’t worth getting the feat on its own (it takes two feats to get there) and that dual-wielding Training quarterstaffs would only possibly be good for a normal staff magus in a very narrow level range. But a dip of Staff Magus had possibilities.
  • The negatives of the dip are mentioned above (one level slow, etc.) but there are upsides as well. In addition to the quarterstaff master/4 potential feats benefit, you can use all wands on the magus spell list, have a few minor spells you might be able to cast, and have the arcane pool class feature - which doesn’t have to be used on a quarterstaff - to help out at low levels. Most of these builds wouldn’t make much use of training until the higher (9+ levels) when some of the really good feats come on line. Which, conveniently, is when they start to get real money.
  • So, what classes would benefit while wielding two staves? Anyone who relies on static damage bonuses but are feat-starved. Cavaliers without mounts, warpriests, and some barbarians. Or who does precision damage but is strength- (instead of finesse) based. Some builds of chained rogues and stalker vigilantes.
  • The big winner was the slayer. They can take TWF feats with slayer talents and ignore the Dex prereqs. They add static damage and precision damage on their own. There’s so many feats they want, especially Extra Slayer Talent. Being able to add 4 feats as you level up is pretty big. Among the builds people were playing with was Greater Feint/Two-Weapon Feint as a couple of those 4 feats. (Taking Combat Expertise and Improved Feint as normal feats.)


Training wrote:
Popular among those who seek to impersonate skilled warriors, a training weapon grants one combat feat to the wielder as long as the weapon is drawn and in hand. The feat is chosen when this special ability is placed on the weapon. That feat cannot be used as a prerequisite for any other feats and functions for the wielder only if she meets its prerequisites. Once chosen, the feat stored in the weapon cannot be changed.

Alright, this is my last attempt to rephrase what I've already said. I am at the point now where I am no longer interested in continuing the conversation. However, do not read any emotional based assumptions into this post. I am merely stating information.

I've taken the liberty of bolding the important text in the 'enchantment description'. The feat is chosen when the weapon enchantment is created, i.e. imbued via magic, into the weapon. The only difference between normal crafting and via a special class ability is the mechanics behind how it is done and the duration of the effect. The single most important question is "How is the feat chosen and where does it come from?". Where is that information located? It certainly is not listed as 'any combat feat the creator wishes' or 'any combat feat that the user of specific class abilities chooses'. Where is that information? Do we just ignore what is already written?

The answer: It is chosen from the list of available combat feats that the creator possesses and meets the requirements for. Since we are not using item crafting rules, we can not waive away the feat requirements with a check. We do NOT have the option of ignoring that requirement unless specifically stated... normally. We do, of course, have permissive GMs (like myself) who decide this is ridiculous and let's the person with the class ability use it according to the unwritten 'rules of cool'.

And, that's it. I've laid out this in all the detail that I care to. Agree or not, I am done with the conversation. Have a good day.


Interesting. May I ask how you come to the your bolded conclusion and not the conclusion that the feat is chosen from all existing combat feats?

This is honest curiousity in how others read/interpret the text, no an arguement.


Java Man wrote:

Interesting. May I ask how you come to the your bolded conclusion and not the conclusion that the feat is chosen from all existing combat feats?

This is honest curiousity in how others read/interpret the text, no an arguement.

I reached that conclusion from two things. 1) The lack of instruction in the description about where to draw the feat from (meaning we must look for more information), and 2) that the full stat block of the 'Training' ability has a 'special' section that most other blocks are missing (that I am aware of), that specifically details that the feat must be a feat that the creator knows and has access to. This is above and beyond the normal requirements of a 'spell' in addition to a feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If what you are saying is true, then those class abilities are nearly completely useless; even a plain +1 weapon has a requirement of Craft Magic Arms and Armor. If the fighter or occultist needs to meet crafting requirements (and, since we're talkign RAW here, they must either meet all of them or none of them; anythign else woudl DEFINITELY require special language to account for it), then they need that as well as a caster level. The only way to apply the construction requirement of "creator must have the chosen combat feat and its prerequisites" is to also apply the requirement that they have Craft Magic Arms and Armor and have the spell magic weapon.

I do not believe that is how it works; the RAW do not specify any of that at all, nor do they imply it, as they do not mention any sort of crafting or construction at all. Imbuing is different.

So, given that I believe they do not need to meet the construction requirements in order to imbue a weapon special ability, I believe that applies to all available weapon special abilities. Thus, the only (RAW) limit on the feat imbued with Training would be that it must be a combat feat. In theory it could even be a combat feat that the imbuer could not benefit from, because they do not meet the prerequisities. They are unlikely to do that, but it does look RAW.

I think you are making a typical mistake of attempting to apply "common sense" or "game balance" to RAW; they do not apply. In this case it is worth remembering that there is no reason at all to need to answer "how is the feat chosen and where does it come from?" At least the latter part; obviously the feat is chosen by the imbuer, but where does it come from? Magic, this is magic.


Thank you.


And point of fact; the description does instruct where to draw the feat from: " a training weapon grants one combat feat" So it is "drawn" from the list of combat feats.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Belafon wrote:
  • So, what classes would benefit while wielding two staves?
  • Add the 'Spear Dancing Spiral' feat and that becomes, 'what classes would benefit while wielding two staves, spears, or polearms?'

    The Exchange

    There is one more exploit that’s worth mentioning: a pseudo-loop that results in you getting a lot more out than you put in. If you have the Weapon Training class feature, get your weapon (even if it’s your only one) enchanted with Training (Advanced Weapon Training (Warrior Spirit)).

    At 5th level you can now choose any +1 enchantment to give to your weapon twice a day.

    By 9th level you will have picked up your gloves of dueling. Now, five times a day you can give your weapon any properties totaling +4 equivalent. All for the cost of that one +1 equivalent enchantment.

    You can’t infinite loop it (use Warrior Spirit to add Training (AWT(WS)) to a different weapon i.e. “I wish for more wishes”) without going through some Olympic-level linguistic gymnastics and clearly violating the intent of the “no benefits from having the same feat twice” rule. But Warrior Spirit is at least as problematic as Training. These thought exercises can be fun. :)

    The Exchange

    CBDunkerson wrote:
    Belafon wrote:
  • So, what classes would benefit while wielding two staves?
  • Add the 'Spear Dancing Spiral' feat and that becomes, 'what classes would benefit while wielding two staves, spears, or polearms?'

    That’s a bit more problematic and probably doesn’t work. The issue is that the weapon only has the double property while you are using Spear Dancing Style. Since it isn’t truly a double weapon you can’t give it a permanent enchantment on the light mace side. There has been a lot of debate about that, but no designer insight that I know of.


    merpius wrote:
    If what you are saying is true, then those class abilities are nearly completely useless; even a plain +1 weapon has a requirement of Craft Magic Arms and Armor. If the fighter or occultist needs to meet crafting requirements (and, since we're talkign RAW here, they must either meet all of them or none of them; anythign else woudl DEFINITELY require special language to account for it), then they need that as well as a caster level. The only way to apply the construction requirement of "creator must have the chosen combat feat and its prerequisites" is to also apply the requirement that they have Craft Magic Arms and Armor and have the spell magic weapon.

    I believe I already addressed that (those) issue(s) in my previous posts. The "Training" Weapon enchantment is unique out of the list (It has a "special" requirement, not just a feat and spell requirement). Since I am no longer interested in pushing the issue, I'll not be repeating myself.

    Java Man wrote:
    Thank you.

    You are quite welcome.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    DeathlessOne wrote:
    the full stat block of the 'Training' ability has a 'special' section that most other blocks are missing

    Wrong. It just has a requirement section like any other weapon enchantment. Additional requirements that aren't spells aren't the norm, but not that unusual (for instance, holy has "creater must be good").

    Are you basing your argument on how d20pfsrd.com seperates the requirement section?

    DeathlessOne wrote:
    The weapon ability 'Training' grants access to a feat in which the creator of the enchantment already has.

    Except it doesn't say that.

    DeathlessOne wrote:
    It is chosen from the list of available combat feats that the creator possesses and meets the requirements for.

    This has no basis in the rules. You're literaly making it up.

    DeathlessOne wrote:
    Since we are not using item crafting rules, we can not waive away the feat requirements with a check.

    If we're not using the item crafting rules, why the hell are you enforcing something that's only written for these very same item crafting rules?

    Even worse, you're enforcing one part of the requirement section while ignoring the other part, that completely annihilates your argument. Cherry picking at it's best.

    DeathlessOne wrote:
    It certainly is not listed as 'any combat feat the creator wishes' or 'any combat feat that the user of specific class abilities chooses'.

    It doesn't say "chosen combat feat the the creater possesses", either. Indeed, the requirements section adds a limitation based on the already chosen feat.


    Derklord wrote:
    ***snip**

    As I've already stated, I am done attempting to push the issue. If you want to ignore the complete stat block of the 'Training' weapon enchantment (especially when it specifies where the combat feat originates) and focus solely on the description provided, that is not my concern.

    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Training Magic Weapon All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.