|
Hi,
Can you place the Weapon Special Ability "Training" on a Dwarven Boulder Helm and have the feat apply to you in a general way. For example, could you pick "Combat Reflexes" as your the weapon special ability enchant on your Dwarven Boulder Helm and have it apply to a warhammer you are using in combat.
Training Weapon Special Ability
DESCRIPTION
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.
To note, since you are wearing the helm, would that not count as having it drawn and in hand?
Thank you and have a great week.
A boulder helmet is not drawn and in hand.
|
|
A boulder helmet is not drawn and in hand.
Yes, but it is designed to be a worn weapon. Therefore, would it not be considered as being drawn and in hand by default. Nevertheless, by RAW, I suppose you could not place the training enchant on it. However, I want to make sure there are no clarifications/rulings that state that it is considered to be drawn and held since you wear the weapon.
In any case, thanks for the response.
Well, the FAQ about two weapon fighting lets us know that metaphorical hands count.
If you are holding a shield in one hand and and a warhammer in the other, if the shield is enchanted as a weapon with the training enchantment can you use it with the warhammer you are wielding?
If you have a spiked gauntlet in one hand and and a warhammer in the other, if the spiked gauntlet is enchanted as a weapon with the training enchantment can you use it with the warhammer you are wielding?
If you have a spiked gauntlet in one hand and and a warhammer in the same hand, if the spiked gauntlet is enchanted as a weapon with the training enchantment can you use it with the warhammer you are wielding?
I'd talk to your GM about the 'drawn and in hand' clause, it might be in there intentionally as a power balance to prevent this enchantment from being used on armor spikes (or dwarven boulder helmets).
"Do my bootblades count for the training enchantment" is a question you should ask your GM. Because fundamentally the question is "should I be able to exchange gold for extra feats" which is something GMs will disagree on.
Which is to say there's no hard and fast definition of "drawn and in-hand" in the rules that will convince a skeptical GM here, so just ask if it will work.
The training enchantment should have never been made.
The training enchantment should have never been made.
As a GM, I've used it for exotic weapons that I put in loot piles which carry EWP for that specific weapon. I think if it's limited to things like that, and not available at the magic mart ever, it's fine.
The training enchantment should have never been made.As a GM, I've used it for exotic weapons that I put in loot piles which carry EWP for that specific weapon. I think if it's limited to things like that, and not available at the magic mart ever, it's fine.
I wouldn't have an issue with an enchantment that granted proficiency with the wielded weapon. Or even a 'training' enhancement that had a more limited and defined list. But 'any combat feat' combined with a undefined state of 'wielding' is asking for trouble.
But 'any combat feat' combined with a undefined state of 'wielding' is asking for trouble.The issue with how nebulous wielding is, I understand. "Any combat feat" is fine though, though some people don't want martials to have nice things I suppose.
Actually, isn't it more "why must the poor martials have to share their few special things with anyone with a little money." OK, we have a little bit of "I am clever, and can talk my way past any restriction, and I must springboard to greater and greater silliness, it is a moral imperative."
But 'any combat feat' combined with a undefined state of 'wielding' is asking for trouble.The issue with how nebulous wielding is, I understand. "Any combat feat" is fine though, though some people don't want martials to have nice things I suppose.
Yes, it is because I hate martials and want them all to die that I said that.
It isn't as though Wizards can take advantage of boot blades of dodge or anything like that.
If wielding was defined, or if the list was limited to things that only made sense and would apply when the weapon was wielded (weapon focus for that weapon would be fine as well) It would be solved.
Given that wielding has never been defined, and trying to would probably break other things, the best choice if they wanted this feat with the system as it is, would have been to limit the choices.