Trained in [some] Martial weapons vs Trained in Martial weapons

[Gray Warden]

Is being trained in some Martial weapons the same as being trained in Martial weapons for the purposes of prerequisites?

Case in point: Bard (not Warrior Muse) vs Marshal.

Bard wrote:

Trained in the longsword, rapier, sap, shortbow, shortsword, and whip

Marshal wrote:

Prerequisites trained in martial weapons and either Diplomacy or Intimidation

Being trained in the longsword, rapier, sap and so on, the Bard is indeed trained in Martial weapons, without the need for Warrior Muse. Is this enough for the purposes of Marshal prerequisites, or does it implicitly require training in all Martial weapons?

[CrystalSeas]

Gray Warden wrote:

Is this enough for the purposes of Marshal prerequisites, or does it implicitly require training in all Martial weapons?

Unless the class entry said "trained in martial weapons", I wouldn't allow it. There's a big difference between being trained in 6 martial weapons and being trained in 39 martial weapons [number of common martial weapons in Core Rulebook], and I think those 33 missing weapons are sufficient to keep you from 'rounding up' to 'all martial'

[mrspaghetti]

Gray Warden wrote:

Is being trained in some Martial weapons the same as being trained in Martial weapons for the purposes of prerequisites?

No

[Squiggit]

CrystalSeas wrote:

and I think those 33 missing weapons are sufficient to keep you from 'rounding up' to 'all martial'

While true, I think the reason we've had a few threads like this pop up is that the prerequisite in question doesn't use "all"

[Gray Warden]

Squiggit wrote:

CrystalSeas wrote:

and I think those 33 missing weapons are sufficient to keep you from 'rounding up' to 'all martial'

While true, I think the reason we've had a few threads like this pop up is that the prerequisite in question doesn't use "all"

I mean, no assumption needed since that's exactly what I'm asking. I didn't know if the absence of the "all" qualifier was deliberate, an oversight, or something else. I asked simply because I didn't know and I was eager to learn something new, which is why answers like this:

mrspaghetti wrote:

Gray Warden wrote:

Is being trained in some Martial weapons the same as being trained in Martial weapons for the purposes of prerequisites?

No

are more useless than no answer at all.

Regardless, I came to the conclusion that the answer is indeed "no", but not for a "rounding up" issue. Trained in martial weapons is its own feature: Fighter for example has the Expert in martial weapons feature. No need for the "all" qualifier, because that's the whole feature's name.

[thenobledrake]

The prerequisite says "trained in martial weapons" and is wanting to know if on the character sheet it says "trained in martial weapons"

If your sheet says "trained in longsword, rapier, sap, shortbow, shortsword, and whip" that's clearly not "trained in martial weapons"

[Nefreet]

I think that's what Grey Warden just concluded.

[Gray Warden]

thenobledrake wrote:

The prerequisite says "trained in martial weapons" and is wanting to know if on the character sheet it says "trained in martial weapons"

If your sheet says "trained in longsword, rapier, sap, shortbow, shortsword, and whip" that's clearly not "trained in martial weapons"

Yeah, thanks, I had already concluded and written that literally in the post before yours.

[mrspaghetti]

Gray Warden wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

CrystalSeas wrote:

and I think those 33 missing weapons are sufficient to keep you from 'rounding up' to 'all martial'

While true, I think the reason we've had a few threads like this pop up is that the prerequisite in question doesn't use "all"

I mean, no assumption needed since that's exactly what I'm asking. I didn't know if the absence of the "all" qualifier was deliberate, an oversight, or something else. I asked simply because I didn't know and I was eager to learn something new, which is why answers like this:

mrspaghetti wrote:

Gray Warden wrote:

Is being trained in some Martial weapons the same as being trained in Martial weapons for the purposes of prerequisites?

No

are more useless than no answer at all.

Regardless, I came to the conclusion that the answer is indeed "no", but not for a "rounding up" issue. Trained in martial weapons is its own feature: Fighter for example has the Expert in martial weapons feature. No need for the "all" qualifier, because that's the whole feature's name.

Apologies, I was not actually trying to be a wise guy. I was posting from my phone, which I find to be a chore, so being "brief" for that reason. I can see how that would come across badly and will try to refrain from posting in the future unless I can include some useful elaboration.