So this seems to be RAW, but I'm not sure if it's RAI and was wondering the thoughts of the forum.
The rogue's ruffian racket lets you do extra stuff when making sneak attacks with simple weapons. The orc weapon familiarity feat says that "for you, orc martial weapons are simple weapons." So that would mean that for a half-orc with this feat, the normally-martial orc knuckle dagger could be used with the ruffian racket, right?
I wanted to ask here because it seems that just about every other ancestry weapon familiarity specifically states that you count the racial weapon as one step simpler for purposes of proficiency. The wording on proficiency is absent from the half-orc entry, so I wasn't sure if this was an oversight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Halfling and catfolk familiarity feats are the same way. I expect that they are all errors that will see errata eventually. To my knowledge, no official statement has been made one way or the other.
Halfling and catfolk familiarity feats are the same way. I expect that they are all errors that will see errata eventually. To my knowledge, no official statement has been made one way or the other.
Why is it an error? What do you think it should say and why should it differ from something like Unconventional Weaponry?
You've familiarized yourself with a particular weapon, potentially from another ancestry or culture. Choose an uncommon simple or martial weapon with a trait corresponding to an ancestry (such as dwarf, goblin, or orc) or that is common in another culture. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a simple weapon.
If you are trained in all martial weapons, you can choose an uncommon advanced weapon with such a trait. You gain access to that weapon, and for the purpose of determining your proficiency, that weapon is a martial weapon.
Claxon, I believe the missing text is "for the purposes of determining your proficiency,"
With that, it would seem reasonable that your orc knuckledaggers scale off simple weapon proficiency but are not all together treated as simple weapons.
Cool, thanks for pointing that out.
Yeah....this whole thing could be confusing anyways because without thinking about it I would have assumed that if Unconventional Weaponry had made something a simple weapon that I could use it with something like Ruffian Rogue. I agree that in fact you cannot, but without it being pointed out about the difference in wording I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought.
I really don't like these kinds of feats exactly because in my mind I'm simply thinking "cool it's a simple weapon now" so anything that is limited to simple weapons I would also think it would work with. But it doesn't actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd always figured the wording was very deliberate, to avoid things like having Deific Weapon/Deadly Simplicity, which bolster simple favored weapons to help bring them up to par with martial options, from turning into abilities that make selected martial weapons even better (since that undoes the work those abilities do in increasing the range of weapons people actually use).
Halfling and catfolk familiarity feats are the same way. I expect that they are all errors that will see errata eventually. To my knowledge, no official statement has been made one way or the other.
Who knows. Maybe the "for the purposes of determining your proficiency," are the ones that'll get changed?
Myself, I'm not sure if it's intentional or an oversight. We'll see.
It's certainly possible. I don't claim any special knowledge here.
It just seems a lot more likely to me that they would accidentally forgot to include a clause protecting against unintentional interactions in one feat than that they would accidentally add it to another. (Not that they couldn't have removed something from an early draft from some feats and others, it just doesn't feel like it fits how the book's are written as well).
It just seems a lot more likely to me that they would accidentally forgot to include a clause protecting against unintentional interactions in one feat than that they would accidentally add it to another.
It's possible, but that means they repeated the mistake in the APG after it was pointed out in the core. I'd have hoped that they would have fixed it between those two points. Though if it was in with the errata, I can see it going into that black hole that no questions come back from...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, that errata is going to be like fifty pages long at this rate.
I thought the weapons not labeled w/ your Ancestry that the feats gave you (i.e. longsword) were one step simpler in terms of proficiency only and that the weapons labeled w/ your Ancestry (i.e. Elven Curve Blade) were one step simpler for all purposes.
So for example, a Rogue Elf w/ the feat couldn't use the longsword for Ruffian Sneak Attack, but could use the Elven Curve Blade.
Or maybe I've seen a pattern that isn't present?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There *was* the beginning of a pattern, and then the last few books shattered it. Now, like a lot of other glaring issues that are cropping up, we don’t know which is which.
|
In a similar vein to this: There are a number of Ancestral Unarmed Attacks that have been printed over time that also fail to follow the same pattern and provide consistent info such as the Catfolk Claws not being listed as belonging to ANY Weapon Group at all which complicates things for a number of reasons.
I think it all boils down to having so many different writers and editors all working on the same books and a general failure to do a rigorous consistency check to be sure wording of similar options are identical.