Huh, that's funny . . . (obvious abuse)

[Zaq]

So, I was poking around today, and I noticed something weird in the Boar Tusk Helmet item from Dragon 378. If I may quote the property (which is not the whole item):

"Property: Gain a gore attack while wearing this helmet: an unarmed weapon with +2 proficiency bonus to attack rolls and deals 1d10 damage. The wearer gains proficiency with this weapon. The gore attack has a +2 enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls. This attack counts as a melee basic attack."

"This attack," huh? What attack? The helm does have a power, but there's no attack roll involved (it's just your basic 1/day extra damage after you hit, more or less), so I doubt that's what they meant. Surely it doesn't mean that any attack you make with the gore attack is considered an MBA, does it? That's obviously abusive and wouldn't fly in any game I've played in, but that almost seems to be what they're saying, since there's no other logical antecedent for "this attack."

OK, yes, they probably just screwed up and forgot to take that line out from an earlier version of the power, but that's no fun, is it? I SAID this was some flavor of obvious abuse.

[Drglenn]

Eh, its only the same as a +2 magic battleaxe, warhammer or broadsword without the feat support, and its not as if you can get extra attacks with it if you're already wielding a weapon.

Its just a nice backup weapon should you get your weapons taken from you: noone's really going to think to take your hat.

What level item is it by the way? Edit: Just checked, its a level 7 item, at which you can start picking up +2 weapons with actual properties.

[Zaq]

The point is that, though it's an admittedly rather tenuous reading of the rules, any melee weapon attack you make with this thing qualifies as an MBA, with all the shenanigans that implies.

Again, obviously an abusive reading, but there it is.

[tcrudisi]

I'm confused by your use of the word abusive. Are you saying that an item which grants you a +2 prof., 1d10 dmg, MBA attack is somehow powerful for a head-item slot?

Any gore attack you make with it counts as an unarmed attack which means you get practically no feat support. +2/1d10 is terrible when you do not get any feat support.

Also, I think you are confusing "gore attack" with, for example, Footwork Lure. If you use Footwork Lure, you cannot use Gore Attack. It doesn't turn all your weapon attacks into a MBA. It just lets you use a gore attack as a MBA. It's downright underwhelming. ["Property: Gain a gore attack ... This attack counts as a melee basic attack."]

If you are saying that it is abusive that, when searching for head items this thing shows up, I agree. My eyes can't take much more of it. It should be improved before I would ever consider taking it with any character. So really, what do you mean by abuse exactly?

[Zaq]

I mean that since "gore attack" is listed as a weapon rather than as a power, it appears to me that any attack you make with that weapon is considered to be an MBA. It's like Power of Skill across the board. You use Footwork Lure or Word of Diminishment or Twin Strike with it, and they're suddenly considered to be MBAs, thanks to the terrible way in which this is worded. I think that they originally wrote it the way you're thinking of it (as a power, not as a weapon), changed it for some reason, and forgot to take the last line out, leading to a confusingly worded item that could, if you look at it the wrong way, seem to say that every attack you make with this new weapon it gives you is an MBA. Suddenly, as long as you make it with this gore attack, you can use Visions of Terror on an AoO, or on a charge, or when your Warlord buddy tells you to smack someone. THAT'S what it looks like this thing lets you do.

It's a stupid reading, which I've said from square 1. But it's poorly worded enough to make such a stupid reading not wholly illegitimate.

[Gralamin]

Huh Never noticed that before, but it is a correct reading.

Basically the logical chain is Weapon -> Attack -> Attacks with a weapon, in other words: Weapons do not have an attack. But this makes an attack a MBA. Either this does nothing, or any attacks with this weapon are considered an MBA.

Which is pretty entertaining all things considered. Warlords would strap it onto everyone in the party.

[Dimers]

Heh. So you march into battle armed with a longbow, and every time you shoot something 100' away, it's a melee attack because you have a funny helmet on. :smallamused:

[Doug Lampert]

Heh. So you march into battle armed with a longbow, and every time you shoot something 100' away, it's a melee attack because you have a funny helmet on. :smallamused:

Nope, because you're not using a gore attack with the helmet as the weapon to make that attack.

The reading is that "Property: Gain a gore attack while wearing this helmet: an unarmed weapon with +2 proficiency bonus to attack rolls and deals 1d10 damage. The wearer gains proficiency with this weapon. The gore attack has a +2 enhancement bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls. This attack counts as a melee basic attack."

When it says "This attack" the question being asked is "which attack?"

Well, the only attack mentioned is the gore attack. Which is "an unarmed weapon with +2 proficiency bonus to attack rolls and deals 1d10 damage". So any attack made with that unarmed weapon must be what they mean.

And the next key words are "This attack counts as a melee basic attack". So whatever attack they're talking about is a basic melee attack. And we've already established that the attacks they're talking about are any attack using this unarmed gore attack that the helm grants you.

Very bad wording. If it were a power they'd need that line or something like it to let you use it on a charge. And who ever heard of a gore attack that COULDN'T be used on a charge. But since it's written as if it were a weapon it already HAS a basic melee attack that can be used on a charge, so the attack that is treated as a basic melee attack must be something else, and they don't tell us what so it must be any attack using the weapon.

Very bad wording.

[Seb Wiers]

I read it as meaning you can't use the attack (weapon stats) for anything BUT a melee basic attack. Which granted, is rather limited in power, but if your hands are full of other things (like maybe ranged weapons, or weapons that do less than d10) it might be what you want for an opportunity attack, etc.

[artstsym]

"Gain a gore attack while wearing this helmet: an unarmed weapon with +2 proficiency bonus to attack rolls and deals 1d10 damage."
can be read as
"Gain a gore attack while wearing this helmet (an unarmed weapon with +2 proficiency bonus to attack rolls and deals 1d10 damage)."

The colon implies a description of the last object mentioned, in this case the helmet, not the gore attack. Either way you read it the grammar is off, but the way I've presented has only one error, and makes by far the most sense.

Now, the details for the actual gore attack are missing (save that it has a +2 enhancement bonus to attack and damage and may be counted as a MBA), so we are simply left with an item that references a power that does not exist. This doesn't mean you get to make all attacks with this weapon as MBAs. Contact Customer Support and ask if they have an actual power for this attack.

EDIT: Two errors if you really want to nitpick. You nitpicker.

[Foeofthelance]

I'm reading it as: 'While wearing this helmet, you gain a gore attack using the helmet as a weapon. Treat the helmet as an unarmed weapon with a +2 proficiency bonus, and that deals 1d10 damage. The wearer gains proficiency with the weapon. This attack has a +2 enhancement bonus. You may use this attack as a melee basic attack.' Since its a melee basic attack, I would assume that the default ability modifier would be strength.