Skillful Weapon: Poorly worded

[Pandyman]

Highly prized by many arcane spellcasters, a skillful weapon can be wielded without penalty by a character not normally proficient with it. (emphasis mine)

Though I do believe the intention was to negate non-proficiency penalties, the wording seems poor and ambiguous. "A skillful weapon can be wielded without penalty," was a very poor way to word it. Say that a wizard uses this Skillful enhancement on a Gargantuan Great Sword or a weapon affected by the Sizing enhancement, according to the text of the Skillful enhancement, the wizard, by not normally being proficient with the weapon, would "wield it without penalty". Size penalties, and any other penalties, are seemingly negated by the text, as long as you aren't proficient with the item.

Also, though this is the wrong interpretation of it, I'm surprised that the wording issue has never been poked at.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It hasn't been poked at because that phrase isn't at the end of the sentence, nor is it a seperate phrase within the sentence. It's immediately followed by the qualifier "by a character not normally proficient with it."

This means that a character that's proficient with the weapon does not gain this benefit at all.

There may be an argument to be made that a non-proficient character could use the weapon completely without penalty, but since that entire argument would lie only in the parsing of that sentence and is an utterly ridiculous reading of the ability, it's almost entirely discarded since it would -never- fly in any game that wasn't taking RAW to the silliest level of literal readings.

[SowZ]

(emphasis mine)

Though I do believe the intention was to negate non-proficiency penalties, the wording seems poor and ambiguous. "A skillful weapon can be wielded without penalty," was a very poor way to word it. Say that a wizard uses this Skillful enhancement on a Gargantuan Great Sword or a weapon affected by the Sizing enhancement, according to the text of the Skillful enhancement, the wizard, by not normally being proficient with the weapon, would "wield it without penalty". Size penalties, and any other penalties, are seemingly negated by the text, as long as you aren't proficient with the item.

Also, though this is the wrong interpretation of it, I'm surprised that the wording issue has never been poked at.

Would this also imply you can wield it without penalties for dual wielding?

[Pandyman]

It hasn't been poked at because that phrase isn't at the end of the sentence, nor is it a seperate phrase within the sentence. It's immediately followed by the qualifier "by a character not normally proficient with it."

This means that a character that's proficient with the weapon does not gain this benefit at all.


The second part is true, someone proficient with the weapon would not receive anything from a skillful enhancement.

I never said that it wasn't a ridiculous interpretation, but it's the literal interpretation. It doesn't say you no longer suffer the penalties of non-proficiency, but that a normally non-proficient character can wield the weapon without penalty. The literal wording would in fact counter any penalties that you would incur from wielding this weapon, as long as you aren't proficient with it. That's why I said that it was poorly worded, because it doesn't say what it's supposed to.


There may be an argument to be made that a non-proficient character could use the weapon completely without penalty, but since that entire argument would lie only in the parsing of that sentence and is an utterly ridiculous reading of the ability, it's almost entirely discarded since it would -never- fly in any game that wasn't taking RAW to the silliest level of literal readings.


^ That's the basis of my argument: a literal interpretation of the text.

If phrasing and whatnot were never a problem in D&D, we wouldn't have Punpun, Omnificer, etc. I'm not saying that it's not silly, just that that's what the enhancement literally says.


Would this also imply you can wield it without penalties for dual wielding?

If following the literal interpretation, yes, as long as you aren't proficient with the skillful weapon.

If you really wanted to waste money on a skillful weapon anyways and argue for its literal interpretation in an attempt to abuse the system, you may as well just get a weapon of Aptitude, which is a +1 enhancement rather than a +2. The widely accepted interpretation of the Aptitude enhancement allows much more abuse than the literal interpretation of the Skillful enhancement anyways. You can simply generate a near infinite number of attacks with Lightning Mace and Roundabout Kick.

But yeah, Skillful weapon is always worse than the Aptitude enhancement, regardless of the interpretation. All I'm really saying is that it's an ability that uses horrible word choice to describe it.

[Darrin]

Hmmmm... Power Attack incurs a penalty.

However, if the penalty = 0 then damage output = 0?

[Gwendol]

Only from the PA though, weapon damage would be the same... :smallsmile:

Absurd result from poorly written text...

[ericgrau]

I don't think this is even RAW, only a poor interpretation.

It reminds of the FAQ question based on this little gem:


Once the owner has filled it, the quiver can produce any item she wishes, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard.


Boom, you have anything and everything you want in the multiverse. The FAQ of course said "Uh... no" but 10 times more politely and thorough.

[Pandyman]

Well yeah, I know that it's not what it's supposed to do, just that that's what the text literally says. Even if you use the literal overpowered interpretation, Aptitude is a bajillion times better.

But yeah, it's horribly worded but not the most overpowered thing, even if using the literal interpretation

[Dusk Eclipse]

PersonallyI would allow a non-proficient character wield a skillfull weapon without troubles as the other benefit (the 3/4 BAB) is a really niche* use and the enhancement strikes me as being overpriced.

The only actual use I can see is in a War Hulk build to get more itteratives.

[Pandyman]

PersonallyI would allow a non-proficient character wield a skillfull weapon without troubles as the other benefit (the 3/4 BAB) is a really niche* use and the enhancement strikes me as being overpriced.

The only actual use I can see is in a War Hulk build to get more itteratives.

That's the reason it's silly is because it would allow, as written, a non-proficient character to pick up any gargantuan+ weapon without any penalty.

[Wings of Peace]

I'm not saying this is wrong yet. I'm just saying that this feels like one of those RAW readings that relies on ignoring certain elements of grammar/sentence structure.

[Dusk Eclipse]

That's the reason it's silly is because it would allow, as written, a non-proficient character to pick up any gargantuan+ weapon without any penalty.

Maybe I should have explained my point better, I would allow a medium sized wizard to use a medium sized skillful greatsword; but not the same wizard to wield a gargantuan sword.

Though I agree that it has a silly wording.

[animewatcha]

Where is aptitude and link to apparent hijinks?

[Dusk Eclipse]

Complete Arcane; but as far as I know there aren't any hijinks other than avoiding unapropiate size penalties and maybe Twfighting ones, though paying for two + 3 equivalent weapons isn't worth it.

[Flickerdart]

It doesn't say without penalties. It says penalty, singular. Which means that if you're going to take the literal reading, then you only pick one penalty to avoid.

[LTwerewolf]

It doesn't say without penalties. It says penalty, singular. Which means that if you're going to take the literal reading, then you only pick one penalty to avoid.

This, else you would have seen many more builds based on dual wielding two colossal+ sized greatswords.

[Flickerdart]

This, else you would have seen many more builds based on dual wielding two colossal+ sized greatswords.
You can't really do that either - a creature is absolutely incapable of using a two-handed weapon that is made for a size larger than itself, and even with Strongarm Bracers, can only go up one size category. Either way, you can only wield a one-handed weapon in one hand.

Granted, you could do some kind of freaky Gargantuan-sized thri-kreen build, but you're not taking many penalties there to begin with.

[Pandyman]

It doesn't say without penalties. It says penalty, singular. Which means that if you're going to take the literal reading, then you only pick one penalty to avoid.

Ignore the biggest penalty, so the size penalty would be the obvious thing to negate. Pick up books like the Immortal Handbook that define sizes larger than colossal, and then get a weapon that is 8 sizes larger than a colossal weapon. Still well worth a -4 penalty for a Colossal++++++++ Jovar with great sword damage and 18-20 x2. Since Jovar is exotic you could pretty much have any class use it, as long as they can lift it. Lol

-4 is very easy to offset later in the game. If, of course, we're going out of our way to be literal, then I negate the penalty for wielding the weapon, which is an amalgamation of all the penalties in a single category and therefore fits into that reading of the text. But that's only if we're being overtly literal.

[Flickerdart]

Pick up books like the Immortal Handbook that define sizes larger than colossal, and then get a weapon that is 8 sizes larger than a colossal weapon.
The Epileptic Monkeys Handbook is not an official source, FYI.

[Socratov]

you penalty yourself with powerattack, powerattack fully and ignore the penalty to to hit :smallamused: What is that? You want to powerattack for full without losing AC? :smallcool:

[Pandyman]

The Epileptic Monkeys Handbook is not an official source, FYI.

I'm aware, but official sources can use magic to make a weapon larger(or count as larger, though that doesn't really apply here) than Colossal. I just find it easier to approximate the size of the weapon when i know the size of the creature that should normally be wielding it.

[Answerer]

I don't think this is even RAW, only a poor interpretation.

It reminds of the FAQ question based on this little gem:


Boom, you have anything and everything you want in the multiverse. The FAQ of course said "Uh... no" but 10 times more politely and thorough.
Both you and the FAQ are wrong by RAW. RAW means RAW -- the rules written on the page. The minute you say it's wrong because it doesn't seem reasonable or intended, you aren't talking about RAW anymore. No one would argue that either of these things is supposed to work the way they are written to, but the words are nonetheless on the page.

Without penalty means without penalty. There is no qualifier on that statement.

Any item means any item. There is no qualifier on that statement, either.

Both are pretty obviously oversights, I'll grant you. But just because Wizards made an obvious mistake doesn't mean the mistake wasn't made, or that it "doesn't count" as RAW just because it's obvious. RAW, there's a weapon in Sandstorm that does 1d43 damage. Oh well, it's silly. It's still what's actually written on the page.


It doesn't say without penalties. It says penalty, singular. Which means that if you're going to take the literal reading, then you only pick one penalty to avoid.
No, that's incorrect by the rules of English grammar. The clause "without penalty" means that if even one penalty applies, then the statement that you are wielding the weapon "without penalty" is no longer true. In order to fulfill the requirements of the sentence, no penalty can be applied.

Basically, because of the negation, the singular nature of the verb means that you cannot have even one. Removing a single penalty of your choice would require a sentence that spells that out exactly.

[Tvtyrant]

Now I just need a colossal skillful greatsword as a negative strength elf wizard.

[ericgrau]

Both you and the FAQ are wrong by RAW. RAW means RAW -- the rules written on the page. The minute you say it's wrong because it doesn't seem reasonable or intended, you aren't talking about RAW anymore. No one would argue that either of these things is supposed to work the way they are written to, but the words are nonetheless on the page.
This is a matter of English and what it actually says, not RAW vs RAI. Both possible readings are RAW. It's a matter of meaning from grammar, definitions, and so on.

It's about as sophisticated as eating the dates on a calendar because a date is a fruit. No, just no... reading RAW this way isn't even super-literal RAW, it's just silly.

It is a common mistake to confuse "my own personal interpretation of RAW" with "indisputable RAW" though. Particularly when someone wants to make a point.

[Answerer]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The only qualification in the sentence is clearly and unambiguously referring only to whether or not the wielder is proficient in order to get the benefit, which is listed only as wielding the weapon without penalty. That is what the sentence says, and there is literally no other way to read it.

[SowZ]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The only qualification in the sentence is clearly and unambiguously referring only to whether or not the wielder is proficient in order to get the benefit, which is listed only as wielding the weapon without penalty. That is what the sentence says, and there is literally no other way to read it.

Agreed. Saying the word penalty only applies to a single penalty would be like saying 'immune to fire damage' would only give you immunity to a single source of fire damage if two hit you at once.

[Artillery]

You can't really do that either - a creature is absolutely incapable of using a two-handed weapon that is made for a size larger than itself, and even with Strongarm Bracers, can only go up one size category. Either way, you can only wield a one-handed weapon in one hand.

Granted, you could do some kind of freaky Gargantuan-sized thri-kreen build, but you're not taking many penalties there to begin with.

Actually their is an enchantment to do just that.
Weightless from Arms and Armor.
A +2 enchantment that "effectively" boost strength by 2 and also

Additionally, a character can wield a weightless weapon up to one size category larger than them-selves one handed, and can apply the Weapon Finesse feat to such weapons.

So you wanted to dual wield larger Greatswords as a light weapon?

[Pandyman]

Good thing Answerer agrees with me. Now I can rest much easier knowing that someone else agrees with my literal interpretation. lol Even with the literal interpretation, it's not the most OP thing in the game. I'm sure the DM would still throw a book at you and say no to using the RAW version of this, but that's their job anyways.


Now I just need a colossal skillful greatsword as a negative strength elf wizard.

That entirely depends on the interpretation of carrying capacity and the carrying check penalty. I would say that since its weight isn't technically a penalty, beyond the obvious check penalty incurred from carrying a medium/heavy load, you would still need a high enough strength to physically lift the weapon. That's just my opinion though.

[icefractal]

Both you and the FAQ are wrong by RAW. RAW means RAW -- the rules written on the page.I have to disagree on the quiver. The sentence is "Once the owner has filled it, the quiver can produce any item she wishes, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard." Regular quivers or scabbards don't contain items you didn't put in them. Ignoring part of the sentence isn't RAW, any more than using Power Attack for +1 trillion to damage by ignoring the "may not exceed your base attack bonus" is.

The weapon property is more ambiguously worded, but the "all penalties" interpretation falls on the side of "not usable in any actual game". There's TO, but my personal feeling on TO is that it's not about tricks with wording or typos like the 1d43 weapon, but about combinations that are clearly legal, yet so powerful they wouldn't be used in an actual game.

[Answerer]

I have to disagree on the quiver. The sentence is "Once the owner has filled it, the quiver can produce any item she wishes, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard." Regular quivers or scabbards don't contain items you didn't put in them. Ignoring part of the sentence isn't RAW, any more than using Power Attack for +1 trillion to damage by ignoring the "may not exceed your base attack bonus" is.
No, ignoring part of a sentence is not RAW. However, that description is of "how you draw the item" and imposes no limitation on how the item is drawn. RAW, you can draw anything, even things much larger than the quiver or scabbard, "as if from a regular quiver or scabbard." Assuming that this is a limitation on the item is an inference that the rules do not actually contain, and more importantly, we are talking about a magic item that is bigger on the inside -- you cannot assume that the way things work in the real world even begin to apply to it.


The weapon property is more ambiguously worded, but the "all penalties" interpretation falls on the side of "not usable in any actual game". There's TO, but my personal feeling on TO is that it's not about tricks with wording or typos like the 1d43 weapon, but about combinations that are clearly legal, yet so powerful they wouldn't be used in an actual game.
It's really not ambiguous at all; it's pretty obviously an oversight, but the English in the sentence can only mean one thing. And abusing poorly-worded features is a huge part of TO.

[ericgrau]

That part is true. The error lies in the definition of "produce" which can have multiple meanings including "to bring forth (from)".

Skillful weapon is ambiguous in whether "penalty" means "every penalty" or "a penalty" (of your choice) or "the penalty". The last one would then refer to the nonproficiency penalty.

That's why these are matters of grammar. Remember folks:
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

[Pandyman]

That part is true. The error lies in the definition of "produce" which can have multiple meanings including "to bring forth (from)".

Skillful weapon is ambiguous in whether "penalty" means "every penalty" or "a penalty" (of your choice) or "the penalty". The last one would then refer to the nonproficiency penalty.

That's why these are matters of grammar. Remember folks:
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.

But even removing every penalty, though very good, isn't overpowering for most melee characters. Wizards, druids, etc don't get as much use from good melee weapons anyways. Most melee classes need a lot of help in 3.5 to stand on even ground with a magic user, so this doesn't seem too bad to interpret the grammar literally for this case.

[Answerer]

Skillful weapon is ambiguous in whether "penalty" means "every penalty" or "a penalty" (of your choice) or "the penalty". The last one would then refer to the nonproficiency penalty.
There is no ambiguity whatsoever. Even "the penalty" wouldn't refer to the nonproficiency penalty – it just wouldn't make grammatical sense, because proficiency hadn't even been brought up yet, nor is any reference made to the nonproficiency penalty at any point in the sentence. The qualification on penalty that you want the sentence to have must be spelled out, because "without penalty," in English, means that the entire action has no penalty applied to it at all. The qualifiers need to be there in order to qualify the sentence as it should be. It is an oversight and a mistake, but it is not ambiguous. It is unambiguously stating that which the almost-certainly did not intend to state.


That's why these are matters of grammar. Remember folks:
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Cute, but neither applies to the sentence at hand.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But even removing every penalty, though very good, isn't overpowering for most melee characters. Wizards, druids, etc don't get as much use from good melee weapons anyways. Most melee classes need a lot of help in 3.5 to stand on even ground with a magic user, so this doesn't seem too bad to interpret the grammar literally for this case.

No amount of ambiguous or even just plain wrong readings of RAW can ever close the gap between melee and casters completely. It's just not doable without homebrew.

Because this is inarguably true (see the thread An Improved Mage Killer for details) there's no point in saying things like the above.

Being able to wield a weapon without penalties for any of the circumstances surrounding the use of that weapon (size, PA, non-proficiency, etc) is horribly overpowered compared to anything else available to melee characters. Just moving the penalty from power attack from to-hit to AC takes a chain of feats. Offsetting a single iteration of size penalty takes a magic item that takes up a body slot (or a universally derided feat).

Allowing this absurd reading could allow a 15th level expert to compete with a same-level totemist in combat. How is that anything less than obviously overpowered? :smallconfused:

[Pandyman]

No amount of ambiguous or even just plain wrong readings of RAW can ever close the gap between melee and casters completely. It's just not doable without homebrew.

This is simply the reason I made the thread, because the RAW doesn't say what it was meant to say, hence the "poorly worded". Though there are definitely things just as OP as the literal interpretation of the RAW text for this enhancement. lol Like Candles of Almighty Genie Summoning(Candles of Invocation) are an example of such things. In fact, by the time you can actually get a weapon with the enhancement, assuming it's not spoonfed to you by the DM, melee in general is getting outclassed by "Save or Die" and control spells. Not to mention a skillful melee weapon doesn't help you hit the flying mage.


Allowing this absurd reading could allow a 15th level expert to compete with a same-level totemist in combat. How is that anything less than obviously overpowered? :smallconfused:

When did Experts start obtaining such obscure gear like a colossal skillful weapon? Either way though, that's completely true. I'd rather spend less money on the Aptitude enhancement anyways, as said earlier. Infinite Crit combos by level 10 are much better for a +1 anyways(With the obvious necessary feats and no need for interpretation on how Aptitude works.) This would, in fact, allow an expert to automatically win against a Totemist for quite a bit less gold and some standard feats. lol

EDIT:
Being able to wield a weapon without penalties for any of the circumstances surrounding the use of that weapon (size, PA, non-proficiency, etc) is horribly overpowered compared to anything else available to melee characters.
This, however, is not true. A weapon proficiency feat is not worth anywhere near the 18k spent on a Skillful weapon. There are so many cheaper ways around this, especially since the difference between a simple, martial, and exotic weapon of similar size is generally about a few points of average damage.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is simply the reason I made the thread, because the RAW doesn't say what it was meant to say, hence the "poorly worded". Though there are definitely things just as OP as the literal interpretation of the RAW text for this enhancement. lol Like Candles of Almighty Genie Summoning(Candles of Invocation) are an example of such things. In fact, by the time you can actually get a weapon with the enhancement, assuming it's not spoonfed to you by the DM, melee in general is getting outclassed by "Save or Die" and control spells. Not to mention a skillful melee weapon doesn't help you hit the flying mage.



When did Experts start obtaining such obscure gear like a colossal skillful weapon? Either way though, that's completely true. I'd rather spend less money on the Aptitude enhancement anyways, as said earlier. Infinite Crit combos by level 10 are much better for a +1 anyways(With the obvious necessary feats and no need for interpretation on how Aptitude works.) This would, in fact, allow an expert to automatically win against a Totemist for quite a bit less gold and some standard feats. lol

EDIT:
This, however, is not true. A weapon proficiency feat is not worth anywhere near the 18k spent on a Skillful weapon. There are so many cheaper ways around this, especially since the difference between a simple, martial, and exotic weapon of similar size is generally about a few points of average damage.

It's not 18k just for proficiency though. It's 18k to ignore non-proficiency, the penalty from PA, the penalty from being prone, the penalty from being in a grapple, the penalty from swinging it through water, and who knows how many more penalties I didn't come up with off the top of my head. If you look at it that way, 18k is a freakin' steal. Most melees would gladly pay that to be able to power attack for full on every attack ever.

If it's just the non-proficiency being negated then, yeah 18k is a bit steep. Even the full, intended, effect (negate non-proficiency and increase BAB to average) is a bit pricey at 18k unless you're trying to melee as a character with poor BAB for his entire progression. Though doing that begs the question, "Why?"

Oh, and experts started getting such obscure crap when adventurers started selling loot they couldn't use to buy more useful items :smallbiggrin:

[Pandyman]

I was talking about the RAI not being worth 18k, where you only get 3/4 BAB and ignore non-proficiency. There are much better ways to spend 18k, which we seem to agree on anyways. lol 18k for Raw is quite cheap; but so is 3 wishes for 8.4k, since each wish is worth 25k gold. Actually balancing RAW to make it usable in a regular campaign wouldn't be that hard, but I'll leave that to DMs and whatnot.


Oh, and experts started getting such obscure crap when adventurers started selling loot they couldn't use to buy more useful items :smallbiggrin:

Lol, I guess that's all DM dependent, but I see what you did there.

[icefractal]

I'm somewhat reminded of this comic. :smalltongue:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/words_that_end_in_gry.png

[Pandyman]

I love xkcd style comics. lol