Question about adaptive weapon enchant

[Max Caysey]

Hi...

A pretty simple question: Would it be possible, to use a kukri and still benefit from the Shadow Blade feat, as a Swordsage, if the Kukri had the adaptive enchant?

Thanks

EDIT: Aptitude weapon I meant to say!

[OldTrees1]

You are best off asking your DM.

Aptitude is divisive. Some interpret it as only affecting feats that select a weapon (like weapon focus or improved critical) while others think that it allows Boomerang Daze(a feat that only works on boomerangs) to work on a dagger because the feat mentions a weapon.

Personally I rule it as: "No, aptitude will not apply Shadow Blade to non Shadow Hand weapons, however I would be willing to add kukri to the weapons that benefit."

[Crake]

I am assuming you mean the aptitude weapon enchant?


You are best off asking your DM.

Adaptive is divisive. Some interpret it as only affecting feats that select a weapon (like weapon focus or improved critical) while others think that it allows Boomerang Daze(a feat that only works on boomerangs) to work on a dagger because the feat mentions a weapon.

Personally I rule it as: "No, adaptive will not apply Shadow Blade to non Shadow Hand weapons, however I would be willing to add kukri to the weapons that benefit."

Taking out the examples (which seem to be the major source of confusion leading to people ruling the first way you stated), the rules text reads: A wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality.

Nothing about that seems to imply the feats in question are ones that require you to pick a weapon. Personally, if a weapon special ability actually has people picking feats like boomerang daze, which otherwise practically never see use, I'd call that a good thing.

[OldTrees1]

Taking out the examples (which seem to be the major source of confusion leading to people ruling the first way you stated), the rules text reads: A wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality.

Nothing about that seems to imply the feats in question are ones that require you to pick a weapon. Personally, if a weapon special ability actually has people picking feats like boomerang daze, which otherwise practically never see use, I'd call that a good thing.

Yes, I also assume the OP means the aptitude weapon.

Crake you are being circular. You are removing a section of the text because you claim it leads to people ruling the first way and then say that the edited text is evidence for ruling the second way. Using similar logic I could claim anything I want. But rather than claim either side as "confused", I am merely going to accept the ambiguity.

Crake's circular argument demonstrates how the text is inherently ambiguous and thus necessitates asking your DM.

[Max Caysey]

NB: Yes I meant aptitude... my bad!:smallredface:


Could one argue that; If the feat makes it possible for me to use any weapon (and thus gain the benefit of an feat related to a specific weapon) instead of what ever specific weapon the specific feat is mentioning - like that of Vae School or Weapon Specialization - then it would indeed be possible for one to receive the benefit from any weapon specific feat on any weapon?

With that interpretation, the aptitude enchantment makes your weapon count as all or any weapons at once (in relation to feats that is). That is a pretty big thing...

[OldTrees1]

NB: Yes I meant aptitude... my bad!:smallredface:


Could one argue that; If the feat makes it possible for me to use any weapon (and thus gain the benefit of an feat related to a specific weapon) instead of what ever specific weapon the specific feat is mentioning - like that of Vae School or Weapon Specialization - then it would indeed be possible for one to receive the benefit from any weapon specific feat on any weapon?

With that interpretation, the aptitude enchantment makes your weapon count as all or any weapons at once (in relation to feats that is). That is a pretty big thing...

Yes, under the more flexible interpretation the Aptitude weapon can benefit from ALL weapon specific feats regardless of the actual weapon type or the weapon type the feats specify. For example you could Daze, Daze, & Nauseate someone by combining Boomerang Daze, Dire Flail Smash, and Three Mountain.

[Necroticplague]

I don't see how people get the 'only feats that let you select' interpretation. Weapon focus and specialization are listed as examples. That only tells us that they're definitely within the set of things Aptitude can affect. It doesn't exclude anything else that falls under the umbrella of 'feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon'.

[OldTrees1]

I don't see how people get the 'only feats that let you select' interpretation. Weapon focus and specialization are listed as examples. That only tells us that they're definitely within the set of things Aptitude can affect. It doesn't exclude anything else that falls under the umbrella of 'feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon'.

They likely parse it similar to:

A wielder who has (feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon, such as Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, or the like), can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality.

So it has to be a "feat such as Weapon Focus or the like".

Which is of course different from parsing it as follows


A wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon, (such as Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization), or the like, can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality.

Which would be "feats that affect a particular type of weapon or the like".

Isn't the English language fun!

[Necroticplague]

They likely parse it similar to:


So it has to be a "feat such as Weapon Focus or the like".

Which is of course different from parsing it as follows



Which would be "feats that affect a particular type of weapon or the like".

Isn't the English language fun!
Doesn't the english language rules about appositives, that an appositive inserted with commas is non-restrictive, indicate that the following is the most accurate grouping?

A wielder who has feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon,(such as Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, or the like), can apply the benefits of those feats to any weapon that has the aptitude quality.

[OldTrees1]

Doesn't the english language rules about appositives, that an appositive inserted with commas is non-restrictive, indicate that the following is the most accurate grouping?

Abstract Answer:
Language is a medium the author uses to communicate. In practice it is not always aware of all the rules. So the audience looks at the text and tries to extrapolate what the message they think the author meant to send.

Concrete Answer:
It is not consistent colloquially so IF it is one of the rules*, only rely on it being rigidly followed when either author or audience are English Majors.

Tangent:
And then, there is the whole deal about commas sometimes being used as symbols for spoken pauses, vs being used to carve up sentences into smaller clauses. (one of each in there)

*It is not a rule to my knowledge but I am only a native speaker, not an English Major.

[Max Caysey]

They likely parse it similar to:


So it has to be a "feat such as Weapon Focus or the like".

Which is of course different from parsing it as follows



Which would be "feats that affect a particular type of weapon or the like".

Isn't the English language fun!

Very good questions... Next question could be, whether or not, the most beneficial interpretation, would be too much? Would that conceivably break the game at any point?

[Hackulator]

I don't see how people get the 'only feats that let you select' interpretation. Weapon focus and specialization are listed as examples. That only tells us that they're definitely within the set of things Aptitude can affect. It doesn't exclude anything else that falls under the umbrella of 'feats that affect the use of a particular type of weapon'.

Because under one ruling, aptitude is a good, situationally useful enchant and under the other it's insanely broken and can be used to create builds that get infinite attacks or apply 5 different debuffs when you hit.

Also because one ruling makes sense (this enchant makes me as skilled with this weapon as with the weapon I am most skilled with) and the other does not (somehow this dagger allows me to use the same fighting style I use with a greathammer and get the same effect).

[OldTrees1]

Very good questions... Next question could be, whether or not, the most beneficial interpretation, would be too much? Would that conceivably break the game at any point?

In theory:
The more beneficial interpretation is a bad design for a good result. A better design would be to grant it for free.

In practice:
While most of the affected feats are weak(most weapon style feats) or reasonable(Boomerang Daze), some are not. The only reason everyone knows about the Aptitude weapon enhancement is because someone wanted to use the Lightning Maces feat on a weapon with a much larger critical threat range. This lead to numerous debates about whether that combo deals infinite damage (summary: yes it has a large finite chance per attack of doing infinite damage).


Final conclusion: Just give the martials a bone. Scrap the aptitude weapon enhancement, grant the beneficial interpretation as a free feature of combat basics with the provision that the exact effects might need to be tweaked for the new weapon.

[Necroticplague]

Abstract Answer:
Language is a medium the author uses to communicate. In practice it is not always aware of all the rules. So the audience looks at the text and tries to extrapolate what the message they think the author meant to send.
Only if one gives a crap about authorial intent. Which, in legalistic discussions similar to this one, usually isn't the case. I care about what the text says, not what the author meant to say.


Tangent:
And then, there is the whole deal about commas sometimes being used as symbols for spoken pauses, vs being used to carve up sentences into smaller clauses. (one of each in there)
Actually, two of one, three of the other. Two to set aside an appositive, and three to indicate pauses when giving a list.


*It is not a rule to my knowledge but I am only a native speaker, not an English Major.
Same boat here. Had to look up the terms to put the rules I thought was the case intuitively into words (didn't know 'appositive' or 'non-restrictive' in this context before today).


Because under one ruling, aptitude is a good, situationally useful enchant and under the other it's insanely broken and can be used to create builds that get infinite attacks or apply 5 different debuffs when you hit. I'm not sure how an argument from consequences is relevant. After all, the gate spell is plainly more powerful than several classes, does that make it magically somehow less useful than the text allows for?

Also, to turn this around the other way: one interpretation essentially eliminates it, due to being so situational as to be useless, while the other provides for an interesting option that allows combos that are otherwise impossible, without severely breaking anything (the 'infinite attacks' trick relies on dubious crit-stacking using unupdated 3.0 content. And takes 7 feats to pull off, the various styles that allow for riders all have massive amounts of prerequisites that make this a not horribly abusable).


Also because one ruling makes sense (this enchant makes me as skilled with this weapon as with the weapon I am most skilled with) and the other does not (somehow this dagger allows me to use the same fighting style I use with a greathammer and get the same effect).

Both of those are exactly as sensible: not a single bit.


Very good questions... Next question could be, whether or not, the most beneficial interpretation, would be too much? Would that conceivably break the game at any point?

Considering that most of the feats one could really abuse this with tend to have a whole ton of prerequisites, it's kinda hard to abuse. Combining most Styles will eat up a whole ton of feats, turning you into a horrible one-trick pony. With one specific type of weapon.

Main exceptions are the two Boomerang feats (Richochet and Daze), which are pretty good for only having one 'gate feat' (EWP: Boomerang).

[Max Caysey]

Only if one gives a crap about authorial intent. Which, in legalistic discussions similar to this one, usually isn't the case. I care about what the text says, not what the author meant to say.


Actually, two of one, three of the other. Two to set aside an appositive, and three to indicate pauses when giving a list.


Same boat here. Had to look up the terms to put the rules I thought was the case intuitively into words (didn't know 'appositive' or 'non-restrictive' in this context before today).

I'm not sure how an argument from consequences is relevant. After all, the gate spell is plainly more powerful than several classes, does that make it magically somehow less useful than the text allows for?

Also, to turn this around the other way: one interpretation essentially eliminates it, due to being so situational as to be useless, while the other provides for an interesting option that allows combos that are otherwise impossible, without severely breaking anything (the 'infinite attacks' trick relies on dubious crit-stacking using unupdated 3.0 content. And takes 7 feats to pull off, the various styles that allow for riders all have massive amounts of prerequisites that make this a not horribly abusable).



Both of those are exactly as sensible: not a single bit.



Considering that most of the feats one could really abuse this with tend to have a whole ton of prerequisites, it's kinda hard to abuse. Combining most Styles will eat up a whole ton of feats, turning you into a horrible one-trick pony. With one specific type of weapon.

Main exceptions are the two Boomerang feats (Richochet and Daze), which are pretty good for only having one 'gate feat' (EWP: Boomerang).


To be perfectly honest, im just looking for a way to get Dex to damage with my kukri... it's so far the only way I can see in d&d 3.5.

[Necroticplague]

To be perfectly honest, im just looking for a way to get Dex to damage with my kukri... it's so far the only way I can see in d&d 3.5.

Feycraft can be used to do that. Decreases the damage die a bit, but that's more than compensated

[Max Caysey]

Feycraft can be used to do that. Decreases the damage die a bit, but that's more than compensated

Ay... it could, but the shadow blade just adds the Dex on top of strength... As I read it. But you are correct. I had actually forgotten about Feycraft! With that said, being a Swordsage it seems like a cool feat to have...

[rrwoods]

Feycraft can be used to do that. Decreases the damage die a bit, but that's more than compensated
Feycraft doesn't do this at all. A light Feycraft weapon is auto-Finessed and a one-handed Feycraft weapon is Finesseable. Outside of the damage die reduction it doesn't affect damage.

[Necroticplague]

Feycraft doesn't do this at all. A light Feycraft weapon is auto-Finessed and a one-handed Feycraft weapon is Finesseable. Outside of the damage die reduction it doesn't affect damage.

Whoops, that's my memory failing me. I thought it was 'one handed is finesseable, light is auto-finessed, and if you have Weapon Finesse, light adds DEX to damage'.