Radiant Weapon makes powers Radiant?

99 posts / 0 new
Last post

In some crit-fisher builds I've seen, they've talked about going for Student of Caiphon to get crits on 18-20 with radiant powers then using a Radiant Weapon to turn twin strike (or storm of blades or whatever) into a radiant attack.  As I see it, the radiant weapon makes the damage radiant, but does not give the power the radiant keyword, and so this would not work, correct?  And if this does work, doesn't the Brilliant Energy Weapon make more sense, as it has d10s for crit die?

The At-Will power on the item has the Radiant keyword so it adds that keyword to attack powers used through the weapon. Same as a Flaming Weapon adding the Fire keyword to attacks.


If you're going to be making a lot of attacks, I'm sure the number crunchers have found that adding the enhancement bonus of the weapon to damage rolls leads to more damage overall than the higher crit die of the Brilliant Energy Weapon.

The At-Will power on the item has the Radiant keyword so it adds that keyword to attack powers used through the weapon. Same as a Flaming Weapon adding the Fire keyword to attacks.


I don't get that reading: it changes the damage, yes.  Nowhere does it say it adds a keyword.  It doesn't make powers used with it "radiant powers" as would be needed to qualify for the paragon path's feature.


I suppose it's worded a bit less specifically than the similar feature of Radiant Servant, but that would still be my interpretation.

Anytime a weapon adds a specific type of damage to a power, that power gains the related keyword. This is how the Wintertouched, Lasting Frost combo works.


Phb p. 226:


 


 


Like racial powers and class powers, magic item


powers often have keywords that indicate their


damage or effect types. When you use a magic item as


part of a racial power or a class power, the keywords


of the item’s power and the other power all apply. For


instance, if a paladin uses a flaming sword to attack


with a power that deals radiant damage, the power


deals both fire damage and radiant damage.

Also see phb page 55.  This works for anything that adds a damage type to an attack, such as an ability gained through a feat or PP.  If the power does damage type X, and X has a corresponding keyword, the power is considered to have keyword X.  Period.




Also see phb page 55.  This works for anything that adds a damage type to an attack, such as an ability gained through a feat or PP.  If the power does damage type X, and X has a corresponding keyword, the power is considered to have keyword X.  Period.


 





That requires taking half of a sentence out of context of the rest of the sentence, the rest of the paragraph, and the section its in.  The sentence is an explaination of how to read keywords on existing powers, not instructions to change keywords if damage types change.



Also see phb page 55.  This works for anything that adds a damage type to an attack, such as an ability gained through a feat or PP.  If the power does damage type X, and X has a corresponding keyword, the power is considered to have keyword X.  Period.


 





That requires taking half of a sentence out of context of the rest of the sentence, the rest of the paragraph, and the section its in.  The sentence is an explaination of how to read keywords on existing powers, not instructions to change keywords if damage types change.



Yeah, but Samrin's quote is kosher.  I'm not ready to proclaim damage = keywords in every case, but weapons -> powers seems to be RAW.


Yeah, but Samrin's quote is kosher.  I'm not ready to proclaim damage = keywords in every case, but weapons -> powers seems to be RAW.





Not disputing that; you definitely pick up the keyword when you use an item power that has a keyword with an attack.  If you get a damage change from a property or feat that doesn't specifically add a keyword (some do), then you don't get the keyword, though.


If you get a damage change from a property or feat that doesn't specifically add a keyword (some do), then you don't get the keyword, though.




Wizards's FAQ says otherwise.


 


14. When do a Magic Item's keywords apply? If you use a magic item's power in conjunction with a power granted to you by your race or class, that item's keywords are added to the regular keywords of the power you are using. For example, if you have a Flaming Weapon, and you use an at-will power to attack an enemy along with the at-will power of the Flaming Weapon, your attack will have the Fire keyword in addition to the normal keywords of your attack. You have to be using the powers of the weapon for those keywords to be added; simply using the magic item does not necessarily mean every keyword attached to a power of that item will be added.


 


Replace Flaming Weapon with Radiant Weapon, and Fire with Radiant, and there you have it.



If you get a damage change from a property or feat that doesn't specifically add a keyword (some do), then you don't get the keyword, though.




Wizards's FAQ says otherwise.


 


14. When do a Magic Item's keywords apply? If you use a magic item's power in conjunction with a power granted to you by your race or class, that item's keywords are added to the regular keywords of the power you are using. For example, if you have a Flaming Weapon, and you use an at-will power to attack an enemy along with the at-will power of the Flaming Weapon, your attack will have the Fire keyword in addition to the normal keywords of your attack. You have to be using the powers of the weapon for those keywords to be added; simply using the magic item does not necessarily mean every keyword attached to a power of that item will be added.


 


Replace Flaming Weapon with Radiant Weapon, and Fire with Radiant, and there you have it.




Did you read my entire post?  That's what I said in the first sentence.  The second sentence covers things that don't come from magic item powers with keywords; those need to specifically grant the keyword.  Feats and magic item properties, not being magic item powers, will not automatically grant a keyword.


Did you read my entire post?  That's what I said in the first sentence.  The second sentence covers things that don't come from magic item powers with keywords; those need to specifically grant the keyword.  Feats and magic item properties, not being magic item powers, will not automatically grant a keyword.




 


Check out PH pg 55:


 


The other keywords define the fundamental effects of a power. For instance, a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword. A power that has the poison keyword might deal poison damage, or it might slow the target, immobilize the target, or stun the target. But the poison keyword indicates that it’s a poison effect, and other rules in the game relate to that fact in different ways.


 


The damage type begets the keyword. An attack that is doing Radiant damage, regardless of why, has the Radiant keyword.


 



Did you read my entire post?  That's what I said in the first sentence.  The second sentence covers things that don't come from magic item powers with keywords; those need to specifically grant the keyword.  Feats and magic item properties, not being magic item powers, will not automatically grant a keyword.




 


Check out PH pg 55:


 


The other keywords define the fundamental effects of a power. For instance, a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword. A power that has the poison keyword might deal poison damage, or it might slow the target, immobilize the target, or stun the target. But the poison keyword indicates that it’s a poison effect, and other rules in the game relate to that fact in different ways.


 


The damage type begets the keyword. An attack that is doing Radiant damage, regardless of why, has the Radiant keyword.


 




That's already been addressed:




Also see phb page 55.  This works for anything that adds a damage type to an attack, such as an ability gained through a feat or PP.  If the power does damage type X, and X has a corresponding keyword, the power is considered to have keyword X.  Period.


 





That requires taking half of a sentence out of context of the rest of the sentence, the rest of the paragraph, and the section its in.  The sentence is an explaination of how to read keywords on existing powers, not instructions to change keywords if damage types change.




 

Repeating it doesn't make it true.


Your stance boils down to "It doesn't spell it out for us, so we ignore it entirely."


Unless you can find anything that suggests otherwise, we have to go by what text we have. The text says X damage = X keyword.


Repeating it doesn't make it true.


Your stance boils down to "It doesn't spell it out for us, so we ignore it entirely."


Unless you can find anything that suggests otherwise, we have to go by what text we have. The text says X damage = X keyword.



The rule you quoted isn't a defining rule.  That's why it starts with "for instance".


Repeating it doesn't make it true.


Your stance boils down to "It doesn't spell it out for us, so we ignore it entirely."


Unless you can find anything that suggests otherwise, we have to go by what text we have. The text says X damage = X keyword.




No, but repeating it when you haven't addressed it is a good way to point out that you haven't addressed it.  Since you were simply repeating a point (which, as you've mentioned, doesn't make it true) that had already been addressed, I drew your attention to it.


My stance is that English is language that requires words to be put in context to be understood, and taking half a sentence out of context (as you do when you bold half a sentence and only read that part) will not give you the meaning of the sentence.  The sentence is in a section titled "How to Read a Power."  That section has several subsections, each telling you how to read a specific portion of a power.  The subsection in question is titled "Keywords," and tells us specifically how to read the keywords on a power.


The sentence itself begins with "for instance."  In English, this means that the following text is an example of the text that came before and only makes sense in context of what came before.  The preceding sentence, "The other keywords define the fundamental effects of a power," give us that context; the keyword tells us what fundamental effects that power will have.  The paragraph goes on to further explain- "But the poison keyword indicates that it’s a poison effect, and other rules in the game relate to that fact in different ways. Dwarves have a bonus to saving throws against poison effects, for example."  It's telling us that a power with a keyword will interact with other effects that specify that keyword- a poison power for the Dwarf racial power, a cold power for Lasting Frost, and so on.


Since interpreting it as you do requires taking half a sentence out of context of not only the section and paragraph its part of but of the actual sentence its part of, it's clearly not correct.  Once you put it in that context (and in particular, don't throw out half the sentence), it's clearly explanitory text on how to read a power and a power's keywords, not instructions on altering keywords.

Why isn't it a defining rule? What leads you to that conclusion?


 


"For instance" doesn't mean that the following isn't always true (ie, defining). "For instance" precedes an example, aka an instance, that illustrates the previous statement.


 


Regardless, we have one thing that suggests that damage = keyword, and absolutely nothing that suggests otherwise.


Since interpreting it as you do requires taking half a sentence out of context of not only the section and paragraph its part of but of the actual sentence its part of, it's clearly not correct.  Once you put it in that context (and in particular, don't throw out half the sentence), it's clearly explanitory text on how to read a power and a power's keywords, not instructions on altering keywords.




But why is it so that, because it's part of another section, it can't be applied anywhere else?


Why isn't it a defining rule? What leads you to that conclusion?


 


"For instance" doesn't mean that the following isn't always true (ie, defining). "For instance" precedes an example, aka an instance, that illustrates the previous statement.


 


Regardless, we have one thing that suggests that damage = keyword, and absolutely nothing that suggests otherwise.




It's not a defining rule because, as you say, it's an example that illustrates the previous statement; the previous statement would have to say something like "altering or adding a damage type changes the keyword" for the example to mean what you say it means.


 




Since interpreting it as you do requires taking half a sentence out of context of not only the section and paragraph its part of but of the actual sentence its part of, it's clearly not correct.  Once you put it in that context (and in particular, don't throw out half the sentence), it's clearly explanatory text on how to read a power and a power's keywords, not instructions on altering keywords.




But why is it so that, because it's part of another section, it can't be applied anywhere else?




Context matters.  A rule about altering keywords could certainly exist in a section on reading keywords, but it would certainly need to say that you should alter keywords rather than being an example text in a paragraph about reading keywords.  If the preceding sentence was along the lines of the sentence on altering I wrote above, then the example would mean what you want it to mean; since the preceding sentence is nothing of the sort, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

As such, the only general rule we have on adding a keyword to a power is on page 226, dealing with the general rule off adding the keywords of a magic item power to those of a power you use that magic item power with.  There are also some specific things that specify the keyword is altered- Arcane Admixture, for instance.  Without a rule specifically telling us to add or alter a keyword, we don't do it; "the rules don't say I can't" isn't a good enough reason.

Why is this thread so long?


As already quoted, PHB 226:


"When you use a magic item as part of a racial power or a class power, the keywords of the item's power and the other power all apply."


The example in the text that follows is not a good example, because it makes no illustration of keywords but rather mentions only the damage.  Simply an oversight, but do we need an example in the face of such a clear-cut statement?  That use of the power carries ALL keywords that apply, whether the original power had them in it or not.  And do you really want to change a keyword?  Well let's see:


If a monster has immunity to fire and vulnerable 10 to cold and you hit with a Scorching Burst using a Frost Weapon's AW, you deal rolled damage plus 10.  It had freakin immunity to fire and yet you killed it with Scorching Burst?!?!?!


Yes.  Yes I did.


So I don't get why this thread is so long.

Why is this thread so long?

The current debate seems to be:
If a power does typed damage, can we assume that it has that damage type's keyword, even if the power does not actually contain the keyword in the standard keyword area of the power description?

I'm personally ok with using PHB p55 "a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword" as an answer (it's at least intuitive and resolves the issue for now), but given it's context I wouldn't say with any certainty that this is actually what the writers were trying to say (i.e. by "and thus has the acid keyword", they could've possibly meant "and this is why the power has the acid keyword in the keyword section of it's power description")

Then of course there is always the other classic debate: If a power changes the damage to a new type and then adds the keyword to the power, does the old damage type disappear (as it has been changed) even though the old keyword remains.


The rules say yes, but the example says no.

What if you were using a Frost weapon or something with + elemental damage on a crit, but you were not using the weapons power that allowd you to convert all damage to the elemental type.  Would a power that crit with that weapon get the Cold keyword by virtue of adding some cold damage?

As I see it, the radiant weapon makes the damage radiant, but does not give the power the radiant keyword

I just noticed: the radiant weapon's power does have the radiant keyword, so it can indeed give the radiant keyword to other powers. So the OP's question isn't really an issue, but I'm still curious about powers that have typed damage but no keyword.


What if you were using a Frost weapon or something with + elemental damage on a crit, but you were not using the weapons power that allowd you to convert all damage to the elemental type.  Would a power that crit with that weapon get the Cold keyword by virtue of adding some cold damage?





No, just the crit damage is certainly typed, because it's not contained under the power's "Hit:" paragraph.  The crit damage is separate, even if you use the AW to add the keyword.

----


Using the AW of an item adds the keyword to the power.  How is this not clear?  It says "all."  I saw someone else quote the same thing, PHB 226, and I quoted it myself because I thought someone had missed it somewhere.


I don't know if the damage causes the keyword to be part of the power or the keyword causes the damage to be (additionally) typed, but I do know that the text says "all" keywords apply for that power, as if the power becomes an aggregation of powers.

Using the AW of an item adds the keyword to the power.  How is this not clear?

It is clear... but I'm unware of anyone that still believes otherwise. But that appears unrelated to Tvar's actual question. Tvar's query instead seems related to the clarified discussion I provided to you earlier, i.e.: is typed damage inherently considered to have the associated keyword even when no keyword is listed.

Note: using the term "AW" instead of typing "At-Will" might cause your post to seem unclear (since "AW" is not in the D&D forum's acronym glossary).


 

Quoting the original poster:



In some crit-fisher builds I've seen, they've talked about going for Student of Caiphon to get crits on 18-20 with radiant powers then using a Radiant Weapon to turn twin strike (or storm of blades or whatever) into a radiant attack.  As I see it, the radiant weapon makes the damage radiant, but does not give the power the radiant keyword, and so this would not work, correct?  And if this does work, doesn't the Brilliant Energy Weapon make more sense, as it has d10s for crit die?





My answer:

This would work, because the power is processed to include the keyword resulting from the use of the Radiant or Brilliant Energy Weapon's At-Will power.


 


mvincent:  I use "AW" as my code for "At-Will" when I'm writing it on power cards.  I did not know it wasn't in common use.  I hope it wasn't misunderstood to be "as-written."


If I sound snarky, I'm sorry.  I know some people are learning.  So am I, as a matter of fact.


Why is this thread so long?

The current debate seems to be:
If a power does typed damage, can we assume that it has that damage type's keyword, even if the power does not actually contain the keyword in the standard keyword area of the power description?

I'm personally ok with using PHB p55 "a power that deals acid damage is an acid effect and thus has the acid keyword" as an answer (it's at least intuitive and resolves the issue for now), but given it's context I wouldn't say with any certainty that this is actually what the writers were trying to say (i.e. by "and thus has the acid keyword", they could've possibly meant "and this is why the power has the acid keyword in the keyword section of it's power description")





I think it's only when a power explicitly has the keyword that it has the keyword.  For instance, Flaming Weapon crit damage is typed, but unless you use the weapon's At-Will, the power does not have the Fire KW.  The magic item should be a boon, and in the case of a fire-resistant or -immune target, the player should not be penalized when critting, as a general rule, IMHO.


I think it's only when a power explicitly has the keyword that it has the keyword.  For instance, Flaming Weapon crit damage is typed, but unless you use the weapon's At-Will, the power does not have the Fire KW.  The magic item should be a boon, and in the case of a fire-resistant or -immune target, the player should not be penalized when critting, as a general rule, IMHO.




I was thinking about that, and adding the Fire keyword to the power on a crit doesn't penalize the player at all actually.  An immune target is immune to the bonus crit damage one way or the other, since that damage is fire damage no matter what, and the creature would be affected by the rest of the damage normally (assuming of course that the Flaming weapon's at-will is not being used).

The magic item should be a boon, and in the case of a fire-resistant or -immune target, the player should not be penalized when critting, as a general rule, IMHO.

That shouldn't be an issue. Only the crit damage would be of the fire type (regardless of whether the fire keyword is applied to it or not), and PHB p.55 says "Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects".

(ah, ninja'd by Tvar)



I think it's only when a power explicitly has the keyword that it has the keyword.  For instance, Flaming Weapon crit damage is typed, but unless you use the weapon's At-Will, the power does not have the Fire KW.  The magic item should be a boon, and in the case of a fire-resistant or -immune target, the player should not be penalized when critting, as a general rule, IMHO.




I was thinking about that, and adding the Fire keyword to the power on a crit doesn't penalize the player at all actually.  An immune target is immune to the bonus crit damage one way or the other, since that damage is fire damage no matter what, and the creature would be affected by the rest of the damage normally (assuming of course that the Flaming weapon's at-will is not being used).





I'm saying the normally untyped, maxed damage dealt by a critting fighter should not receive a keyword (and therefore damage type) from an item's crit property.

If I'm a sorcerer doing Acid Orb or Chaos Bolt, on the other hand, against a monster whose resistances I did not learn, adding a second or even third keyword always helps, since the damage is typed in the first place.  Acid/Fire or Psychic/Fire resistances are almost unheard of in combination.  Even variable resistance will do nothing against multiple damage types.

I'm saying the normally untyped, maxed damage dealt by a critting fighter should not receive a keyword (and therefore damage type) from an item's crit property.

Right. But the question is: does the non-maxed, extra fire damage inherently have the fire keyword?

We know that vulnerability or immunity to fire affects this extra damage, but will things like the Astral Fire feat?


"Astral Fire
Benefit: You gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls when you use a power that has the fire or radiant keyword."


I'm saying the normally untyped, maxed damage dealt by a critting fighter should not receive a keyword (and therefore damage type) from an item's crit property.



You've got it backwards.

Adding the keyword to the power does not make all damage reflect that keyword.


If a power has a damage type keyword, it generally means at least some of the damage that could be dealt will be of that damage type.


Look at Lightning Serpent (Wizard level 9 daily). It has the Lightning and Poison keyword, but it only initially deals 2d12+mods lightning damage.


Look at Prismatic Spray (Wizard 25 daily). It has the Fire and Poison keywords, but it has the possibility of hitting and not even doing any fire or poison damage.


Look at Elemental Maw (Wizard 25 daily). It has Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder keywords.  The Hit line reads as follows:
Hit: 6d6 + Intelligence modifier damage of a type chosen
from the following list: acid, cold, fire, lightning, or
thunder. In addition, the target is pulled 2 squares toward
the maw’s origin square.


It says nothing about associating the keyword type with the damage type. So, if a specific type of damage is not reflected in a powers keywords, I could choose the Cold keyword (for Lasting Frost/Wintertouched...) but deal Lightning damage (so it could be considered a lightning attack power for Oncoming Storm).

Having a damage keyword on a power does not necessarily mean you are inflicting that type of damage (though the reverse may be true, that's what I'm trying to find out).


For example, take Prismatic Beams.  It has Fire and Poison keywords, but that doesn't mean that all damage inflicted by the power is both fire and poison.  Similarly adding the Fire keyword to a power due to a crit (if that happens) wouldn't turn all the damage to fire, just the crit portion.


Lets say this character had the Astral Fire feat.  And again crit with a Flaming weapon (with the at-will turned off).  The character would get +1 damage if the crit Fire damage gave the power the Fire keyword.  That would be a nice benefit even against Fire immune creatures.  Although now I just blew my own mind because I'm not entirely sure if the bonus damage would be Fire or whatever the damage type of the rest of the power was.


EDIT:  Heh ok, now I'm double ninja'ed.  =)

That would be a nice benefit even against Fire immune creatures.  Although now I just blew my own mind because I'm not entirely sure if the bonus damage would be Fire or whatever the damage type of the rest of the power was.

The bonus damage from astral fire in that case (if allowed) really should be fire damage. That much seems like either an implication or at least an intent. The feat should be adding additional damage to the typed crit damage.

Lets say this character had the Astral Fire feat.  And again crit with a Flaming weapon (with the at-will turned off).  The character would get +1 damage if the crit Fire damage gave the power the Fire keyword.  That would be a nice benefit even against Fire immune creatures.  Although now I just blew my own mind because I'm not entirely sure if the bonus damage would be Fire or whatever the damage type of the rest of the power was.

No, because the power doesn't have the Fire keyword (since the At-Will is off), even on a crit.

Conversely, if a Swordmage with the Astral Fire Feat used Greenflame Blade At-Will with a Frost Weapon with it's At-will turned on, he'd still get the +1 damage even though all the damage from the attack was now Cold damage instead of Fire damage.  Because the power would still have the Fire keyword, even though all the damage is now Cold damage.


Conversely, if a Swordmage with the Astral Fire Feat used Greenflame Blade At-Will with a Frost Weapon with it's At-will turned on, he'd still get the +1 damage even though all the damage from the attack was now Cold damage instead of Fire damage.  Because the power would still have the Fire keyword, even though all the damage is now Cold damage.




All damage would be Cold+Fire. Just because "All damage is Cold" does not mean that "All damage is only Cold"

All damage would be Cold+Fire. Just because "All damage is Cold" does not mean that "All damage is only Cold"

Right, damage can have multiple types. However, this particular situation seems like it might be subject to some interpretation. Frost weapon says:

"Power (At-Will ✦ Cold): Free Action. All damage dealt by this weapon is cold damage. Another free action returns the damage to normal."


In context, the writer seems to be implying that the weapon's damage is being changed from normal (i.e. fire in this case) to cold.

What mvincent said ... however, the example on page 226 (paragraph 3 last sentance) contradicts that straight forward interpretation.


It should be written as "all damage dealt by the weapon is cold damage in addition to its normal damage type".  As it stands, it's far more easily interpreted as only being cold as opposed to being cold and fire.  But the example shows that the RAI is probably NOT that the damage is replaced (all of the new type), but rather a combined type.  Of course, the way combined damage interacts with resistance has changed significantly since the PHB was written, making the RAI/example method far more powerful than it was originally.

Right, damage can have multiple types. However, this particular situation seems like it might be subject to some interpretation. Frost weapon says:

"Power (At-Will ✦ Cold): Free Action. All damage dealt by this weapon is cold damage. Another free action returns the damage to normal."


In context, the writer seems to be implying that the weapon's damage is being changed from normal to cold.




"Normal" is not a damage type, nor does it refer to untyped damage. Untyped damage refers to untyped damage.


PH 276:
If a power doesn’t specify a damage type, the damage has no type.


If it was meant to replace the damage type(s) done by the power, it would say so... Like Shadowfell Gloves (PH 247): "Change the damage type dealt by the next arcane power you use to necrotic."


EDIT:


Also, the Power of Poison (and the Power of Storm) domain feat leads me to believe that added damage of a type adds the keyword.


"When you use a power associated with this feat, you can choose to change its damage type to poison (the power gains the poison keyword and loses the keywords of its former damage types)."


If it was not meant to be that way, why does this section appear in parenthesis (as if it was a reminder)?

"Normal" is not a damage type

Right, 'normal' here refers to it's damage (typed or untype) before the the application of the Frost weapon's At-will ability. The implication seems to be that it might not be doing 'normal' damage when the Frost ability is applied.

If it was meant to replace the damage type(s) done by the power, it would say so

That might be creditting the authors with perfect writing abilities :P. They possibly might not have thought to use the term "change the type" (like they did with Shadowfell gloves) because weapon attacks are often untyped, while arcane powers are often typed. I have no preference on the issue of course... I merely allow for other points of view.


"Normal" is not a damage type

Right, 'normal' here refers to it's damage (typed or untype) before the the application of the Frost weapon's At-will ability. The implication seems to be that it might not be doing 'normal' damage when the Frost ability is applied.

It seems to me that if you add a damage type to the damage done, then it is no longer the "normal" damage of the attack.

If it was meant to replace the damage type(s) done by the power, it would say so

That might be creditting the authors with perfect writing abilities :P. They possibly might not have thought to use the term "change the type" (like they did with Shadowfell gloves) because weapon attacks are often untyped, while arcane powers are often typed. I have no preference on the issue of course... I merely allow for other points of view.



Indeed. But it is what it is and we also have the example on PH 226 saying to add the damage type in and not replace the damage done.