do frozen whetstones add the cold keyword to an attack?

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
do frozen whetstones add the cold keyword to an attack?  or, put differently, will a normal weapon that has had a frozen whetstone used on it work for lasting frost and wintertouched?
do frozen whetstones add the cold keyword to an attack?  or, put differently, will a normal weapon that has had a frozen whetstone used on it work for lasting frost and wintertouched?

Yes.
don't forget, however, like many people do, that using a Whetstone uses a Daily Item Use for your character (from AV's description of whetstones, but not listed in the compendium).
i just looked them up in AV, ddi compendium, and character builder.  there is no refference to them being a daily item usage, and to the best of my knowledge, there are no consumables that are a daily item usage.

they would be a pretty rotten item daily if they were.


i know i am repeating myself, but are you 100 pecent certain that they work with lasting frost and wintertouched?  lasting frost does specify cold attack, and this only adds cold damage.
i just looked them up in AV, ddi compendium, and character builder.  there is no refference to them being a daily item usage, and to the best of my knowledge, there are no consumables that are a daily item usage.

they would be a pretty rotten item daily if they were.



Did you read the part in AV on page 189 under the heading Whetstones that says "Using a magic whetstone counts as a use of a daily magic item power"?
Check the first paragraph in AV for the whetstone section (if I remember correctly). That's where it says it.

Yep, they definitely work. "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." phb 226.

"If the damage types in a power change, the power both loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed and gains the keywords for any damage types that are added (the poison keyword is removed from a power only if that power neither deals poison damage nor has any nondamaging effects)." PHB Errata
ok, thanks.  they do work, and they should not be used.  now i need a new way to add cold to my attacks in rpga without using an weapon with one lower enhancement.
Check the first paragraph in AV for the whetstone section (if I remember correctly). That's where it says it.

Yep, they definitely work. "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." phb 226.

"If the damage types in a power change, the power both loses the keywords for any damage types that are removed and gains the keywords for any damage types that are added (the poison keyword is removed from a power only if that power neither deals poison damage nor has any nondamaging effects)." PHB Errata



See this is something I wasn't clear on though. I'm glad that WotC defined what happens when the damage type of a power changes, but the errata didn't really appear to address what happens when we add an amount of typed damage to an attack. In my mind, at least, that's different than the damage type of a power changing.

The frozen whetstone specifically doesn't say anything at all about the damage of the power itself changing. It just tacks a bit of cold damage on at the end. I don't think the errata was clear on a case like that.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
Adding damage to a power is a kind of change, though.

Change doesn't necessarily imply exhaustive replacement.  Adding a damage type is a change to the damage types of the power. You didn't change any one damage type, you only added damage types. But "the damage types of the power," which refers to a list/set, did change.

Analogously, adding a person to a group would constitute a change to the group members. 
Adding damage to a power is a kind of change, though.

Change doesn't necessarily imply exhaustive replacement.  Adding a damage type is a change to the damage types of the power. You didn't change any one damage type, you only added damage types. But "the damage types of the power," which refers to a list/set, did change.

Analogously, adding a person to a group would constitute a change to the group members. 



I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying it is unclear though.

"Adding a damage type is a change to the damage types of the power." is a statement we could easily fight over in circles in a pointless debate. I don't think that tagging a few cold damage onto an otherwise perfectly good power changes the damage of the power at all, but I can't prove it either.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
Well, if you want something more official, there's these CS conversations on the issue I've had:

[sblock email 1]
Thank you for contacting us. Here are the answers I found: 
1. If an assassin has the Venom hand assassin feat, and uses it to make an attack with shadow fire, which normally deals fire damage, on a hit they'll do some fire damage and some poison damage. Does this attack gain the poison keyword?A: Yes, because it does not replace the original keyword.
2. Similarly, what if the assassin was to use a whetstone of venom on their weapon instead of the venom hand assassin feat? The whetstone causes their next attack to inflict 5 ongoing poison damage, so does the attack now have both the poison and the fire keyword?A: Yes, because it does not replace the original keyword.
3. Similarly, do the Venomous Kiss utility power or the poison damage effect from the Master of Poisons level 11 paragon path feature (both from the Venomed Soul paragon path) confer the poison keyword to the attack that they added poison damage to?A: Yes, because it does not replace the original keyword.
Please let me know if you need anymore help![/sblock]
[sblock email 2]Thanks for your help! I have a couple of follow-up questions:
In response to my previous question, you said that when a power/feat/item/class feature adds 'bonus' or 'extra' damage to an attack (e.g. Venomous Kiss, Venom Hand Assassin, Whetstone of Venom, Venomed Soul level 11 PP feature), this adds the relevant keyword to the power, as damage has been added (rather than replaced). Is it therefore true that the aforementioned effects do in fact add a damage type to the POWER?
There is some discussion on the forums regarding this issue, and some people are arguing that 'extra' damage such as from Venom Hand Assassin or Shocking Flame adds damage to the "attack" but not to the actual "power" and that therefore, the damage types of the attack power itself aren't changed, and the attack power's keywords don't change.
An example:
A level 20 assassin uses Venom Hand Assassin and Shadow Fire, and hits with all three of the attack rolls.
The ATTACK therefore deals 3[W]+dex mod fire damage, plus an extra 2d8 poison damage.
What damage does the POWER deal? I can see a few possible answers:
1) The damage of the POWER is the same as for the specific ATTACK with that power (i.e. "3[W]+dex mod fire damage, plus an extra 2d8 poison damage")?2) The damage for the POWER leaves out any 'extra' damage for the attack, such as granted by Venom Hand Assassin (i.e. 3[W]+dex mod fire damage)?
The ramification of this question is that in order for Shadow Fire to actually gain the poison keyword, it would have to be the option number 1.
Secondly, how many DAMAGE ROLLS have been made in the example above, and what is included/excluded from them? Are any of the following options correct? Which one?
1) There only one damage roll for the attack, and it includes all the damage dealt by that attack - including the 2d8 poison damage.
2) There is only one damage roll for the attack, but it does not include the 2d8 poison damage from Venom Hand Assassin. The damage from Venom Hand Assassin is merely 'extra' damage and does not qualify as a damage roll, nor does it qualify as part of a damage roll.
3) There are two damage rolls made for this attack. The first damage roll is for Shadow Fire, and deals 3[W]+dex mod fire damage. The second damage roll is for Venom Hand Assassin, and deals 2d8 poison damage.
Lastly, how would Venom Hand Killer (which applies to poison damage rolls) and Weapon Focus (which applies to damage rolls with a given weapon) behave in the example above? I can see a few possibilities - which of these, if any, are correct?
1) If option 1) above is true, then the damage for Shadow Fire and Venom Hand Assassin are rolled into a single damage roll. Therefore both Venom Hand Killer and Weapon Focus apply, but because they are both feat bonuses, only the highest bonus applies. Therefore the damage roll is 3[w] +dex fire, plus 2d8 + 3 poison (at level 20).
2) Perhaps option 2 for the previous question was correct, and there is no "poison damage roll" made. Therefore, only weapon focus applies, and it applies to the shadow fire damage roll. Therefore the damage is 3[w] + dex + 2 fire damage (the damage roll), with an 'extra' 2d8 poison damage.
3) Perhaps option 3 for the previous question was correct, and there are two separate damage rolls made. In that case, the weapon focus bonus applies to the shadow fire damage roll, and the venom hand killer bonus applies to the Venom hand assassin damage roll - the attack deals 3[w]+dex+2 fire damage (damage roll #1) and 2d8+3 poison damage (damage roll #2).
Those three options aren't supposed to be an exhaustive list of possibilities but are merely supposed to illustrate the thorniness of the problem. If they are all wrong, what is the correct answer?
This issue is rearing its ugly head in more than one Character Optimisation thread, and an authoritative answer on the matter would be appreciated! In addition, my fiancee would appreciate some clarity for her poison-using assassin character. If necessary, it would be absolutely fantastic if you could escalate this to one of the designers, and/or see if a FAQ clarifying this issue could be published in the near future.
Once again, thanks for your time!
Hello Patrick,
All of the effects that you listed would add the poison type to the power (as long as you picked the target takes extra poison damage equal to 5 + your Constitution modifier for your venomed soul option.). 
In relation to your other question, as attack is part of a power use there is no difference as to when one stops and the next begins. For clarification as to what an attack is please reference pg 269 of the players handbook. Simplified: rolling the dice as dictated by the power is making the attack, it is also the method of power usage. if you need more clarification please feel free to ask. Happy Gaming! [/sblock]
A FAQ or another errata certainly couldn't hurt though.
A FAQ or another errata certainly couldn't hurt though.



Indeed; someone asked Greg Ibsland on twitter whether adding damage was supposed to count as a change in damage types for the purpose of the update and he said to wait 'til the May update.  So the designer that compiled the update apparently either doesn't know or for some other reason can't say what the intention is there, but it should be clarified in May.

Question: twitter.com/liesandtrickery/status/98890...

Response: twitter.com/gregbilsland/status/98893370...
Frozen whetstones added the keyword before the update, and they add the keyword now.  
Whether or not a few points of added damage count as changing a damage type per the update is irrelevant for them. They have the cold keyword, so they'll add the cold keyword to powers used while the weapon is under the effect.
Unfortunately, Customer Service answers are worse than unofficial...they're completely unreliable. Neither do I accept the argument that because the whetstone has a keyword that it automatically grants it to the attacks of a weapon that are benefitting from the whetstone. It might be, but I don't see why that should necessarily follow.

I'll hope for an update.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
Check the first paragraph in AV for the whetstone section (if I remember correctly). That's where it says it.



yup; this is one of those things, like rules regarding weapon properties for off-hand items, that is *only* in the printed source material, and not in the Glossary of the compendium.  comes up, i'd say, at least once a week.
This need to be moved to the Q&A forum.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Unfortunately, Customer Service answers are worse than unofficial...they're completely unreliable. Neither do I accept the argument that because the whetstone has a keyword that it automatically grants it to the attacks of a weapon that are benefitting from the whetstone. It might be, but I don't see why that should necessarily follow.

I'll hope for an update.


Check PHB 226; magic item powers will add their keywords to any racial powers or class powers that they affect.  There used to be a FAQ entry restating this, but it was taken down after the last errata; presumably they didn't think it was needed anymore (a poor decision, since the errata didn't actually address the rule in question that the FAQ entry clarified).
Unfortunately, Customer Service answers are worse than unofficial...they're completely unreliable. Neither do I accept the argument that because the whetstone has a keyword that it automatically grants it to the attacks of a weapon that are benefitting from the whetstone. It might be, but I don't see why that should necessarily follow.

I'll hope for an update.



Meh, your loss I guess. I agree that CS ruling shouldn't be treated as greatly authoritative but they're certainly more reliable than the typical forum post. Note that those two emails came from different CS reps. Inter-rater agreement is an objective sign of reliability. Howabout everybody re-sends them my question and see whether 10 reps all agree? :P That way we'd actually have a pretty good indication of their reliability for this specific question.


Anyway, it's worth at least reading it and evaluating their point. That second CS ruling is pretty insightful - it points out the fact that this whole distinction between attack and power is not made in any of the rulebooks, with regards to attack powers. Maybe Wizards hasn't made this any clearer yet because they were completely unaware that people were making a distinction between attack and power in this manner? Wizards doesn't appear to draw a line between them.
Check PHB 226; magic item powers will add their keywords to any racial powers or class powers that they affect.  There used to be a FAQ entry restating this, but it was taken down after the last errata; presumably they didn't think it was needed anymore (a poor decision, since the errata didn't actually address the rule in question that the FAQ entry clarified).



I looked up the entry you're citing and once again, this isn't a very clear ruling. The whetstone isn't being used as part of a power or I'd agree with you. It's just being applied to a weapon ahead of a power. Is that the same thing? I really don't know.

I'd take a look at the FAQ to see if it helps any, but you said the entry was removed.

Fortunately this isn't a big deal. Whetstones are a horribly inefficient way to access the Frost keyword. I don't particularly care how the ruling goes. If anything, it'd be really nice in a way if WotC firmly tied typed damage to the associated keywords...but the recent errata didn't do that precisely. There's a big difference between "add" and "replace", and I don't think it's splitting hairs to say so.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
Nobody ever said that it was splitting hairs to claim there's a big difference between add and replace.

Yeah, I'm not too worried about it either, eh. See what happens, I guess.