Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Can one of the lead designers of D&D please stand up and clarify "Rain of Blows"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="morikal" data-source="post: 4645924" data-attributes="member: 82254"><p>I can see how there may be confusion between the 3 attack and 4 attack crowd... here is my take: Powers are laid out in a certain way throughout the book: indented secondary attack entries under a "Hit" entry are conditional upon the hit.</p><p></p><p>If a power says "two attacks," under the "attack" heading, this seems to mean that the body of the attack portion (any hit and miss lines, along with their indented subparts) take place twice.</p><p></p><p>Consider the following:</p><p>Interpretation 1 (2 attacks possible: 1 primary and 1 secondary):</p><p>If the power were redone to NOT have "two attacks," listed in the Attack line, wouldn't this be the outcome (ie: are people who argue for this interpretation saying that unlike many other powers with secondary attacks, the writers decided to add "two attacks" to the attack line?) I have not seen arguments for this case (and don't have time to go searching right now, but if someone has a link to one, I'll read it). BUT, any such argument, to have merit to me, would need to address the fact that the "two attacks" heading is superfluous (ie: they would need to explain why its there, even though it seemingly doesn't do anything...)</p><p></p><p>Interpretation 2: 3 total attacks</p><p>I can see how some might interpret it this way. The book doesn't clearly lay out what the "two attacks" line means under the "attacks" section. I believe their argument would be that the primary attacks are repeated, but that the secondary attack is just once, and only needs one primary to hit.</p><p></p><p>I do not like this argument... it seems to disregard how secondary attacks work--whenever you hit with the primary, you get the secondary.</p><p></p><p>If the intention was 2 main attacks with 1 conditional, there should have been an unindented Effect line with "If at least one of the main attacks hit, make a secondary attack"</p><p></p><p>I guess I see the indented subportions as inextricably tied to the main portion of an attack (but then again, I'm a programmer, so I tend to think of it like a function call with a conditional subfunction call). If you do the primary portion twice, the secondary portion should come along with each of them, not be tied in to at least one of them hitting in some sort of weird way that isn't laid out in the rules...</p><p></p><p>3rd interpretation: 4 attacks</p><p>This is the one I agree with (but I think it is overpowered)</p><p>Two attacks means to do the body of the attack twice. The body of the attack includes a primary and conditional secondary attack.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="morikal, post: 4645924, member: 82254"] I can see how there may be confusion between the 3 attack and 4 attack crowd... here is my take: Powers are laid out in a certain way throughout the book: indented secondary attack entries under a "Hit" entry are conditional upon the hit. If a power says "two attacks," under the "attack" heading, this seems to mean that the body of the attack portion (any hit and miss lines, along with their indented subparts) take place twice. Consider the following: Interpretation 1 (2 attacks possible: 1 primary and 1 secondary): If the power were redone to NOT have "two attacks," listed in the Attack line, wouldn't this be the outcome (ie: are people who argue for this interpretation saying that unlike many other powers with secondary attacks, the writers decided to add "two attacks" to the attack line?) I have not seen arguments for this case (and don't have time to go searching right now, but if someone has a link to one, I'll read it). BUT, any such argument, to have merit to me, would need to address the fact that the "two attacks" heading is superfluous (ie: they would need to explain why its there, even though it seemingly doesn't do anything...) Interpretation 2: 3 total attacks I can see how some might interpret it this way. The book doesn't clearly lay out what the "two attacks" line means under the "attacks" section. I believe their argument would be that the primary attacks are repeated, but that the secondary attack is just once, and only needs one primary to hit. I do not like this argument... it seems to disregard how secondary attacks work--whenever you hit with the primary, you get the secondary. If the intention was 2 main attacks with 1 conditional, there should have been an unindented Effect line with "If at least one of the main attacks hit, make a secondary attack" I guess I see the indented subportions as inextricably tied to the main portion of an attack (but then again, I'm a programmer, so I tend to think of it like a function call with a conditional subfunction call). If you do the primary portion twice, the secondary portion should come along with each of them, not be tied in to at least one of them hitting in some sort of weird way that isn't laid out in the rules... 3rd interpretation: 4 attacks This is the one I agree with (but I think it is overpowered) Two attacks means to do the body of the attack twice. The body of the attack includes a primary and conditional secondary attack. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Can one of the lead designers of D&D please stand up and clarify "Rain of Blows"?
Top