Search results

No worries, I thought that might be the case. In the case of weapons, I treat damaged weapons (with 1/2 or less hit points) as their primitive weapon equivalents (–2 on attack and damage rolls; minimum damage 1) (see Extremely Low Tech, Stone Age, page 144 of the Dungeon Master's Guide).

I actually have my own charts already drawn up for personal use. :) I read that new rule as well, but after considering the simplification that it offered, I decided that it was a bad rule change and disregarded it wholesale. Objects should reflect certain broken down qualities when they are...

Keep in mind that only one-half of the damage is inflicted against the character, and then only if the sunder armor attack was high enough to hit that character's normal AC. See the latest proposal (above).

I agree, it is easier. And that is by design. Here's the thing ... if you decide to spend a round or two sundering armor that is worn, that is a round or two of not damaging your opponent (or damaging them very little). Your opponent, however, will have spent that same time damaging you...

While it may seem that way, I promise it's faster than grappling. The fact is ... this combat tactic will not be used by everyone all of the time. Therefore, anybody who does use it regualrity will probably greatly familiarize themselves with the rules of execution, much like grapplers. An...

Well, this is how I re-tooled the rules so far... ERRATA Page 158 of the Player's Handbook, SPECIAL ATTACKS, SUNDER Sundering a Carried or Worn Object: You don't use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object's AC. A carried...

I can't believe this... but I'm actually getting more detailed responses off the Wizards of the Coast message boards. I never would have thought it possible, but it appears a shift has occured. When did that happen? http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1125925#post1125925

For all those people who just clicked on this thread to tell me that you can't sunder armor that is worn, don't bother. I read the rules too. It says so right there on page 158 of the new Player's Handbook, second column, first sentence. "You can't sunder armor worn by another character."...

I hear what you're saying Upper_Krust, but I think it's important to inlcude ability adjustments for monsters now. They made it so that all ceatures gain feats in the same way for the sake of universality. Ability adjustments should fall in line too. ;)

Ran. Your perception that version 3.0 rogues are unbalanced due to Sneak Attack not only lacks "convincing" weight for me (a fine way to measure an argument by-the-by, as you failed to provide any proof) but didn't persuade version 3.5 as well. I don't think Sneak Attack changed a smudge. While...

Well, if you knowingly enter into a debate about the economy of feats, then you gotta play by the rules. If you can't play by the rules, then get out of the debate. Put another way... I can only be responsible for my end Hypersmurf. You gotta drag the weight of your own ass. ----- Hong...

First of all, I am operating from the premise that the rogue was never imbalanced in version 3.0. I have never heard anybody convincingly say otherwise. Indeed, it seems kind of ludicrous to suggest as much. The rogue was one of the most balanced core classes of 3.0. The rogue that I now submit...

Yes, so why are you adding the alliviated penalties of one type of weapon together?

Not at all. You only add them once, but to each attack, calculated in all ways as a seperate combat entity (so-to-speak). Can I go bed now?

And when all is said and done, the fact is that Dungeons and Dragons never adds the same type of bonuses together. They always overlap. Therefore... an alleviated untrained penalty can only be alleviated once per weapon proficiency. Not twice for the same weapon. One the most simplistic level...

Jens. Nothing was obvious from your quote. If you are trying to make a point that I have missed, please make it again. I am all ears. ----- Ravellion. I see my explanation didn't sink in. That's too bad. If you are at all interested in clarity, as you purport to be, then please ask for a...

This is something I have been aware of since long before beginning this thread. I agree with the math. Moreover, this is also why I have since revised the Ambidexterity feat to negate the off-hand penalty for inflicting Strength damage. It appears you have missed much of this thread. This is...

jayain. There is no problem between us that cannot be solved by you no longer reading this thread. Please exercise some free will. ----- Obryn. I wasn't *that* he defended certain aspect of Dungeons and Dragons that caused my opinion about the guy to change. It was the obstinate way he could...

In short... yes. You can see the Two-Weapon Fighting feat as less valuable when using the same type of weapon, but you still get all the same advantages. The reason I don't count the single weapon used in both hands twice is perhaps a semantical one, but important nonetheless. Look at it like...

KaeYoss. No, that was never what I said. You know something, I realize you hate it when I shadow every one of your nonsensical points and expose them to the light of scrutiny, but that does not make me a troll. It makes my standard for logic unrelenting. I see now that you never understood my...