Search results

You, too? Do you understand how ridiculous it sounds for you to make that counter argument? Attack =/= hit. Attack=attack. Hit=hit. You only do damage if you hit. The attack determines IF you hit or miss.

I suggest you read the combat rules, because attacks don't do damage. Hits do. If the attack hits, you can do radiant damage. The attack can miss, so it cannot be the attack that does the damage, or it couldn't miss. It would be like fireball. LOL No. You can change it to radiant. It's a...

No it doesn't. The hit does the damage. The attack does no damage at all. It's just a mundane swing of the dagger. Again, no. The damage might, if the caster chooses not to do mundane weapon damage only, but the swing of the weapon(the attack) does no damage at all. It's just a swing of...

By the way @Paul Farquhar, in D&D force is defined differently in any case. "Force--------------------Pure magical energy" Unless you're suggesting that the natural physical law is pure magical energy, you're barking up the wrong tree with this one.

The same with your ability to give bad examples.

So again, the actual dagger attack does not. It's just a dagger swing. The rest of it does, but that doesn't make the dagger swing anything other than a dagger swing.

No. They've never done it, so I've never had to rule on it. They have no idea other than it's subpar compared to the boots.

Show me what is physically creating the force. You can't, because it's being generated out of nothingness in defiance of the laws of physics. Force also often has physicality in D&D. Force generated through spells is not using the laws of physics to do it.

That completely gets my argument wrong. The acrobatics are not part of the spell. That is correct. The guidance itself is supernatural in origin and obeys no physical laws. Just like the modification of the attack from True Strike is supernatural and obeys no physical laws. So yes, Guidance...

Not in the way the spell uses it.

The attack does not. The attack is just a swing of a dagger.

:rolleyes:

I'm sure it was. With a player base as large as D&D has, every single rule will have 20+ different versions of feedback, some contradictory. My point is that maintaining backwards compatibility meant that they couldn't fix a lot of things, because they could only really make minor changes.

The bolded is not. I agree. The attack, though, is just someone swinging a sword. I will also note that there is zero actual guidance being done in the spell. Like not even a smidge. No advantage to the attack. No bonuses to hit. Nothing. You get to use your magical stat, but that's not...

It was the anchor of backwards compatibility that they hung around their own necks. Without it, they could have made those changes.

LOL That broom gang sounds awesome. And yeah, I've never seen a Broom of Flying purchased, either. I've seen lots of Boots of Flying purchased in those games that allow magic item buying. And the occasional Flying Rug.

I mean, sure. It's not like I haven't quoted it 3 or 4 times in the last few pages, but I guess I can do it again for you. Here it is taken from post #97. "The effects of a spell are detailed after its duration entry. Those details present exactly what the spell does, which ignores mundane...

Yeah. The change to the spell made the name nonsense. The spell as written does not help you strike true. It does radiant damage which is completely different. You still haven't answered how you think an attack with a weapon breaks the natural laws of physics. If it doesn't break the natural...

No. If you have tunnel vision, sure. I also said the attack had to be part of the spell like it says in the Sorcerer ability.