D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Weapon question

[Dandu]

?

And what's this?

SRD:

Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack

So I guess the Psychic Weapon Master's ability is invalid?

Why aren't you giving me the numbers i asked for?

Are u afraid to see with your own eyes the difference?

I know English is not your second language, so I'm going to make something clear for you.

in·con·se·quen·tial

adj \(ˌ)in-ˌkän(t)-sə-ˈkwen(t)-shəl\

1
a : illogical b : irrelevant

2
: of no significance : unimportant

 

[anest1s]

What? A good build can't hit with a 6 or a 7?

As far i can tell, with 3.5 rules only, a threat can't drop below 15... am i correct? or can this get a bit lower with some build that i'm missing perhaps... i don't know..

And the psychic master can get a 13? at best? Correct me if i'm mistaken...

With 3.0 you can go way bellow 10...

Is this the same to you?

I am not into this stuff....personally I don't mind anything ''broken''. The NPCs I can create and make them broken, will always be more in numbers than the PCs, no matter how often they will die. So don't ask me if it can go lower, I use what you say

If you waste one feat and take a prestige class just to do 1d6+str more though...well I don't think that its that big deal. The lightening mace thing is an other story; it involves a Marilith searching for its 6th lost scimitar.

 

[Jimlock]

So I guess the Psychic Weapon Master's ability is invalid?

No it does not. I explained it before... but perhaps it's you that has a problem with your english?


Weapon Master came out AFTER the 3.5 PHB.

That mean's the people who "unbroke" the threat range in 3.5, chose to add a bit of extra to this class, well aware that this cannot pose a problem, cause nothing else stacks.

AGAIN: The Weapon Master can go down to 13.

3.0 could go way bellow 10

Major difference, not in·con·se·quen·tial whatsoever.

Now obviously you can't admit your mistake after being in contradiction with yourself times and again.

But it's ok, I can clearly understand how you fail to put your ego aside after 4 pages of being mistaken.

 

[anest1s]

No it does not. I explained it before... but perhaps it's you that has a problem with your english?


Weapon Master came out AFTER the 3.5 PHB.

That mean's the people who "unbroke" the threat range in 3.5, chose to add a bit of extra to this class, well aware that this cannot pose a problem, cause nothing else stacks.

AGAIN: The Weapon Master can go do to 13.

3.0 could go way bellow 10

Major difference, not in·con·se·quen·tial whatsoever.

Now obviously you can't admit your mistake after being in contradiction with yourself times and again.

But it's ok, I can clearly understand how you fail to put your ego aside after 4 pages of being mistaken.

But the same ppl who made the weapon master said that the 3.0 things they didn't change were fair game.

 

[Jimlock]

But the same ppl who made the weapon master said that the 3.0 things they didn't change were fair game.

anest1s, they were never going to republish every paragraph of 3.0.

They did it when necessary, when a single rule was not adequate to cover a vast range of rules.

If they could cover major changes with a single rule, by affecting more than one things, they did just that.

Threat range is such a case. They covered the change with the Improved Critical Threat Feat and with a mention in Keen Weapon.

It is sufficient.

 

[Pergentile]

Jimlock, Dandu is correct in RAW.
You are arguing logic against RAW.
Regardless of how much your argument makes sense, in D&D, RAW still trumps it.
The both of you are arguing different things.
Dandu is insisting on RAW being... the rules.
Jimlock is insisting logic being... logic.
The two of you are not rebutting eachother, so just drop it.

 

[anest1s]

anest1s, they were never going to republish every paragraph of 3.0.

They did it when necessary, when a single rule was not adequate to cover a vast range of rules.

If they could cover major changes with a single rule, by affecting more than one things, they did just that.

Threat range is such a case. They covered the change with the Improved Critical Threat Feat and with a mention in Keen Weapon.

It is sufficient.

Ok....but they sure said so.

What you say is true, but as written it isn't. Don't take me wrong, but they are the same people. They didn't forget the 3.0 rules they made, yet they allowed for that lightening mace combo.


The problem isn't that the older rules are out-dated.
The problem is that some combos weren't predicted.


1d6+5 more damage is nothing...a +3 weapon can do that. Wasting a feat and taking a prestige to do that isn't cheaper.

In this case, if there is a problem, it is the lightening mace and the Aptitude enhancement.

Actually, with the lightening mace and the aptitude enchantment you still get enough attacks, even with a 13-20 range.

 

[Jimlock]

Jimlock, Dandu is correct in RAW.
You are arguing logic against RAW.
Regardless of how much your argument makes sense, in D&D, RAW still trumps it.
The both of you are arguing different things.
Dandu is insisting on RAW being... the rules.
Jimlock is insisting logic being... logic.
The two of you are not rebutting eachother, so just drop it.

Ok....but they sure said so.

What you say is true, but as written it isn't. Don't take me wrong, but they are the same people. They didn't forget the 3.0 rules they made, yet they allowed for that lightening mace combo.


The problem isn't that the older rules are out-dated.
The problem is that some combos weren't predicted.


1d6+5 more damage is nothing...a +3 weapon can do that. Wasting a feat and taking a prestige to do that isn't cheaper.

In this case, if there is a problem, it is the lightening mace and the Aptitude enhancement.

Actually, with the lightening mace and the aptitude enchantment you still get enough attacks, even with a 13-20 range.

Guys, i honestly i don't get you.

I still think that what i say is RAW.

In a 3.0 book you have certain class ability that provides an increase in threat range. This is the ability. Stop.

THEN (after the ability's description has ended) there is written that this ability stacks with a feat that also provides an increase with threat range. Stop

THEN 3.5 comes out and says that multiple effects don't stack. Stop


Now, there is no need to rewrite the book, or provide a 3.5 update, because 3.5 DOES NOT change the class ability whatsoever! The class ability stays the same! However, this class ability does no longer stack with the feat. Because the feat now explicitly states that it does not stack with other effects.

This is not a change that affects the class ability in itself, therefore an update is not required.
However RAW states that this class ability cannot stack with other abilities of the like. That is what the RAW says!

"Specific overrules general" does NOT count when general comes after the specific, as in our case. Not only it comes after but it also more "powerful" in a sense that it is a rule published in the Core Book.

"Specific overrules general" applies ONLY when the specific comes after the general. In the case of the Weapon Master, the specific is based/established on the general, therefore it applies normally.

How can we say that the "Specific overrules general" when the general the specific is referring to does no longer count? The general is now "new", therefore the specific now abides by that "new" general, it does not overrule it.

 

[Jimlock]

I am no lawyer, but in my professional life, this is a big part of what I do, ...which is... that i have to find which law outdates which other law, so as to "confront" various public services. When the general is outdated, the specific always abides to the "new" general.

 

[anest1s]

Guys, i honestly i don't get you.

I still think that what i say is RAW.

In a 3.0 book you have certain class ability that provides an increase in threat range. This is the ability. Stop.

THEN (after the ability's description has ended) there is written that this ability stacks with a feat that also provides an increase with threat range. Stop

THEN 3.5 comes out and says that multiple effects don't stack. Stop


Now, there is no need to rewrite the book, or provide a 3.5 update, because 3.5 DOES NOT change the class ability whatsoever! The class ability stays the same! However, this class ability does no longer stack with the feat. Because the feat now explicitly states that it does not stack with other effects.

This is not a change that affects the class ability in itself, therefore an update is not required.
However RAW states that this class ability cannot stack with other abilities of the like. That is what the RAW says!

"Specific overrules general" does NOT count when general comes after the specific, as in our case. Not only it comes after but it also more "powerful" in a sense that it is a rule published in the Core Book.

"Specific overrules general" applies ONLY when the specific comes after the general. In the case of the Weapon Master, the specific is based/established on the general, therefore it applies normally.

How can we say that the "Specific overrules general" when the general the specific is referring to does no longer count? The general is now "new", therefore the specific now abides by that "new" general, it does not overrule it.

First they make Keen and Improved Critical.
Then they make the first prestige class.
Then they say we will make new books, but what we just made still is ok material.
They make new books, and the new keen and improved critical in them.
And they update some of the old books they just made, but they leave said prestige as is.
Then they make an other prestige, that is similar to the old one.

It is RAW because they said old books are valid yes they are old, but...