Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 2485329" data-attributes="member: 326">Hi Pssthpok mate! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I don't see myself as changing the rules as much as fixing a broken rule. Its a mistake waiting for errata to happen.If someone can categorically prove that a rule is broken, then you can't justify that rule simply because its been published - thats an appeal to authority as far as I am concerned. &nbsp;The mechanics may be canon but they are certainly not sound. They follow the letter of the law, but laws which are easily dismissed as nonsense.&nbsp;Well, lets see, off the top of my head; strength 62 Large size Humanoid. Crushing Damage from throwing what is effectively a Gargantuan object (based on its mass) would be 4d8+39.I think they make a mistake on the HH thread at the start by multiplying his encumberance x3 (Large Quadruped) instead of x2 (Large), unless of course that is a feature of one of the prestige classes that I am not aware of (?). Increasing the objects size from Gargantuan to Colossal (requiring something like strength 64) would mean damage was 8d6+39 instead. &nbsp;Well I am sure they mean well, although a few posts here and there do not interupt my flow. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />You have to understand that I don't change things simply for my own sake, or the sake of sticking two fingers up at the official rules. I change things because instigating the change is logical and will improve the game to some extent...and I'm just as critical with my own ideas, as my recent changes to my density rules attest.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Upper_Krust, post: 2485329, member: 326"] Hi Pssthpok mate! :) I don't see myself as changing the rules as much as fixing a broken rule. Its a mistake waiting for errata to happen. If someone can categorically prove that a rule is broken, then you can't justify that rule simply because its been published - thats an appeal to authority as far as I am concerned. The mechanics may be canon but they are certainly not sound. They follow the letter of the law, but laws which are easily dismissed as nonsense. Well, lets see, off the top of my head; strength 62 Large size Humanoid. Crushing Damage from throwing what is effectively a Gargantuan object (based on its mass) would be 4d8+39. I think they make a mistake on the HH thread at the start by multiplying his encumberance x3 (Large Quadruped) instead of x2 (Large), unless of course that is a feature of one of the prestige classes that I am not aware of (?). Increasing the objects size from Gargantuan to Colossal (requiring something like strength 64) would mean damage was 8d6+39 instead. Well I am sure they mean well, although a few posts here and there do not interupt my flow. ;) You have to understand that I don't change things simply for my own sake, or the sake of sticking two fingers up at the official rules. I change things because instigating the change is logical and will improve the game to some extent...and I'm just as critical with my own ideas, as my recent changes to my density rules attest. [/QUOTE]

Verification