Blinding Barrage: interpretation vs literal reading

[keterys]

And yet, I bet that was always the way it was intended to be read

 

[franzel]

And yet, I bet that was always the way it was intended to be read

I don't doubt that it is RAI. I've been playing my rogue that way since day one since none of us noticed the specific wording in the magic item section.

What it seems like the original poster has an issue with (as do I, for that matter) is that we don't know when the designers intend for a word like "ranged" or "melee" to be used in a generic fashion or when they are referring to specific keywords. They should probably italicize text for when it's supposed to be a keyword, then it's clear.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Fundamentally:

A thrown weapon user would be significantly penalized if he needed to buy multiple thrown weapons in order to use such an attack.

That's bad for the game.

So why would you want to interpret the rules to mean that in the first place?

 

[Regicide]

A thrown weapon user would be significantly penalized if he needed to buy multiple thrown weapons in order to use such an attack.

That's bad for the game.

I thought turning every weapon into a warrior princess chakram was bad for the game personally.

A weapon that can be used at range is just flat out better than one that can't. Having the "limitation" of things not coming back just makes sense.

 

[keterys]

A weapon that can be used at range is just flat out better than one that can't.

Sure... so that might explain a comparison between a bow and a sword. Now compare a thrown weapon and a bow... why use a shuriken if it's worse in every way, damage, range, and doesn't return?

 

[Regicide]

Sure... so that might explain a comparison between a bow and a sword. Now compare a thrown weapon and a bow... why use a shuriken if it's worse in every way, damage, range, and doesn't return?

I'd always use a bow with returning arrows over a shuriken that doesn't return.

Actually, going by history, bow beats shuriken about a zillion to one, and theirs didn't return. Maybe because... bows are better?

Whats next, a complaint that spoons aren't shown equal representation on the battlefield, so they should be given magical powers to make them on par with polearms?

 

[keterys]

Ah, you're trying to argue realism as a reason to unbalance the rules in a fantasy game. Umm, if that floats your boat, keep at it.

 

[Regicide]

Ah, you're trying to argue realism as a reason to unbalance the rules in a fantasy game. Umm, if that floats your boat, keep at it.

Actually, no, but what you're in fact arguing is that all fantasy needs to be as gut churningly silly as Xena Warrior Princess.

Lord of the Rings: Bows (check), shuriken (uncheck), xena warrior princess returning weapons (uncheck).

 

[keterys]

*shrug* You're directly reducing the power and capability of the rogue class, and having some minor impact on some other classes like the fighter and warlord. You don't _have_ to make it Xena to allow it to work.

After all, Returning weapons have been in D&D for many, many years. I'm not sure of the first time but I think we're talking a couple decades, preceding Xena's cinematographic existence.

 

[AngryPurpleCyclops]

I follow the spirit of it (i.e. thrown magic weapons can be used for blinding barrage as effectively as magic crossbows)

Exactly. It's partly to balance a thrown weapon build and allow this kind of power to be effectively used on an equal footing for both.

Fundamentally:

A thrown weapon user would be significantly penalized if he needed to buy multiple thrown weapons in order to use such an attack.

That's bad for the game.

So why would you want to interpret the rules to mean that in the first place?

The dnd realist... can suspend disbelief as to flying monsters, walking undead, instantly removing grievous wounds, invisibility, teleportation,
massive discharges of lightning, thunder, fire and cold but a weapon that repeatedly returns to the hand of the thrower... improbable to say the least...

I'd always use a bow with returning arrows over a shuriken that doesn't return.

Actually, going by history, bow beats shuriken about a zillion to one, and theirs didn't return. Maybe because... bows are better?

Whats next, a complaint that spoons aren't shown equal representation on the battlefield, so they should be given magical powers to make them on par with polearms?

Actually, bows are better. They do more damage and have a greater range. We won't talk too much about the relative rate of fire of a shuriken wielding ninja vs an archer or how that's been modified to preserve play balance and simplify the game.

It's a game. The reasons for some of the rules are directly attributable to play balance with realism taking a back seat when the two collide.