Blinding Barrage: interpretation vs literal reading

[FadedC]

Well, as a 3x3x3, 27 is entirely understandable (though potentially unlikely, if there are any invisible enemies in that area you'd attack them so...)

I actually tend to think of at least some of these attacks being ricochets, arcs of blood from enemies, some being knocked into others, etc. It certainly seems unlikely that, say, it's a dagger point-first entering the eye of every target hit (and, I guess, maybe nicking the ear of those missed). At least some is surprise, morale, confusion, etc.

Hmm....you mean if there were flying enemies stacked on top of the ground enemies in every possible space. Yeah I guess that's possible, though potentially unlikely is a bit of an understatement. Still can't hit 36 though, it's pretty clear that Regicide's complaints are based on a some form of misunderstanding of the rules.

And yeah I agree with you on justification. If there was a tightly packed group of 9 people, you could easily injure them all without having to fire 9 actual shots.

 

[Piratecat]

God of War came out in March 2005
Returning Weapons were in D&D 3rd edition in 2000
Xena Warrior Princess came out in 1995
Wulfgar's returning hammer in the Crystal Shard was 1988.

I can't check earlier editions cause they're all packed away, but I'd not be surprised if there is a 1st edition version of a returning weapon.

There was. Hammer of Thunderbolts was a 1e returning weapon.

 

[FadedC]

There was. Hammer of Thunderbolts was a 1e returning weapon.

And of course the hammer of thunderbolts was based off of Thor's hammer from norse mythology.

Ancient norse mythology was a total rip off of Xena though......

 

[Nikosandros]

There was. Hammer of Thunderbolts was a 1e returning weapon.

As is the dwarven thrower hammer, but they were extremely specific and powerful magic weapons in AD&D.

But all of this is besides the point. The original topic was about a somewhat confusing usage of the adjective "ranged" in the rules. As someone posted earlier, given the CS clarification it would be nice if a clear distinction was made between ranged attacks (the kind that causes OA) and attacks in which you simply employ a ranged weapon.

Regarding the second point, I believe that the rules are rather clear and I gather that everybody is fine in ignoring concealment for this kind of attacks.

 

[AngryPurpleCyclops]

How it returns is magic, fine. But Blinding Burst, with or without a magic weapon can easily mean 36 shots with a crossbow in a round, an effect that is so spectacular it's silly that, yes, you're right, can only be explained by magic... but last I checked rogues aren't a magic class.

blinding barrage not burst (had me searching the phb, for a similar power that allows attacks out to a weapons range)

God of War came out in March 2005
Returning Weapons were in D&D 3rd edition in 2000
Xena Warrior Princess came out in 1995
Wulfgar's returning hammer in the Crystal Shard was 1988.

I can't check earlier editions cause they're all packed away, but I'd not be surprised if there is a 1st edition version of a returning weapon.

I was tempted to dig out my soft covers and see if dwarven thrower was in there. 2nd edition had axe of hurling circa 1988-89 I think. Advanced dnd definitely had +3 dwarven thrower on top of hammer of thunderbolts and that's from 1979 or 80.

Hmm....you mean if there were flying enemies stacked on top of the ground enemies in every possible space. Yeah I guess that's possible, though potentially unlikely is a bit of an understatement. Still can't hit 36 though, it's pretty clear that Regicide's complaints are based on a some form of misunderstanding of the rules.

And yeah I agree with you on justification. If there was a tightly packed group of 9 people, you could easily injure them all without having to fire 9 actual shots.

It's only a matter of time before a feat is introduced that expands blasts or bursts, so regicide's post was simply foreshadowing a blast 4 version (that could hit still only hit 16 targets)

There was. Hammer of Thunderbolts was a 1e returning weapon.

yup, definitely in advanced dnd not sure if it was in the just plain dnd.

And of course the hammer of thunderbolts was based off of Thor's hammer from norse mythology.

Ancient norse mythology was a total rip off of Xena though......

definitely... I think they went to see an oracle who predicted xena exactly. Nostradoofus

 

[Thundershield]

I left out an irrelevant paragraph, which, btw, is proper etiquette. A rogue isn't splitting his weapon, as there are situations that a split weapon would have different effects than a single weapon. Nothing you've said is a counterarguement to that.

Other situations with a weapon that could potentially multiply when using in, for instance, a barrage? I don't see why you couldn't explain the close blast power that way, though. Or as keterys suggested, that some of the hits might be gushes of blood blinding enemies, or enemies bumping into each other, accidentally whacking an ally over the eyes with an elbow or whatnot.

Describing what actually happens when you use a power is up to the DM or player (as you like). All that matters is that it makes sense (to you), looks cool to your mind's eye, and fits the power.

If you start dragging physics into it, try calculating the actual speed of a single weapon ricocheting off every single foe in a Close blast 5 within a few seconds, then you're missing the point.

As for the original topic of this thread: Yes, if you have a single magical thrown weapon, that will suffice for any power that doesn't specifically require more than one weapon as part of its description. Also, as it is a Burst or Blast power, it ignores concealment. That's how the rules are, both RAW and RAI. How you explain it at the table is entirely up to you, be it Xena-ism, a magically multiplying weapon, sheer superhuman luck, training in taking advantage of situations, or a supersonic ricochet.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

[...]

I left out an irrelevant paragraph, which, btw, is proper etiquette. A rogue isn't splitting his weapon, as there are situations that a split weapon would have different effects than a single weapon. Nothing you've said is a counterarguement to that.

no, leaving out a paragraph without "[...]" is not proper etiquette...

especially is it is inbetween the paragraphs you cite...

 

[Don Incognito]

There's a very easy way to solve this issue. Let's say a rogue attacks with by throwing a magic dagger at an enemy. The attack hits, and the dagger dissipates (dissolves into smoke, disintegrates, fades away, melts, what have you). It then simply "appears" in the rogue's hand.

This solves many, many problems. Let's say the rogue wants to use Blinding Barrage. He holds up the dagger, and, with a flick of his wrist, fans out a fist full of daggers like a deck of cards. It IS magic, after all. He lets them fly, showering his enemies in a rain of steel. However, seconds after the attack, the daggers are gone, and the rogue is left holding a single magic dagger.

There was an example earlier in the thread of the rogue using Blinding Barrage to use his daggers as pitons for rock climbing. He still can, but shortly after his attack (but before the end of his round, assuming he is in combat), the daggers dissolve. Now the rogue has wasted his daily attack for no real benefit.

The daggers (or whatever they are, really; phantom crossbow bolts, sling missiles that split apart in mid-air, what have you) can only "split" for the purposes of blast attacks, so a rogue with a ranger multi-class couldn't, say, split the dagger every round in order to gain an off-hand weapon without paying for it. This way, the rogue is still a martial class (i.e. they get their power by throwing things very hard and very fast rather than using magic or another power source), the magic weapon is just a tool that lets him do it better.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There was. Hammer of Thunderbolts was a 1e returning weapon.

And don't forget Spear, -2, Cursed Backbiter!

-Hyp.