Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4494719" data-attributes="member: 40961">You've conveniently forgotten the attack bonus for longswords versus the attack bonus for scimitars, I see.Look, I'm going to let this go.&nbsp; I think its pretty clearly munchkinism, and that most fair DMs would recognize it as such.&nbsp; The rules are extremely straight forward when given a face value reading.&nbsp; It is only when one starts coming up with complex rationales based on unclear, undefined areas of the rules (switching from a one to a two handed wield, and back, etc) that one arrives at problems.&nbsp; I mean, in this thread alone, look at some of what we've heard to justify this shady attempt at gaining a measly +1 damage.&nbsp; The idea that two handed weapons won't work with this strategy because you can't let go of them fast enough, for example.&nbsp; Or the idea that one of the balancing factors involved in the hand jive system is the way that, after you've quick drawn your weapon to make an attack of opportunity, you lose your AC bonus because you can't let go of your weapon if it isn't your turn.&nbsp; Or the idea that one is conjuring an arcane shield, rather than creating an arcane shield through a specific fighting style, even though you can't conjure the arcane shield when your hands are empty.&nbsp; Or the idea that switching from a two handed grip on a weapon to a one handed grip on a weapon is a free action, but adding a hand to a two handed weapon currently held in one hand is a minor action, because the latter is switching from &quot;not-wielding&quot; to &quot;wielding,&quot; which is most analogous to &quot;drawing&quot; the weapon, while the former is... well, the speaker hadn't thought about it, but the former is switching from one form of &quot;wielding&quot; to another form of &quot;wielding,&quot; apparently without using any action to &quot;draw&quot; the weapon, even though it seems the same.All of these mental gymnastics in order to delve deep into an extremely straightforward piece of text and obtain a +1 bonus to damage, well, rubs me the wrong way.&nbsp; Nothing else in the game appears to be written in this arcane of a manner, and the text has a straight forward, reasonable interpretation that does not require any of this rigmarole.Given the choice between a complex interpretation that relies on uncertain interpretations of vague areas of the rules and which lacks a consistent in-game explanation, and a straight forward reading that takes the text at its face value, I'll stick with the latter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4494719, member: 40961"] You've conveniently forgotten the attack bonus for longswords versus the attack bonus for scimitars, I see. Look, I'm going to let this go. I think its pretty clearly munchkinism, and that most fair DMs would recognize it as such. The rules are extremely straight forward when given a face value reading. It is only when one starts coming up with complex rationales based on unclear, undefined areas of the rules (switching from a one to a two handed wield, and back, etc) that one arrives at problems. I mean, in this thread alone, look at some of what we've heard to justify this shady attempt at gaining a measly +1 damage. The idea that two handed weapons won't work with this strategy because [I]you can't let go of them fast enough,[/I] for example. Or the idea that one of the balancing factors involved in the hand jive system is the way that, after you've quick drawn your weapon to make an attack of opportunity, you lose your AC bonus because you can't let go of your weapon if it isn't your turn. Or the idea that one is conjuring an arcane shield, rather than creating an arcane shield through a specific fighting style, even though you can't conjure the arcane shield when your hands are empty. Or the idea that switching from a two handed grip on a weapon to a one handed grip on a weapon is a free action, but adding a hand to a two handed weapon currently held in one hand is a minor action, because the latter is switching from "not-wielding" to "wielding," which is most analogous to "drawing" the weapon, while the former is... well, the speaker hadn't thought about it, but the former is switching from one form of "wielding" to another form of "wielding," apparently without using any action to "draw" the weapon, even though it seems the same. All of these mental gymnastics in order to delve deep into an extremely straightforward piece of text and obtain a +1 bonus to damage, well, rubs me the wrong way. Nothing else in the game appears to be written in this arcane of a manner, and the text has a straight forward, reasonable interpretation that does not require any of this rigmarole. Given the choice between a complex interpretation that relies on uncertain interpretations of vague areas of the rules and which lacks a consistent in-game explanation, and a straight forward reading that takes the text at its face value, I'll stick with the latter. [/QUOTE]

Verification