Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[ELH] Lingering Damage
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="toberane" data-source="post: 331764" data-attributes="member: 4968"><p>I respect your opinions on this, and if I was playing with a DM that ruled this way, I'd have no problem with the ruling. What I meant is that the spirit of spring attack is to allow the character to spring in, make his attack, and spring out. The spirit of haste is that it gets you moving so quickly you have time to do an extra partial action in the same time it takes to only do your standard 2 actions (move-move, or move-standard). So therefore, both the DM and I agreed that moving in, taking the standard swing and the hasted swing, then moving out fell into the spirit of the rules. </p><p></p><p>Part of my reasoning for this is that you are splitting up your move-equivalent actions into two smaller moves. Logically, there is no reason that you couldn't take your second half-move after the hasted action. Rules-wise, maybe not. We decided on it during a battle that the DM had augmented heavily, and a couple of extra sneak attacks early on made the difference between victory and possible total party annhilation.</p><p></p><p>We also both agreed that, yes, springing in, getting the full attack action, then springing out, would be insane and too much. </p><p></p><p>But this decision isn't unbalancing, particularly when we are going up against Marilith demons wih 6 arms, extra levels of fighter, an AC of about 50 or so, the perfect multiattack feat, hasted, and each arm wielding unholy, bane weapons. We all have some potent magic items, but the DM equips the bad guys every bit as heavily as our party.</p><p></p><p>If you don't want to allow this in your games, fine. If I ever come to your house to play, I'd abide by your ruling, no problem. However, my original question in this thread is how you would handle the lingering damage feat on a character with multiple sneak attacks per round. So far, the DM and I are discussing allowing only the first successfull sneak attack of the round to linger into the next round. What do you think?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="toberane, post: 331764, member: 4968"] I respect your opinions on this, and if I was playing with a DM that ruled this way, I'd have no problem with the ruling. What I meant is that the spirit of spring attack is to allow the character to spring in, make his attack, and spring out. The spirit of haste is that it gets you moving so quickly you have time to do an extra partial action in the same time it takes to only do your standard 2 actions (move-move, or move-standard). So therefore, both the DM and I agreed that moving in, taking the standard swing and the hasted swing, then moving out fell into the spirit of the rules. Part of my reasoning for this is that you are splitting up your move-equivalent actions into two smaller moves. Logically, there is no reason that you couldn't take your second half-move after the hasted action. Rules-wise, maybe not. We decided on it during a battle that the DM had augmented heavily, and a couple of extra sneak attacks early on made the difference between victory and possible total party annhilation. We also both agreed that, yes, springing in, getting the full attack action, then springing out, would be insane and too much. But this decision isn't unbalancing, particularly when we are going up against Marilith demons wih 6 arms, extra levels of fighter, an AC of about 50 or so, the perfect multiattack feat, hasted, and each arm wielding unholy, bane weapons. We all have some potent magic items, but the DM equips the bad guys every bit as heavily as our party. If you don't want to allow this in your games, fine. If I ever come to your house to play, I'd abide by your ruling, no problem. However, my original question in this thread is how you would handle the lingering damage feat on a character with multiple sneak attacks per round. So far, the DM and I are discussing allowing only the first successfull sneak attack of the round to linger into the next round. What do you think? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[ELH] Lingering Damage
Top