Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3049128" data-attributes="member: 2011">Actually, your rules argument is not very solid. It's almost non-existent.Not to make this an Argumentum ad Populum, but there are many &quot;on the fence&quot; type of people here who analyze the rules and would agree with you that there is support for both interpretations if there truly was.I am such a person. I often see both sides and sometimes change my position if one side comes up with good or obscure rules reasons for an issue to go one way or the other.But, I do not see it here at all. The opposing point of view has not really written down any significant rules support for their position. The position that all successful attack rolls result in a &quot;hit&quot; and that &quot;hit&quot; means success with any attack just does not appear to be a reasonable interpretation. Especially when you consider that there is no &quot;hit&quot; language anywhere in any of the touch attack rules. The game term &quot;hit&quot; is just not used by the designers when they write about touch attacks.You see the two sides, but quite frankly, I do not. I'm not sure if Hyp or anyone else here who disagreed with you sees both sides.No, Vorpal has Strike language. Not quite sure how a strike is different than a hit, but you seem to think there is a difference. I do understand how a touch is not a hit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 3049128, member: 2011"] Actually, your rules argument is not very solid. It's almost non-existent. Not to make this an Argumentum ad Populum, but there are many "on the fence" type of people here who analyze the rules and would agree with you that there is support for both interpretations if there truly was. I am such a person. I often see both sides and sometimes change my position if one side comes up with good or obscure rules reasons for an issue to go one way or the other. But, I do not see it here at all. The opposing point of view has not really written down any significant rules support for their position. The position that all successful attack rolls result in a "hit" and that "hit" means success with any attack just does not appear to be a reasonable interpretation. Especially when you consider that there is no "hit" language anywhere in any of the touch attack rules. The game term "hit" is just not used by the designers when they write about touch attacks. You see the two sides, but quite frankly, I do not. I'm not sure if Hyp or anyone else here who disagreed with you sees both sides. No, Vorpal has Strike language. Not quite sure how a strike is different than a hit, but you seem to think there is a difference. I do understand how a touch is not a hit. [/QUOTE]

Verification