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
Excerpt: powers (merged)
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="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4186432" data-attributes="member: 30001"><p>KidSnide indeed! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile :-)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> Getting +20/.../+20 against a demon isn't the same thing as wearing a coat hanger for pants at all! There's nothing stupid about finding a way to get +20/.../+20 against a demon, whereas a coat-hanger around your waist probably doesn't do much useful. So I don't see the comparison.</p><p></p><p>Hypothetically if you have a feat that says "you can get one attack against a demon at +20 for each rat that he's surrounded by" then you'd be stupid *not* to carry a bag of rats with you. I'm sure the first person in history that tried to ride a horse got laughed at too. History is full of examples of people using all sorts of animals for all sorts of things - canaries in coal mines, etc. It only looks stupid until it works.</p><p></p><p>Ok, so there's probably not a feat that says that specifically about rats, demons, et. al. What it might say is something like "if a demon is surrounded by creatures, then you get an attack at your max BAB for each creature" or something like that. Still, rats are creatures, and a bag full of rats is not a concept that boggles the mind, so if the game designer was thinking "medium-sized creatures", "allies", or something and just wrote "creature" then it's a bad design on his part. But that happens - and if the DM wants to make an on-the-fly ruling and say "medium-creatures only, not tiny rats, for example" then I think that's reasonable. </p><p></p><p>But AFAICT, a player that reads a rule and comes to a different conclusion is not an idiot. Sure, it would have been polite for a player with any experience with DnD to instinctively know that a feat is not going to give him +20/.../+20 on all of his attacks, and to politely inform the DM of what appears to be vagueness/error in the rules. A player who aggressively assumes that he knows better than the DM here is being a jerk, not an idiot.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 4186432, member: 30001"] KidSnide indeed! :-) Getting +20/.../+20 against a demon isn't the same thing as wearing a coat hanger for pants at all! There's nothing stupid about finding a way to get +20/.../+20 against a demon, whereas a coat-hanger around your waist probably doesn't do much useful. So I don't see the comparison. Hypothetically if you have a feat that says "you can get one attack against a demon at +20 for each rat that he's surrounded by" then you'd be stupid *not* to carry a bag of rats with you. I'm sure the first person in history that tried to ride a horse got laughed at too. History is full of examples of people using all sorts of animals for all sorts of things - canaries in coal mines, etc. It only looks stupid until it works. Ok, so there's probably not a feat that says that specifically about rats, demons, et. al. What it might say is something like "if a demon is surrounded by creatures, then you get an attack at your max BAB for each creature" or something like that. Still, rats are creatures, and a bag full of rats is not a concept that boggles the mind, so if the game designer was thinking "medium-sized creatures", "allies", or something and just wrote "creature" then it's a bad design on his part. But that happens - and if the DM wants to make an on-the-fly ruling and say "medium-creatures only, not tiny rats, for example" then I think that's reasonable. But AFAICT, a player that reads a rule and comes to a different conclusion is not an idiot. Sure, it would have been polite for a player with any experience with DnD to instinctively know that a feat is not going to give him +20/.../+20 on all of his attacks, and to politely inform the DM of what appears to be vagueness/error in the rules. A player who aggressively assumes that he knows better than the DM here is being a jerk, not an idiot. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Excerpt: powers (merged)
Top
