Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZeroGlobal2003" data-source="post: 2409443" data-attributes="member: 20064">I'll by that, although not with out a little grumbling. It still doesn't come close to the fact that by the RAW a normal bow used as an improvised weapon deals no extra damage for high strength. I don't think that this was an intentional implication, as it makes so little sense as to be ridculous (more so even then the whip), but it doesn't change the RAW that says they don't.This does not prove either view on resolution of how much damage any one with +1 AC does. It seems rather pointless though to bother putting anything more then +2 on a whip if its only gonna be able to trip... hell the +2 damage is wasted too. A masterwork whip gets half the total benefit at 50k gp less cost. It would be farm more effective to by the grasping ability at a +2 equivalent bonus (+2 on trip or disarm attempts).Then net in the book is a +4 net made of pure force, able to entangle incorporeal creatures.Another interesting point from this book is that other then vicious, as far as I can see, all the weapons have the same "weapon deals +X damage" terminology used in the SRD. What this means, I think, is that vicious is actually the exception to the rule rather then the rule.All that doesn't change the fact that I still feel the intent of the rules is different from the actual implications of the RAW. I feel I'm supported in this by the description of the electric lash, although it doesn't prove anything either way.Keep your RAW rules out of my house <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=":)" />Zero</blockquote>

Verification