Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 1415508" data-attributes="member: 111">Answer to the last question - not by the rules.  Most assuredly not allowed by the rules.How many times must I state that the rules by the book are clear and I am strictly discussing a way to handle a situation that may (or may not) have been overlooked - the case of how to attack a weapon when you cannot reach the wielder?  It is of no value to point out what the rules are in this case - we all know the relevant rules.The question on the table is:If, and only if you allow a readied action to attack a weapon with reach that is swung at you (a not uncommonly-used house rule), should you also allow it with a Karmic Strike.HOW does Karmic Strike let you take this extra attack that counts against you AoOs for the round?  I submit that the AC penalty implies you are dropping you defenses to prepare to strike someone who is striking you.Those circumstances are very similar to the readied action circumstance when you strike a weapon.Obviously a rules analysis will not help - since the rules don't even allow the readied action we are trying to compare against Karmic Strike.  If you disagree with me about why you get the extra strike in Karmic Strike, then, by all means, don't allow a reactive sunder in your campaign.But don't tell me the answer is obvious or clear - it's not.  You have to think through WHY the feat works to come up with an answer - reciting rules just won't do it - how could it?  We are talking about whether or not to apply something that is not in the rules in the first place!  It could not possibly have been considered in the original design of the feat, so we have to look at the design of the feat and decide if it "fits" or not.</blockquote>

Verification