Read thru New FAQ (Jan28) -- WTF??
- Thread starter Nail
- Start date
kjenks
First Post
There are more internal inconsistencies:
===
page 9: "The touch attack made to start a grapple is an attack roll (so the bonus would apply to this roll), but a grapple check is not an attack roll, and thus the bonus wouldn’t apply to the grapple check." (written by Andy Collins)
page 27: "If the grab succeeds, Bob is still prone and still suffers the –4 penalty for being prone for the ensuing opposed grapple check." (written by Skip Williams)
So if a grapple check is not an attack roll, why is Bob getting that -4? And what happens with Power Attack and grapple? Can you make a critical hit with a grapple? If so, which d20 needs to roll a natural 20, Step 2 or Step 3?
===
page 15: "When grappling, you can damage your foe with your spikes by making a regular grapple check (opposed by your foe’s check). If you succeed, you deal piercing damage to your foe (see Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook) rather than the unarmed strike damage you’d normally deal when damaging your foe with a grapple check."
So does this override the PH rule stating that armor spikes deal extra piercing damage on a successful grapple attack? Or does it give a spiked armor grappler a new grapple option that inflicts either piercing damage or unarmed strike damage but noth both?
===
Feh. Shoddy work, WotC.
===
page 9: "The touch attack made to start a grapple is an attack roll (so the bonus would apply to this roll), but a grapple check is not an attack roll, and thus the bonus wouldn’t apply to the grapple check." (written by Andy Collins)
page 27: "If the grab succeeds, Bob is still prone and still suffers the –4 penalty for being prone for the ensuing opposed grapple check." (written by Skip Williams)
So if a grapple check is not an attack roll, why is Bob getting that -4? And what happens with Power Attack and grapple? Can you make a critical hit with a grapple? If so, which d20 needs to roll a natural 20, Step 2 or Step 3?
===
page 15: "When grappling, you can damage your foe with your spikes by making a regular grapple check (opposed by your foe’s check). If you succeed, you deal piercing damage to your foe (see Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook) rather than the unarmed strike damage you’d normally deal when damaging your foe with a grapple check."
So does this override the PH rule stating that armor spikes deal extra piercing damage on a successful grapple attack? Or does it give a spiked armor grappler a new grapple option that inflicts either piercing damage or unarmed strike damage but noth both?
===
Feh. Shoddy work, WotC.
kjenks said:
The first answer is by And Collins, the current Sage. The second answer was made by Skip Williams, the previous Sage. Andy has been reversing some of Skip Williams more questionable answers, but has done a poor job of checking the rest of the FAQ to make it consistent.
Another answer from Skip Williams. It's anybodies guess as to how Andy Collins wil clarify it.
For what it's worth, I believe the FAQ was incorrect in it's original ruling regarding Acid and Sonic ignoring hardness, and agree with Andy's current ruling (although he did his usual sloppy editing job and missed a contradictory answer elsewhere in the FAQ).
The PHB does not actually say that Acid or Sonic damage ignores hardness, although some people do interpret it that way. I believe the text in the PHB simply means that Acid and Sonic damage not halved or quartered before applying hardness, unlike other energy damage.
This difference in interpretations obviously exists among the game developers as well, and thus the change in the FAQ as a new faction comes into power.
Haffrung Helleyes
First Post
The Sage
Is being a sage just an impossible job?
We used to always say that Skip was on crack. Now people are saying the same thing about Andy.
Is being a Sage just a thanklesss, impossible job? Or is WoTC making poor choices?
Ken
Is being a sage just an impossible job?
We used to always say that Skip was on crack. Now people are saying the same thing about Andy.
Is being a Sage just a thanklesss, impossible job? Or is WoTC making poor choices?
Ken
francisca
I got dice older than you.
It is a thankless, impossible job, but that doesn't mean those guys aren't on crack. Anybody who says that drinking a potion is different than swallowing a potion* is not only the consumate rules lawyer, but must be smoking "sage".Haffrung Helleyes said:
*This was in the Sage advice column several years (well, maybe 3 or 4) ago. When I read it, I did a double take, then had a flashback of a shot glass, a quarter, and pointing at someone with my elbow and saying "imbibe".
Caliban said:
Energy powers in the Expanded Psionics Handbook ignore hardness for sonic attacks.
Breath of the Dragon in the same book (acid attack) does not mention this.
Sympathic Vibration (PHB) also ignores hardness. This is the only sonic attack that I can find in the PHB that does.
None of the other sonic or acid spells in the PHB ignore hardness.
But, the PHB seems to be fairly clear if you read more than just the Energy Attacks section: "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract it's hardness from the damage.".
If there is an exception to this rule, it has to be clearly called out. "Acid and Sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures, roll damage and apply it normally." does not clearly call out an exception to the rule.
How do you apply damage to creatures? You roll total damage, you subtract out any appropriate resistances, you give the final total to the creature in hit point damage.
So, you do the same with damage against objects. If the object has hardness, you subtract it because the Acid and Sonic damage section does not state that you do not. It is merely stating that you use full acid/sonic damage against an object (as opposed to half for fire/lightning and quarter damage by cold).
Learn something new every day.
