Shillelagh and quarterstaffs

[drnuncheon]

Well, you might want to put aside the snide insults until such time as you can show where, in the books, it states that one roll equals one swing. Your personal dislike for the image is not a compelling argument.

I thought one of the selling points of 3e was that it had gotten rid of the ridiculous 1e/2e 'explanations' like 'a hit isn't always a hit (unless you're using poison)' and 'one to-hit roll is multiple attacks (unless you're using a ranged weapon)'...

The only reason anyone expects 1 roll to equal multiple abstracted attacks is because that's the way it was in the earlier editions - but that's not a good enough reason, because 3e is really a whole new game. There's nothing in the current PH to suggest that 1 roll = multiple swings, and no pressing reason (like the 1-minute combat round) to justify making such an interpretation.

J

 

[0-hr]

But surely you knew that with your slicing rapist wit....

Perhaps you mean slicing rapier wit? And speaking of rapiers (which are piercing weapons, not slicing BTW), imagine a fencing match. The deulists certainly swing (or cut, or lunge) more than one every six seconds. There is a constant trading of blows but a real "attack" only every so often.

One die roll represents one attack. You can put as many beats and parries and fients in there as you like - it's just flavor text. If you imagine the combants standing stock still, nervously glancing at their stopwatches and swinging on cue every six seconds, then that's fine. If someone else imagines things a bit more dynamic and dramatic, then good for them. Again, it's all just flavor text. In either case, you should not try to use flavor text to influence or interpret the rules.

 

[Umbran]

There's nothing in the current PH to suggest that 1 roll = multiple swings, and no pressing reason (like the 1-minute combat round) to justify making such an interpretation.

Yes, well, so far, nobody's presented anything speciifc in the rules that restricts us to the "one roll, one swing" image either.

Think, drnuncheon - what does it matter? This is the Rules Forum. Is there a good rules-reason to care which cinematic representation is used?

 

[Zhure]

PHB< page 123
"Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent, including feints and wild swings. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it simply indicates whether, over perhaps several attempts, you managed to connect solidly. Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage."

Sheesh. RTFM.

Greg

 

[kreynolds]

Sheesh. RTFM.

Greg

ROTFLMAO

 

[Ristamar]

Hehe... that was pretty funny. It isn't really that the fact that he simply said RTFM. It was the fact that it had to be said in a such an inane debate.

I salute you, sir.

 

[Kai Lord]

PHB< page 123
"Attack Rolls: An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent, including feints and wild swings. It does not represent a single swing of the sword, for example. Rather, it simply indicates whether, over perhaps several attempts, you managed to connect solidly. Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage."

Sheesh. RTFM.

Greg

You read the rules? What a geek.

 

[0-hr]

So Kai was wrong and the other 99% of the board was right? There's a surprise.

 

[kreynolds]

You read the rules? What a geek.

I find this very amusing, but probably not for the reasons you think.

 

[Kai Lord]

So Kai was wrong and the other 99% of the board was right? There's a surprise.

Sometimes the sun shines on even a leprechaun's ass.