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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 289882" data-attributes="member: 177">Re: Re: The Sage's Word on the SubjectI think you're incorrect on this point. There is no inconsistency - the rules don't actually contradict themselves.  If you consider the book to assume that "a (melee) weapon" is defined more as the head that strikes than the whole object, then it's not really inconsistent.Instead, the inconsistency is between your (fairly reasonable) preconception of what consitutes "a weapon", and what the rules consider (but never actually state) to be "a weapon".  Don't confuse a vexing vaguery in definition with inconsistency.Quite frankly, KarinsDad, you'd run into much less vexation if you allowed for the fact that the authors are, in fact, human beings and that human language and communication frequently relies upon inference on the part of the audience.  Sticking to the rules is one thing.  Sticking to local minutiae of phrasing without considering other examples to set a pattern is asking for trouble. Everywhere in the rules where the double-weapons are mentioned, they make special mention that the are used "as if they were two weapons".  In the weapon descriptions, in the combat section, in the crafting section - everywhere, it's as if there were two weapons.  Yet, when you get to spell descriptions, you insist that since it doesn't specifically state that double weapons are two, that they must be considered as one.  Yes, in disarming and breaking them, you consider them as a single object, but that's because the fact that they are two weapons in one physical object is not relevant.Yes, it is possible that they could have made the point more clear.  However, if they did that in every concievable instance, the document would become ungainly enough to read as to be useless.    *sigh*   No, he isn't a putz.  He's a busy guy who answers lots of ill-framed questions.  As it is, he got his answer to me within three hours of my asking the question.  On a Friday afternoon, even.  I'd like to see the Sage's detractors manage what he does as well.  It's very easy to criticize and insult, and people are horribly quick to do it.   Perhaps, considering the Web spell discussion a little while ago, you ought to reconsider yourself as an appropriate stone-thrower?</blockquote>

Verification