Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jesuit" data-source="post: 1639008" data-attributes="member: 21043">There are a lot of things you can do by the rules, and a lot of things that you probably can do by the rules, and a lot of things that the rules don't necessarily explain to everyone's satisfaction.Rather than call me hard-headed (which I can freely admit btw), try to keep in mind that two people can read the exact same rules and see two different results.Where I'm coming from on this one is that in 3.0 it did specifically preclude Rapid + TWF, and in 3.5 I think that the only reason the wording changed under the crossbow was due to the removal of ambidexterity. I think the designer's intent is still not to have Rapid + TWF stack for ranged combat. I think the &quot;standard&quot; 3e rule of same bonuses in fact does apply, as it applies to everything else. I understand fully that Hyper, you can interpret the extra attacks as an unnamed bonus thus allowing them to stack. I simply don't share that point of view. We didn't make a house ruling &quot;changing&quot; the rules as written, we came to a consensus on the nature of the two feats in question and how they are supposed to work.If you disagree, fine. Does it really matter if we see things differently? I find it perfectly valid to perceive two feats both granting extra attacks by different mechanics as being mutually exclusive. The rules never come out and say that they don't stack, and they never come out and say that they do.According to you, they do. According to me, they don't. Which campaign do you play in? Nuff said. Now we can either agree to disagree, or keep making pointless snyde remarks about my character and ability to perceive reality. Either way I assure you my mind won't change, so may we move on?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jesuit, post: 1639008, member: 21043"] There are a lot of things you can do by the rules, and a lot of things that you probably can do by the rules, and a lot of things that the rules don't necessarily explain to everyone's satisfaction. Rather than call me hard-headed (which I can freely admit btw), try to keep in mind that two people can read the exact same rules and see two different results. Where I'm coming from on this one is that in 3.0 it did specifically preclude Rapid + TWF, and in 3.5 I think that the only reason the wording changed under the crossbow was due to the removal of ambidexterity. I think the designer's intent is still not to have Rapid + TWF stack for ranged combat. I think the "standard" 3e rule of same bonuses in fact does apply, as it applies to everything else. I understand fully that Hyper, you can interpret the extra attacks as an unnamed bonus thus allowing them to stack. I simply don't share that point of view. We didn't make a house ruling "changing" the rules as written, we came to a consensus on the nature of the two feats in question and how they are supposed to work. If you disagree, fine. Does it really matter if we see things differently? I find it perfectly valid to perceive two feats both granting extra attacks by different mechanics as being mutually exclusive. The rules never come out and say that they don't stack, and they never come out and say that they do. According to you, they do. According to me, they don't. Which campaign do you play in? Nuff said. Now we can either agree to disagree, or keep making pointless snyde remarks about my character and ability to perceive reality. Either way I assure you my mind won't change, so may we move on? [/QUOTE]

Verification