Solar's CR

[James McMurray]

The Titan rides right on the cusp, but not over, unfortunately. Still, with no compelling evidence either way, except for the fact that nothing else in all the core rules ever gets more that 4 attacks per round, period, no matter what, except the Solar, that's convincing enough for me to define the Solar as a mistake or exception to the rule.

I disagree completely.

That's well within your rights, however, since there is nowhere in the rules where it states that you don't get more attacks for BAB 21+, there is no evidence to back your stance.

 

[kreynolds]

That's well within your rights, however, since there is nowhere in the rules where it states that you don't get more attacks for BAB 21+, there is no evidence to back your stance.

I disagree. There is plenty of evidence to back up my stance.

Here's what we have. The only piece of the core rules that even hints at getting more than 4 attacks per round with a BAB of 21+ is the Solar. Nothing else.

Now, as to what is not in the core rules, the Sage has ruled otherwise, WotC CS has specified otherwise, MMII has specified otherwise, Dieties and Demigods has specified otherwise, the ELH has specified otherwise. There is more information to the contrary of your argument.

The intent is quite clear on the maximum of 4 attacks per round from your BAB, no matter how high it is. Saying that you can exceed the 4 attack limit simply because the core rules do not say you can't is a weak argument, and no more credible than saying your character can fly because the rules don't say that you cannot.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. Essentially, your argument boils down to "The errata doesn't say so, so there." If that is indeed the case, let me know, so that I can better understand your perspective on this.

 

[tburdett]

You missed it, my friend. Darkness was being humorous.

Yep, I missed it. I don't have much luck detecting humor. It must be a cross-class skill for me.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I disagree. There is plenty of evidence to back up my stance.

Here's what we have. The only piece of the core rules that even hints at getting more than 4 attacks per round with a BAB of 21+ is the Solar. Nothing else.

Now, as to what is not in the core rules, the Sage has ruled otherwise, WotC CS has specified otherwise, MMII has specified otherwise, Dieties and Demigods has specified otherwise, the ELH has specified otherwise. There is more information to the contrary of your argument.

The intent is quite clear on the maximum of 4 attacks per round from your BAB, no matter how high it is. Saying that you can exceed the 4 attack limit simply because the core rules do not say you can't is a weak argument, and no more credible than saying your character can fly because the rules don't say that you cannot.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. Essentially, your argument boils down to "The errata doesn't say so, so there." If that is indeed the case, let me know, so that I can better understand your perspective on this.

None of that stuff is in the core rules. And none of that stuff was before the ELH was finallized. There was a lot of discussion about it before the ELH came out and right afterwards.

Its a rules change, and if you didn't have access to the internet or dragon mag, and all you have were the core rules, they would have 5 attacks.

When the game came out, it was pretty obvious that they were going to continue the scale past +20. Then later they decide to cap it to attempt to keep it from getting silly.

In any case, its NOT a typo. It may be a mistake, but the mistake isn't a typo. I'd like to be around when the guy who made that type realized it made it to print.

"Oh shoot! I ACCIDENTALLY typed "/+15" at the end of that! Stupid fat fingers!!!"

Besides, it wasn't a mistake. They changed the rule.

The intent is quite clear on the maximum of 4 attacks per round from your BAB, no matter how high it is. Saying that you can exceed the 4 attack limit simply because the core rules do not say you can't is a weak argument, and no more credible than saying your character can fly because the rules don't say that you cannot.

Please tell me what you think makes this so clear.

-- Spikey

 

[kreynolds]

None of that stuff is in the core rules.

I know.

Now, as to what is not in the core rules...

Thus why I said it wasn't in the core rules.

And none of that stuff was before the ELH was finallized.

All but the Sage and CS.

There was a lot of discussion about it before the ELH came out and right afterwards.

Yeah, I remember. It was a mess too.

Its a rules change...

I don't think it is. It might be, but I don't think it is, and according to all that I referred to, it's a mistake.

...and if you didn't have access to the internet or dragon mag, and all you have were the core rules, they would have 5 attacks.

It's possible that one might assume that, but not guaranteed. Besides, that's not even the case. After all, here you are, so we know you have internet access. What could be if you didn't have this or couldn't do that is irrelevant.

What is relevant, however, is that there is material and feedback which states it is a mistake and clears up this mess. If someone doesn't have access to that material, it doesn't change anything. The material is still out there. Now, if you mean "in the eyes of the beholder", or something like that, then that's different, but also irrelevant to the topic at hand.

When the game came out, it was pretty obvious that they were going to continue the scale past +20.

It was? I don't remember this. In fact, I remember all the monsters (except for the Solar) and classes stopping dead in their tracks at BAB 20. Even the FRCS and its mini-EL rules didn't allow your BAB to go over 20.

In any case, its NOT a typo.

From the feedback I've gotten from the Sage and CS, it is, but it may or may not be. Either way, it doesn't make any difference.

It may be a mistake, but the mistake isn't a typo.

Like I said, it may or may not be.

I'd like to be around when the guy who made that type realized it made it to print.

Same here.

Besides, it wasn't a mistake.

Again, it may or may not be.

They changed the rule.

I don't see it that way at all. There's way too much evidence that I've seen which says its either 1) a special ability of the Solar, or 2) it's a mistake.

-- Spikey

Now that was rude. If you're willing to hold a discussion, then be prepared to be disagreed with at some point. If you can't handle being disagreed with, then take it some place else. I don't appreciate it, and you wouldn't appreciate it if I did the same to you.

 

[kreynolds]

Please tell me what you think makes this so clear.

I already did, in that very same post.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't see why a little common sense can't be used.

The solar's five attacks is obivously a mistake.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

No other creature with iterative attacks in the MM had enough hd to go past 4 attacks. That's why there are none with that many iterative attacks.

Common sense my butt, when they designed the game they assumed going over BAB 20 would give you more attacks.

You can tell me that the sage said it was a mistake until you turn blue in the face. I don't believe that. Remember the halfling outrider? They will lie about stuff like that.

There is nothing in the core rules that says that you stop at 4 attacks, (there's nothing that even implies it) and there is an example of a creature that goes over 4 attacks.

Evidence enough for me.

--Stubborn Spikey

PS. You can drop the "don't get all huffy" stuff. Its not your job to moderate the forums.

 

[James McMurray]

I disagree. There is plenty of evidence to back up my stance.

Not within the Core Rules, which is all my statements were referring to.

Here's what we have. The only piece of the core rules that even hints at getting more than 4 attacks per round with a BAB of 21+ is the Solar. Nothing else.

They are also the only creatures int he Core Rules with a 21 BAB and iterative attacks. The lack of related creatures does not constitute an exception to an unwritten rule.

Now, as to what is not in the core rules,

Snipped as irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether a campaign using Core Rules only would grant the Solar 5 attacks.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. Essentially, your argument boils down to "The errata doesn't say so, so there." If that is indeed the case, let me know, so that I can better understand your perspective on this.

Actually, my argument is that a campaign using only the core rules would grant the Solar 5 attacks, because that's what the core rules say.

My campaign doesn't do that, as we use the ELH. Many campaigns do no do that for one reason or another. None of that matters in the discussion at hand, which started with the following statement and your retort:

Posted by meIf someone wishes to run a campaign using only Core rules and erratta, then their Solars will have 5 attacks per round.

Posted by kreynoldsI disagree completely.

You then went on to give arguments as to why you disagree, however, there have been no hard facts presented which could be shown in only the core rules. At best you have had circumstantial evidence only. When stepping outside the Core Rules, it becomes quite apparent that Solars should not get 5 attacks. Unfortunately, that's not what was being discussed.

 

[James McMurray]

I don't see why a little common sense can't be used.

The solar's five attacks is obivously a mistake.

Viewed strictly from the standpoint of core rules, the five attacks were not a mistake. It is only once more recent products are brought in that this becomes apparent. Which is all the discussion has been about.