Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3043718" data-attributes="member: 1656">Flavour text it.&nbsp; Since they're lost or destroyed, you might describe all such incidents in melee as 'destroyed' rather than 'lost' - shattered by a parry, or breaking on the opponent's armour, or whatever.Well, that's where we differ.&nbsp; It think it's addressed here directly, in the description of arrows.If arrows can be used as ammunition or in melee, then why should the text under arrows be restricted to ammunition use just because the ammunition text says the same thing?Ammunition can break.&nbsp; Hence the text under ammunition.&nbsp; Arrows can break.&nbsp; Hence the text under arrows.If I wanted to write a rule that meant that arrows are destroyed on a successful hit, whether they are used as ammunition or melee weapons, I would put a note in the description of arrows that says &quot;arrows are destroyed on a successful hit&quot;.&nbsp; When I look at the description of arrows, I find a note that says &quot;arrows are destroyed on a successful hit&quot;.You're saying that because there's also a note under ammunition that says &quot;ammunition is destroyed on a successful hit&quot;, it changes the meaning of that sentence under arrows; I can't see how that is relevant.But I don't agree that the point is a valid one, since those real cheap magic weapons, per the description of arrows, will be destroyed on a successful hit (and lost or destroyed half the rest of the time).-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 3043718, member: 1656"] Flavour text it. Since they're lost [i]or[/i] destroyed, you might describe all such incidents in melee as 'destroyed' rather than 'lost' - shattered by a parry, or breaking on the opponent's armour, or whatever. Well, that's where we differ. It think it's addressed here directly, in the description of arrows. If arrows can be used as ammunition or in melee, then why should the text under arrows be restricted to ammunition use just because the ammunition text says the same thing? Ammunition can break. Hence the text under ammunition. Arrows can break. Hence the text under arrows. If I wanted to write a rule that meant that arrows are destroyed on a successful hit, whether they are used as ammunition or melee weapons, I would put a note in the description of arrows that says "arrows are destroyed on a successful hit". When I look at the description of arrows, I find a note that says "arrows are destroyed on a successful hit". You're saying that because there's also a note under ammunition that says "ammunition is destroyed on a successful hit", it changes the meaning of that sentence under arrows; I can't see how that is relevant. But I don't agree that the point is a valid one, since those real cheap magic weapons, per the description of arrows, will be destroyed on a successful hit (and lost or destroyed half the rest of the time). -Hyp. [/QUOTE]

Verification