Vampiric Touch, Spellstoring, and thrown weapon...

[Caliban]

Caliban, as long as you continue to insist that words in the present tense could just as easily refer to the past tense it is futile to even begin to discuss timing with you.

The only evidence you have put forward that things work the way you say they do is that you want them to work that way. So long as you say "the words aren't precise and therefore can mean exactly what I say they do regardless of their literal meanings" - a discussion of what the rules say is doomed to failure.

We've gone over what the rules say. You are wrong. You claim that the rules can - if you take present tense words and transmogrify them into past tense words - be construed to vaguely allow your point of view.
[/b]]

Just because you say something doesn't make it so Frank. You can say I'm wrong all day long, and it means exactly nothing.

I've supported my position at least as well as you have supported yours, if not better. I've pointed out where the rules support my position, and poked holes in your rules arguements. All you can come back with is more grammer based personal attacks rather than actual substantive rules based arguements.

Given your antagonistic stance, and all the "I'm right so shut up" comments, I can't say that I really respect anything you say.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Given your antagonistic stance, and all the "I'm right so shut up" comments, I can't say that I really respect anything you say.

That doesn't actually make me care.

our arguments are based on nothing except personal whim. This is an argument about wording, and you continue to dismiss syntax and semantics.

What the hell is left?

-Frank

 

[Caliban]

That doesn't actually make me care.

our arguments are based on nothing except personal whim. This is an argument about wording, and you continue to dismiss syntax and semantics.

What the hell is left?

-Frank

I dismiss semantics because they almost never help the issue.

You can argue definition, context, and similar situations from other parts of the rules, as others have done. You an also try to determine what the intent of the designers was, in spite of their sometimes poor english skills. That's what I do.

In case you missed it, that's exactly what Karensdad did, and changed my mind about whether or not you can activate a thrown spell storing weapon.

The game designers are human, and sometimes make mistakes. This doesn't mean you jump all over any rulels loopholes or mistakes and hold them up as your holy grail of powergaming. You determine the way it was meant to work (if possible), and then move on. If you don't know their intent, use a little common sense and don't try to add extra abilities not mentioned in the rule/item/spell/feat/effect. Sometimes you just have to admit it's ambigous, make a ruling for your game, and move on.

Your whole "I'm right and your stupid if you disagree with me" schtick doesn't win you any points around here. It's uncivil and will eventually get you banned. Also, I've been on these boards a long time and I don't get intimidated and I don't back down from petty bullies. Learn some some respect and you might earn some in return. Until then, back off before it's too late.

 

[Camarath]

Direct control of the weapon.

I'd agree with that, but we seem to disagree what "to use" means. To me, it means being in active control of the weapon. After you throw it, you still influence it, but you are no longer actively controlling it. Therefore you are no longer using or wielding it.

I believe as long as a weapon is still functioning as you directed you should be condired to be using or wielding it. IRL I use many things that I am not in constant active control of (whether or not I can be considered to be wielding them seems mainly a function of context). With non-thrown weapons in D&D you also lose the ability to actively control them after you roll your attack since you can not stop and choose not you damage your opponent at that point. Once you attack you are committed to the attack and lose the option of changing the weapons action. Attacking in D&D is an abstraction that involves the entire decsion to attack to damaging your opponent sequence. And I don't think it holds up very well to subdivision. But feel free to rule how ever you want on this issue since IMO the rules are less than absolutely difinative on this point.

What bonuses and penalties do you think I'm re-evaluating exactly?

All bonuses and penalties associated with the wielder of a weapon. Unless you think that the weapon would still gain those qualities as if the weapon's former wielder still counted as its wielder for the propose of bonuses and penalties. But that seems unnecessarily complicated to me.

 

[Caliban]

All bonuses and penalties associated with the wielder of a weapon. Unless you think that the weapon would still gain those qualities as if the weapon's former wielder still counted as its wielder for the propose of bonuses and penalties. But that seems unnecessarily complicated to me.

It only seems complicated because you are trying to reword it in a very complicated way. *shrug* Pretty much proves my point about semantics really.

And really, which bonuses and penalties are associated with the wielder of a weapon?

As I said, I don't see how you can be considered to be wielding a dagger when it's 20 feet way from you. It's ballistic at that point, not guided.

If there is any effect generated by the weapon that depends on you wielding it, then it would end, as you are no longer wielding it.

If you throw a defending weapon, you just lost any AC bonus you might have gained from it. You are no longer wielding it.

 

[Camarath]

And really, which bonuses and penalties are associated with the wielder of a weapon?

Here is one for example.

A creature with an alignment subtype (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) can overcome this type of damage reduction with its natural weapons and weapons it wields as if the weapons or natural weapons had an alignment (or alignments) that match the subtype(s) of the creature.

It only seems complicated because you are trying to reword it in a very complicated way. *shrug* Pretty much proves my point about semantics really.

So, you are say that all bonuses associted with the weilder of a thrown weapon end between the attack and damage rolls. I just want to be clear about this.

As I said, I don't see how you can be considered to be wielding a dagger when it's 20 feet way from you. It's ballistic at that point, not guided.

If there is any effect generated by the weapon that depends on you wielding it, then it would end, as you are no longer wielding it.

If you throw a defending weapon, you just lost any AC bonus you might have gained from it. You are no longer wielding it.

I do not think this is supported in the rules. I could be wrong, would you like to supply the rules that say this? I can not find a rule that says that the bonuses gained from wielding a weapon end before the attack action is finished. The strenght bonus added to the damage roll of thrown weapons rule seems to me to indicate that thrown weapons still gains bonuses associated with thier wielders when rolling for damage.

 

[Caliban]

Here is one for example.

So, you are say that all bonuses associted with the weilder of a thrown weapon end between the attack and damage rolls. I just want to be clear about this.
[/b]

Pretty much.

I do not think this is supported in the rules. I could be wrong, would you like to supply the rules that say this?

Where do the rules define "wielding" and "not wielding" a weapon?

I can not find a rule that says that the bonuses gained from wielding a weapon end before the attack action is finished. The strenght bonus added to the damage roll of thrown weapons rule seems to me to indicate that thrown weapons still gains bonuses associated with thier wielders when rolling for damage.

The strength bonus thing is just because you can throw the weapon harder and do more damage. I really don't think it has anything to do with magical effects generated by the weapon itself.

I guess what I'm really saying is that if there is an effect from the weapon that depends on your wielding it, it would end when you are no longer wielding it.

At that point it comes down to how you define wielding. Unfortunately, while they use the term a lot in the rules, it's not one they thought was important enough to define in specific D&D terms.

When I look it up online, it either has to do with direct control of an object, or with having influence or power of a non-phyical nature. Since we are talking about wielding a weapon, I'm going with the direct control of an object definition. To me, that is the reasonable interpretation.

If it doesn't seem reasonable to you, we can agree to disagree with no hard feelings. As I said, it's not really defined anywhere in the rules.

 

[FrankTrollman]

The strength bonus thing is just because you can throw the weapon harder and do more damage. I really don't think it has anything to do with magical effects generated by the weapon itself.

And yet... the game text on those is exactly the same.

If you can throw it and have it do more damage, why can't you throw it and have it be inherently Chaotic?

And how on Earth are we supposed to derive the distinction when the description doesn't change between the two?

You are the "wielder" of a thrown dagger for the purposes of applying your strength bonus to a damage roll, but according to you, you are not the "wielder" of that self same dagger when considering whether or not that dagger penetrates DR?

What?

It's the same word, at the same time, in the same attack, with the same weapon, against the same target. How can the word mean something different?

-Frank

 

[Camarath]

If it doesn't seem reasonable to you, we can agree to disagree with no hard feelings. As I said, it's not really defined anywhere in the rules.

I can agree to disagree on this issue. I also agree that wield is not adequately defined in the rules. I am however very reluctant to rule in a manner that would divide actions futher that they already are especially ones as abstract as attacking since IME this leads to unforeseen problems and frustrations.

 

[Dinkeldog]

When PCat said to quit bickering, the intent is for all threads, not just that one. So no more bickering here, either, thanks.