Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tilla the Hun (work)" data-source="post: 1187725" data-attributes="member: 14214">Frank - why not try less nitpicking, less attitude and more rules citing?I'd like to see the explicit rule on that quote as well...That's two or three times you've been asked for a rules cite that you've ignored.You've made some -extremely- good points, and I'm only still in this discussion because you have made good points.  I'm still interested in what the rules have to say however - not in just taking your word for it.As you say - this is a rules forum.  So let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum - it's a silly form of debate anyway.I do agree with this - the tables are no more than a guideline for randomly generated items.  I think it sucks that the more interesting items cannot be generated from the list - but there it is.Now, from your postings: Tilla:  And where is this alleged list? I've checked the SRD repeatedly. If you are referring to the tables of potential enchantments for ranged vs melee weapons - Vampiric Touch is on the list for melee, but not on the list for ranged. Or is there a different list you are referring to?Frank:  It's the list in each special ability. For example:    SRD:This enchantment can only be placed on a melee weapon.Frank (continued): [this reference] Is listed under the throwing enhancement - indicating that it has the restriction that it can only be placed on a melee weapon. But if you go up a couple of entries to the spell storing enhancement it doesn't say that. Which means the place where the restriction would be if it had it is empty.(Tilla: I strongly disagree - those individual listings for each special ability LACK the restricting phrase in far too many of the abilities - they do not clearly indicate which is for melee only and which is for ranged only.  To state that a lack of restriction is a rule is to generate a non-explicit rule.  That is the domain of the House rule - not the Rules.  Can you cite a specific rule to deal with the situation?  If not, your generating a house rule)Frank:So either:1> It was misprinted to not have that restriction in two editions, and they never published errata for that misprint in what is now nearly four years.or2> Spell Storing never had that restriction in the first place.As to the list: Keen is also not on the ranged weapon list - and appears frequently in source books as an enchantment on bows and/or arrows. The list doesn't mean jack-all.(Tilla: Hmm...  Does source book mean CORE RULEBOOK?  If so, PLEASE, kindly, enlighten me as to book and page - I'll gladly look it up)...Until the end of the action. D&D uses "use" and "wield" interchangably - often within the same sentences. So if you you have Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization with a dagger - the bonus applies even after you've thrown it.(Tilla:  INCORRECT.  The bonuses apply to the ATTACK and DAMAGE of the weapon when the attack is made.  This is due to the abstraction of DND rules - you make an attack, if successful you deal damage with your full bonuses...  Now define how bonus=spell with touch attack range?)Frank: Or to put it another way, let's look at the PHB on page 113 under the rules for thrown weapons:    Quote:Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his or her Strength modifier to damage dealt by her thrown weaponsSo what exactly is your rules claim that you are not wielding a thrown weapon, given the fact that you are explicitly the wielder of a thrown weapon when calculating damage?(Tilla:  Because you roll the attack, if successful, you roll damage.  Spell Storing being activated is NOT part of the damage - it's a secondary effect.  Next, you'll argue that you can apply your sneak attack damage to the spell effect, because you are still the 'wielder'!)... (personal attacks removed)Others Quote:Of course, since you're still weilding a weapon even after you throw it, that means that if you want to throw a weapon, you'd better have two-weapon fighting, because otherwise you'll be taking penalties until you retrieve it and either sheathe it or drop it (because then you're not weilding it anymore).Frank: Only if you want to get more attacks than your BAB would allow from using a weapon in each hand. If you throw a dagger, quick-draw another dagger and throw it, and then quickdraw another dagger and throw it - you suffer no TWF penalties. If, OTOH, you throw a dagger with each hand, then quickdraw a dagger and throw it, and then quickdraw another dagger and throw it to - you'd better have TWF.TWF only gives you penalties if you attempt to use the same BAB for attacks with two different weapons. If you simply use another weapon with your normal iterative attacks - you get no penalties.(Tilla:  This I agree with.  Though you didn't 'cite the rules', I've read those rules and they do indeed illustrate this.  With quickdraw, you can draw and throw with one hand until you run out of your normal iterative attacks.  You could choose, at the beginning, to use two hands, suffereing 2wpn fighting penalties, and quickdraw daggers into both hands, throwing a dagger from each, until you ran out of iterative attacks)The only point I'm still disagreeing on is the point in time when you no longer wield the weapon.  I'm still not seeing specific rules that state your position or at least clearly indicate it.  Without those rules cite, the discussion only has your word for it.  If your position is based off of reading 'implications' of a variety of rules that specifically state this and that with only indirect relevance to your position - that's a house rule.  Thus, I'll ask again - cite some specific rules that explicitly state your position.  Not the 'lack of rule' example you cited above as such are not 'explicit'.Failing the explicit rule cite, try citing specific examples from the alleged 'source books' where items are enchanted with non-specifically restricted enchantments like spell storing.  Be sure to identify the source books...  Core Rulebooks are A-OK for a rules discussion, but unearthed arcana wouldn't be.</blockquote>

Verification