Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fissionessence" data-source="post: 4670100" data-attributes="member: 63357">The reason it doesn't specify weapon damage is that not all attacks that could crit involve weapons . . . for example, an attack from any warlock, wizard, etc. I don't feel that your reading is 'clear as all day'. I'm much less convinced of my original standpoint and more willing to consider the alternative given the potentially strong arguments, but I'm now floating in the middle of the issue, and I'm still likely to rule in my games that striker bonuses are rolled on a crit until I find evidence I find incontrovertible. I agree that critical hits are very nasty; I think this is true with either ruling for the issue in question. The difference is how much more powerful a striker becomes with critical hits. Honestly, other classes' crits would almost suck compared to a striker's if this is truly the correct ruling.~ fissionessence</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fissionessence, post: 4670100, member: 63357"] The reason it doesn't specify weapon damage is that not all attacks that could crit involve weapons . . . for example, an attack from any warlock, wizard, etc. I don't feel that your reading is 'clear as all day'. I'm much less convinced of my original standpoint and more willing to consider the alternative given the potentially strong arguments, but I'm now floating in the middle of the issue, and I'm still likely to rule in my games that striker bonuses are rolled on a crit until I find evidence I find incontrovertible. I agree that critical hits are very nasty; I think this is true with either ruling for the issue in question. The difference is how much [i]more powerful[/i] a [i]striker[/i] becomes with critical hits. Honestly, other classes' crits would almost suck compared to a striker's if this is truly the correct ruling. ~ fissionessence [/QUOTE]

Verification