Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="timASW" data-source="post: 6012877" data-attributes="member: 6698787">Bookmarks didnt work on your 3X books? How odd....... And no, remember one rule or remember one rule. Equally easy except that I dont have to stop to do a math equation every time. Just roll a D6. Every single fire spell, item or effect can cause it unless specifically stated otherwise in its description. If someone was running 3X where fire couldnt make umm more fire... then the flaw was in the operator, not the rules. Your shouldnt need a rule for common sense. Again a problem with the operator not the rules. If you were specifically looking in the rules for what you CAN do then you were doing it backwards. The rules existed to tell you most of what you COULDNT do. It was not a design goal of earlier editions to strictly make a rule for every single thing you might do in a fantasy universe. Thats the DM's job to adjudicate based on what existing rules say.  Hmm I would still use AC because if you dont get a solid hit your probably not going to ring anyone's bell. But I see what your going for. In 3X I would use non-lethal damage for the same thing. Mainly because I find it unpalatable that an improvised attack should be able to bypass a common defense to knock someone out when something like say a club or a mace cant.  If you allow that you've suddenly made everyone's armor into a better weapon then their actual weapon is. Because there is no fort save in 3x for that attack. So most of your 3x equation doesnt exist. It would do normal, non-lethal damage for reasons addressed previously. So yes "make a normal attack -4, hit, roll normal damage." IS more simple then then the 4e version. Even if we used something like stunning attack where there was a fort save I find the added complexity to be a positive thing. A simple attack IMO should not be able to add a status condition; especially one as powerful as knocked out without the target having some ability to resist it. I can accept thats a simple matter of taste though and not a mechanical superiority or inferiority of the rule system though.</blockquote>

Verification