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="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2446489" data-attributes="member: 31734">The answers I didn't give because I thought they'd be obvious, but also if you were interested you could ask. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I'll take this rhetorical question as a request for my answers, however.  They are, in fact, identical to yours, and for the same reasons.   A circumstance bonus is always open to DM fiat, so I wouldn't disagree with that, either.  However, I am surprised at the lack of consistency in your answers: On the one hand, the "significant portion" of a BE weapon ignores cover (an object). On the other hand, the "significant portion" of a BE weapon does not ignore opponent's weapons (other objects). You either need to be strict on all cases or none at all.  I see you being strict on disarming (i.e. siding with me in that BE doesn't strictly deny the ability to disarm) and yet loose on cover (using the 'ignores nonliving matter' rule).  Either the 'significant portion' of the weapon always ignores nonliving matter or it doesn't and if it does, you have to rule accordingly in all those cases.  Can you give me a reason why you don't think you are being inconsistent with respect to disarming (as a case in point)?  Do you, for instance, assume that you don't have to disarm someone with the "significant portion" of the weapon?</blockquote>

Verification