Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why you hittin' yo'self? (damage reduction questions)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2446917" data-attributes="member: 31734"><p>What rule says you need the significant portion for sundering but not for disarming? You're entirely making that up. How about tripping? Can you trip with a BE whip?</p><p> Actually, I'm not making that assumption. You made that assumption for e.g. cover and I just applied that assumption you made to what would be a consistent view for disarming. However, you would rule differently for disarming, which is what I find inconsistent.</p><p> Well, see, now you're changing your mind. Earlier, you said:</p><p> You'll note no statement that this only applies to whips or spiked chains, or even merely reach or ranged weapons. You are being selective in your interpretation and, while imminently logical choices I'm sure, it is not based directly on rule.</p><p> So, is that the new rule? BE ignores nonliving matter, but only when damage is being done (or could be done)? So, you can trip with a BE whip from 10ft away? Are you defining the significant portion as the part that does damage only? For a whip then, that would only be the tip, right? Then, please explain how the whip goes through a wall.</p><p> </p><p>I'm not sure why it appears you are getting upset from your tone. I assure you that my arguments are reasonable from a rules perspective. I totally understand your views on this, and while quite logical, they have an inconsistency with regards to the rules. The rules you are using seem to be solely "ignores nonliving matter" and "significant portion." You've defined the first, and by example the second. However, I claim that your definition of the second is inconsistent.</p><p> </p><p>Here's my premise. A BE weapon ignores nonliving matter exactly how it's defined in game mechanics. I.e. they ignore armor and shield bonuses and do not damage constructs, undead, or other objects. Exactly how/why this occurs is flavor. But, that's the limit. There's no restriction on disarming, tripping, cover, or anything else. You cannot (effectively) sunder with a BE weapon because that would be damaging an object (expressly not allowed). This is entirely consistent within the rules on BE weapons.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Infiniti2000, post: 2446917, member: 31734"] What rule says you need the significant portion for sundering but not for disarming? You're entirely making that up. How about tripping? Can you trip with a BE whip? Actually, I'm not making that assumption. You made that assumption for e.g. cover and I just applied that assumption you made to what would be a consistent view for disarming. However, you would rule differently for disarming, which is what I find inconsistent. Well, see, now you're changing your mind. Earlier, you said: You'll note no statement that this only applies to whips or spiked chains, or even merely reach or ranged weapons. You are being selective in your interpretation and, while imminently logical choices I'm sure, it is not based directly on rule. So, is that the new rule? BE ignores nonliving matter, but only when damage is being done (or could be done)? So, you can trip with a BE whip from 10ft away? Are you defining the significant portion as the part that does damage only? For a whip then, that would only be the tip, right? Then, please explain how the whip goes through a wall. I'm not sure why it appears you are getting upset from your tone. I assure you that my arguments are reasonable from a rules perspective. I totally understand your views on this, and while quite logical, they have an inconsistency with regards to the rules. The rules you are using seem to be solely "ignores nonliving matter" and "significant portion." You've defined the first, and by example the second. However, I claim that your definition of the second is inconsistent. Here's my premise. A BE weapon ignores nonliving matter exactly how it's defined in game mechanics. I.e. they ignore armor and shield bonuses and do not damage constructs, undead, or other objects. Exactly how/why this occurs is flavor. But, that's the limit. There's no restriction on disarming, tripping, cover, or anything else. You cannot (effectively) sunder with a BE weapon because that would be damaging an object (expressly not allowed). This is entirely consistent within the rules on BE weapons. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why you hittin' yo'self? (damage reduction questions)
Top