Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

invisible dual sneak attack

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 10:42:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?

Silveraxe
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 11:15:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
> Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
>
> Silveraxe

He gets one sneak attack before the invisibility goes away.

Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 12:03:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
> Silveraxe wrote:
> > Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
> > Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
> >
> > Silveraxe
>
> He gets one sneak attack before the invisibility goes away.
>
> Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?

'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they could
be.

Can you cite rules? I kind of agree that he should get only one, but
can't find a definitive answer anywhere and I'd rather not use "because
the DM says so" as an argument.

Silveraxe.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 12:37:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> "Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118675016.535604.208100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
> >
> > 'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they could
> > be.
>
> Please explain how a full attack action that takes six seconds is somehow
> "simultaneous".

Right after you explain why thrusting with two daggers at once takes
six seconds, but thrusting with only one does not.

Anyway, I'm really not interested in fluff explanations. Got a rules
cite?
And, please, do not snip the part where I say that I do not agree with
this then call me silly because I do.

Silveraxe.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 12:40:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Silveraxe wrote:
> > > Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
> > > Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
> > >
> > > Silveraxe
> >
> > He gets one sneak attack before the invisibility goes away.
> >
> > Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
>
> 'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they could
> be.

An off hand attack, as you say, isn't iterative (in the DnD sense of
the word) with a primary hand attack but it's not really simultaneous
either - notice that, you can have an attack with your primary hand and
then decide whether to make an attack with your off hand or move.

Now you could say 'my character is hitting with both shortswords at
once' (in a Russel Crowe - Gladiator type way) but it would just be
flavour - it wouldn't suddenly mean you get 2 lots of sneak attack
before you became visible.

> Can you cite rules? I kind of agree that he should get only one, but
> can't find a definitive answer anywhere and I'd rather not use "because
> the DM says so" as an argument.
>
> Silveraxe.

In the SRD for the Invisibility spell it says:

"The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature."

which isn't as clearly worded as I was expecting, oh well. Maybe it's
clearer in the PHB, but I don't have mine at hand right now.

However, look at 'Sneak Attacks - Part 2' at:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a

It says...

"Perhaps the most common form of total concealment is the invisibility
spell. A regular invisibility effect is broken when you attack. If you
begin your turn under such an effect and you're making multiple
attacks, you'll be invisible only for the first attack and your
opponent will be denied Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) against
that first attack."
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 1:31:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kirk Janetzke wrote:
> Actually it depends on the situation:

No it doesn't.

> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a
>
> "Anything that allows you to make extra attacks during the full attack
> action gets you extra sneak attacks as well: fighting with two weapons, the
> haste spell, and the monk's flurry of blows are the most common ways of
> getting extra attacks."

Except that the invisibility has gone after the first attack so you'll
still be visible for those extra attacks.

> But there are a couple of scenerios here:

I agree with both. But in both the invisibility goes away after the
first attack so I don't see what your point is? If it's that Sneak
Attacks can happen for reasons other than invisibility, well yes, but
that wasn't the question.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 2:53:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1118677078.757713.177870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>> "Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118675016.535604.208100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > > Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
>> >
>> > 'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they
>> > could be.
>>
>> Please explain how a full attack action that takes six seconds is
>> somehow
>> "simultaneous".
>
> Right after you explain why thrusting with two daggers at once takes
> six seconds, but thrusting with only one does not.

There is a feat called daul strike or some such, that allows one to
attack with two weapons at the same time. Though IIRC you can only apply
strenght to one weapon and sneak attack to one weapon.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 7:16:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118675016.535604.208100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
>
> 'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they could
> be.

Please explain how a full attack action that takes six seconds is somehow
"simultaneous".

-Michael
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 7:21:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118670177.733657.201100@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
> Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?

One attack.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:18:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Actually it depends on the situation:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040302a

"Anything that allows you to make extra attacks during the full attack
action gets you extra sneak attacks as well: fighting with two weapons, the
haste spell, and the monk's flurry of blows are the most common ways of
getting extra attacks."

But there are a couple of scenerios here:

1. Neither opponent in combat, rogue is invis and attcks. This is the being
invisible and trying to catch the guard unaware kind of thing. The rules
state that there is a partial round of suprise, no full attack is possible,
so only a single attack can be done and it would get the sneak attack
damage. It takes a full attack action to do more than 1 attack per round.
Then combat is formally initiated. Provided the rogue wins init. his next
attack can be a full attack and all the attacks get the sneak attack damage
since the guard is still considered flat-footed, or if the rogue loses init,
as long as an ally can flank, all the attacks maintain the extra damage.

2. Combat has started and rogue goes invis, no combatant is flat-footed at
this point.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040224a states:
"Perhaps the most common form of total concealment is the invisibility
spell. A regular invisibility effect is broken when you attack. If you begin
your turn under such an effect and you're making multiple attacks, you'll be
invisible only for the first attack and your opponent will be denied
Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) against that first attack."

Now I would rule that if you also happen to be flanking an opponent when you
break invis you would still get the added sneak attack damage. But if you
engage the enemy solo then only the first attack would get the sneak attacl
bonus and the rest would be at normal damage.



The Rules of the Game section of the WotC website is invaluable for dealing
with these kinds of questions.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg

<IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118672119.161992.241790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Silveraxe wrote:
>> Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
>> Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
>>
>> Silveraxe
>
> He gets one sneak attack before the invisibility goes away.
>
> Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
>
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:21:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
> Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
>
> Silveraxe

Well the very direct answer is NO. As previously pointed out in the
Sneak Attack supplements, once you do your first attack the invis goes
POOF.

Now if subsequent attacks qualify for the SA bonus, well not enough
information has been provided. Is the opponent flat-footed, being
denied his dex bonus for other reasons, or being flanked by an ally? If
other conditions allow for remaining attacks to be considered SA, then
they would also get the SA bonus since you can get multiple SA bonuses
with multiple melee attacks, as also pointed out in the online SA
supplements.

I know the second part kind of takes liberties with your question, but
it is possible for the 2 attacks to be considered SA with the first due
to the invis, and the second due to other existing conditions.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:31:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Well I guess I was trying, very clumsily, to explain that the remaining
attacks could also be sneak attacks for reasons other than the invis :) 
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 8:53:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

janetzke@austin.rr.com wrote:
> Well I guess I was trying, very clumsily, to explain that the remaining
> attacks could also be sneak attacks for reasons other than the invis :) 

OK, fair enough. I mean, it is actually a good point that invisibility
can be used to, for example, set up flanking more easily, enabling
multiple Sneak Attacks rather than just one.
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 9:54:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118675016.535604.208100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Silveraxe wrote:
>> > Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
>> > Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility
>> > breaks?
>> >
>> > Silveraxe
>>
>> He gets one sneak attack before the invisibility goes away.
>>
>> Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
>
> 'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they
> could
> be.

Aren't attacks always iterative? It's why you don't have to
declare the target of an attack till it comes time to make the
actual die roll (assuming you're not interrupted).

> Can you cite rules? I kind of agree that he should get only
> one, but
> can't find a definitive answer anywhere and I'd rather not use
> "because
> the DM says so" as an argument.

There's nothing under Two-Weapon Fighting or Full Attack that
suggests attacks are ever simultaneous.


--

-smithdoerr
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 9:54:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, smithdoerr hastily scrawled:
>
>There's nothing under Two-Weapon Fighting or Full Attack that
>suggests attacks are ever simultaneous.

Any time the rules allow anything resembling "simultaneous" attacks,
they are handled like Manyshot. ie, resolved as a single attack and
limited to one SA-like bonus dice damage application.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 12:13:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 13 Jun 2005 06:42:57 -0700, "Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
>Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?

Yes. Even with the invisibility gone on the first swing, his target is
still flat-footed...or if the target is fighting something else (and thus
not flat footed), then rogue is just flat-out flanking him, and would be
entitled to the sneak attacks whether he was invisible or not.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 12:13:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Matt Frisch hastily scrawled:
>On 13 Jun 2005 06:42:57 -0700, "Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com>
>scribed into the ether:
>
>>Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
>>Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
>
>Yes. Even with the invisibility gone on the first swing, his target is
>still flat-footed...or if the target is fighting something else (and thus
>not flat footed), then rogue is just flat-out flanking him, and would be
>entitled to the sneak attacks whether he was invisible or not.

Who told you the target was flat-footed? Who told you there was
flanking involved?



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 4:12:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:

> Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
> Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?

Head butt sneak attack?

- Ron ^*^
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 7:15:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Silveraxe wrote:
>>
>>>Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
>>>Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
>>>
>>>Silveraxe
>>
>>He gets one sneak attack before the invisibility goes away.
>>
>>Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
>
>
> 'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they could
> be.
>
> Can you cite rules? I kind of agree that he should get only one, but
> can't find a definitive answer anywhere and I'd rather not use "because
> the DM says so" as an argument.
>
> Silveraxe.
>
I guess you have to ask why you think they aer simultaneous. Rules cite?
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 9:37:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
> Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
>
> Silveraxe
>

No.
Anonymous
June 14, 2005 9:38:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Silveraxe wrote:
> IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Silveraxe wrote:
>>
>>>Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
>>>Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
>>>
>>>Silveraxe
>>
>>He gets one sneak attack before the invisibility goes away.
>>
>>Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
>
>
> 'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they could
> be.
>
> Can you cite rules? I kind of agree that he should get only one, but
> can't find a definitive answer anywhere and I'd rather not use "because
> the DM says so" as an argument.
>
> Silveraxe.
>

Why would dual-weapon attacks be simultaneous?
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 7:17:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> Any time the rules allow anything resembling "simultaneous" attacks,
> they are handled like Manyshot.

THAT is a good point.

Silveraxe.
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 1:30:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
news:_LKre.258$X71.52@fed1read07...
> Silveraxe wrote:
> > IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>Silveraxe wrote:
> >>
> >>>Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
> >>>Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
> >>>
> >>>Silveraxe
> >>
> >>He gets one sneak attack before the invisibility goes away.
> >>
> >>Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
> >
> >
> > 'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they could
> > be.
> >
> > Can you cite rules? I kind of agree that he should get only one, but
> > can't find a definitive answer anywhere and I'd rather not use
"because
> > the DM says so" as an argument.
> >
> > Silveraxe.
> >
>
> Why would dual-weapon attacks be simultaneous?

Why are you asking questions that somebody else asked days ago and to
which the OP has responded?
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 5:32:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Actually that is for Volley Type attacks. Melee attacks are not volley
(simultaneous discharge of a number of missile weapons). Luckily this
prevents an old 3.0 munchcanism of 9 shurikens a round with each getting SA
bonus damage.

"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118830641.249647.92050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>
>> Any time the rules allow anything resembling "simultaneous" attacks,
>> they are handled like Manyshot.
>
> THAT is a good point.
>
> Silveraxe.
>
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 5:32:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Kirk Janetzke hastily scrawled:
>"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1118830641.249647.92050@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>>
>>> Any time the rules allow anything resembling "simultaneous" attacks,
>>> they are handled like Manyshot.
>>
>> THAT is a good point.
>>
>Actually that is for Volley Type attacks. Melee attacks are not volley
>(simultaneous discharge of a number of missile weapons).

You are mistaken. The principle applies to any use of multiple
weapons with a single Attack. See the Dual Strike feat. Complete
Adventurer, p108.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
June 15, 2005 9:42:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:
> "Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
> news:_LKre.258$X71.52@fed1read07...
>
>>Silveraxe wrote:
>>
>>>IHateLashknife@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Silveraxe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Invisible Rogue 5 full attacks with dual wielded weapons.
>>>>>Does he get two sneak attacks before the invisibility breaks?
>>>>>
>>>>>Silveraxe
>>>>
>>>>He gets one sneak attack before the invisibility goes away.
>>>>
>>>>Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
>>>
>>>
>>>'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they could
>>>be.
>>>
>>>Can you cite rules? I kind of agree that he should get only one, but
>>>can't find a definitive answer anywhere and I'd rather not use
>
> "because
>
>>>the DM says so" as an argument.
>>>
>>>Silveraxe.
>>>
>>
>>Why would dual-weapon attacks be simultaneous?
>
>
> Why are you asking questions that somebody else asked days ago and to
> which the OP has responded?
>
>

Why do you have a gigantic stick up your butt?
Anonymous
June 16, 2005 2:19:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
news:aW3se.68$SF5.17@fed1read07...
> Symbol wrote:

> >>Why would dual-weapon attacks be simultaneous?
> >
> >
> > Why are you asking questions that somebody else asked days ago and to
> > which the OP has responded?
> >
> >
>
> Why do you have a gigantic stick up your butt?

I'm English. Duh!
June 17, 2005 4:04:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:16:04 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> dared speak in front of ME:

>"Silveraxe" <avidroleplayer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1118675016.535604.208100@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Is there a reason why you think he might get 2?
>>
>> 'Cause they're not iterative but simultaneous. Or at least they could
>> be.
>
> Please explain how a full attack action that takes six seconds is somehow
>"simultaneous".

Since we don't measure time frames in periods shorter than six seconds
in D&D, the attacks occur with time differentials that are well below
the scale of resolution. By some standards, that is effectively
simultaneous.

There are other factors in D&D which imply they're not simultaneous,
but the 6-second time frame is not one of them.

--
Address no longer works.
try removing all numbers from
gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com&lt;<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 7:53:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>>>>In RotG, as I have previously quoted:
>>>>
>>>>"Provided it is possible for you to make a sneak attack at all, you can
>>>>make
>>>>multiple sneak attacks when you use the full attack action. For example,
>>>>if you have a higher initiative result at the beginning of an encounter,
>>>>your
>>>>foe is flat-footed and every attack you make is a sneak attack. The same
>>>>is true if you flank your foe.
>>>>Anything that allows you to make extra attacks during the full attack
>>>>action gets you extra sneak attacks as well: fighting with two weapons,
>>>>the haste
>>>>spell, and the monk's flurry of blows are the most common ways of
>>>>getting
>>>>extra attacks."

Explain how this portion can be possible without breaking "Sometimes, you
make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack" ???

If you apply the Volley rule across the board then you are only allowed one
sneak attack per round, which is completely incongruous to the RotG.

And if you want to start debating my intelligence, then I will start
debating on your maturity.
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:49:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Kirk Janetzke hastily scrawled:
>>>>>In RotG, as I have previously quoted:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Provided it is possible for you to make a sneak attack at all, you can
>>>>>make multiple sneak attacks when you use the full attack action. For example,
>>>>>if you have a higher initiative result at the beginning of an encounter,
>>>>>your foe is flat-footed and every attack you make is a sneak attack. The same
>>>>>is true if you flank your foe.
>>>>>Anything that allows you to make extra attacks during the full attack
>>>>>action gets you extra sneak attacks as well: fighting with two weapons,
>>>>>the haste spell, and the monk's flurry of blows are the most common ways of
>>>>>getting extra attacks."
>
>Explain how this portion can be possible without breaking "Sometimes, you
>make multiple attack rolls as part of the same attack" ???

Explain how you think this portion breaks that quote.

>If you apply the Volley rule across the board then you are only allowed one
>sneak attack per round, which is completely incongruous to the RotG.

Um... Are you being deliberately obtuse? You get at most, one sneak
attack per Attack, even if during that Attack you make multiple Attack
Rolls.

>And if you want to start debating my intelligence, then I will start
>debating on your maturity.

Start acting intelligent, and it won't be an issue.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Anonymous
June 19, 2005 12:49:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <GrXse.71676$PR6.46032@tornado.texas.rr.com>,
Kirk Janetzke <janetzke@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>And if you want to start debating my intelligence, then I will start
>debating on your maturity.

You trimmed all attributions, so we can't easily see who you're insulting.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 2:08:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:
> "Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
> news:aW3se.68$SF5.17@fed1read07...
>
>>Symbol wrote:
>
>
>>>>Why would dual-weapon attacks be simultaneous?
>>>
>>>
>>>Why are you asking questions that somebody else asked days ago and to
>>>which the OP has responded?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Why do you have a gigantic stick up your butt?
>
>
> I'm English. Duh!
>
>

Ah, that explains it, then. This will bring great clarity and focus to our
future discussions.
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 1:05:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Some Guy wrote:

> >>Symbol wrote:
>> >>Why do you have a gigantic stick up your butt?
> >
> >"Some Guy" wrote
> > I'm English. Duh!

> Ah, that explains it, then. This will bring great clarity and focus to our
> future discussions.

Yes, you must bear in mind that the English often have large sticks up
their buts, have bad teeth, and enjoy spankings.

This information will be invaluable to you in your future dealings with
the English.

(A former subject of her Majesty the Queen, now a Yank but never
English)
!