Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:38:31 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
<mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
:"George W Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
:news
vvub1t221k6umupde13anq2j8u3lk264p@4ax.com...
:> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:18:19 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
:> : The part where "attack with two weapons" is a specific reference two
:two
:> :weapons fighting and the rules make no sense whatsoever when interpreted
:any
:>
ther way (note that 3.5E uses light weapon & natural weapon separately,
:so
:> :the light-weapon comment is highly contextual).
:>
:> But hardly definitive.
:
: Yes, definitive. It wouldn't say "even if light weapons" unless it was
:referring to TWF, because that's the only place such a rule might possibly
:be relevant.
So, what kind of weapons are you restricted to
using while grappling? Would they be *light* weapons,
hmmmm? Moron.
:
:> Why is that absurd? What completely unreasonable situations result if we
:make that
:> interpretation?
:
: The unarmed combat model D&D uses doesn't slave an unarmed strike to
:any particular limb.
:So one unarmed strike could be an elbow, another could
:be a knee, etc. Armor spikes are attached to all your limbs as well, so
:using them for a normal attack is simply a case of throwing an elbow or a
:knee - or a fist, since spikes can be on the gauntlets, too. It is
:ludicrous to suggest that one cannot perform a knee strike while grappling
:save by sacrificing any hope of attacking with your hands - particularly
:when heroes can be so good at fighting in general that when grappled they
:could make upwards of *four* such attacks in six seconds. Grappling
bviously doesn't hinder them that much.
So your response is just to assert it's ludcrous
again. Here's a hint for you: when you're grappled,
your motion is impeded. If you can free every single
one of your limbs to attack, then your motion isn't really
impeded very much. It's ludicrous to suggest that
someone who is grappled can still move every single
one of his limbs freely.
:
:> : Further the *players* handbook is written entirely from the
erspective
:> :that those making use of those rules are humanoid PCs as per the race
:> :descriptions in the first chapters - the ways that monsters fight
:>
primary/secondary weaponry) is not even described in the PhB (IIRC)- whi
:ch
:> :means that many restrictions on 'weapons' are often confined to
:> :*manufactured* weapons and their equivalents.
:>
:> Such restrictions aren't made in the section on grappling, however.
:
: Ahem. It annoys me when people don't pay attention to important
:arguments. The *PLAYERS* handbook is written ENTIRELY from the perspective
:that those making use of the rules are humanoid PCs (of small and medium
:size, for that matter). There isn't a comment in the entire book on the
:topic of how monsters are different, or what "restrictions" are or are not
:being used in "this section" that might be relevant to a primary/secondary
:weapons user. Consequently, the fact that no restrictions are made in the
:grappling section is IRRELEVANT.
They aren't made anywhere in the DMG or MM
either, though, so your entire argument falls flat.
:> :In addition, many monsters in
:> :the monster manual have more than one natural weapon with the improved
:grab
:> :capability, which produces some rather ludicrous results if such a "one
:at
:> :at ime" rule is applied to them.
:>
:> What about the rule would produce ludicrous
:> results? Use the Mind-Flayer for an example. Why
:> would the situation be completely unreasonable? Again,
:> eschew shouting and insults.
:
: I find it somewhat distressing that you cannot grasp that allowing a
:mind flayer to attack a person only with ONE TENTACLE out of the four
:co-located ones dangling from its mouth is ludicrous.
I don't find the ease with which you can be
distressed a very convincing argument. So why is it
ludicrous that a mind-flayer who *instead* wraps
someone up and pulls him into the mind-flayer's hex,
forgoes any subsequent attacks? It's not like he isn't
doing anything else.
:> You might want to follow your advice and
:> actually read the material you cite. It presents two
:> options: one as you describe, and the other where the
:> monster gets a single attack plus one additional attack
:> for each 5 points of BAB (so that if a creatures BAB is
:> less than (5*(# of attacks))-4, it *would* lose attacks).
:> It also doesn't give a preference between the two.
:
: Again, we see your IGNORANCE interfering with your ability to make
:intelligent comments.
Your EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION and
RELIANCE on INSULTS marks you as a GENETIC
SCUM. No, it's just some sloppy reading at 3am.
: You are not making a good impression, Harris. Again, I suggest that you
:get smarter. *NOW*.
I wouldn't want to outshine you *too* brightly.
I'm still waiting for you to apologize for berating me for
not reading the rules when there was nothing in the
rules to support your position or invalidate mine.
:-Michael
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'