Author Topic: 1,067,212 attacks in a single action  (Read 21868 times)

Offline x

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: 1,067,212 attacks in a single action
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2011, 09:22:14 PM »
True, it says "little thrown weapons", but that's flavor text. There is no size category called "little". If the ability was intended to be used with any weapon the same size or weight as a dagger, then I imagine it would have just said that. Instead, it gave a list of weapons. The list is not exhaustive; with the DM's permission other weapons not on the list may be used. Assuming the DM will allow a weapon that is already broken on it's own just because it is the same weight and size category as a dagger is a pretty big assumption.

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: 1,067,212 attacks in a single action
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2011, 11:14:52 PM »
Assuming the DM will allow a weapon that is already broken on it's own just because it is the same weight and size category as a dagger is a pretty big assumption.

  :lol :lmao :lol :lmao :lol

No more than assuming that the DM will allow you find such a templated monstrosity as is required here. DM fiat is a non-argument. DM fiat can block access to any PrC or item or even prevent leveling.

That is why in CharOp (and TO and world records especially) a permissive DM is assumed.

The rules do not limit the weapons used by MT except by a barely qualified statement of relative size. You would be hard pressed to legitimately argue that crescent knives did not fit into that barely qualified relative size. So crescent knives can be used.

Offline x

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: 1,067,212 attacks in a single action
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2011, 01:09:47 AM »
Yes, you assume DM fiat is not being used to block the build on a whim. But just because the rule points out that a DM may allow a weapon not on the list, it doesn't mean you should assume the DM will allow it. The DMG effectively states that a DM may allow anyone to do anything at any time. That doesn't mean you should base a build around that.

Since the text "little thrown weapon" is a "barely qualified statement of relative size", which doesn't include any real in-game guidelines (size category, weight), and the author included a list of weapons, I don't see any reason not to stick with that list. As I said before, if the author intended the ability to be used with any thrown weapon weighing 1 pound or less, they easily could have just said that. But they didn't.

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: 1,067,212 attacks in a single action
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2011, 05:18:07 PM »
As I said before, if the author intended the ability to be used with any thrown weapon weighing 1 pound or less, they easily could have just said that. But they didn't.

And if they had meant for the list to be exhaustive, they easily could have just said it.

But why you are quibbling over what would be allowed in an actual game instead of what is allowable on paper by the given rules is beyond me.

I would myself smack the first person that tried to actually play this thing.

That is the point of it being theoretical.

Now, if you could legitimately show how crescent knives did not fit into the one qualifier for palm throw, your case would have merit.

Offline x

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: 1,067,212 attacks in a single action
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2011, 09:14:11 PM »
But why you are quibbling over what would be allowed in an actual game instead of what is allowable on paper by the given rules is beyond me.

I'm not quibbling over whether this would be allowed in a game, I'm quibbling over whether this would be allowed on paper, which I don't believe it is. I could ask you the same question. Why bother arguing over this? 250,000 attacks is still a lot of attacks. As far as I can tell, the rest of the build is pretty solid rules wise, why put the asterisk next to the record by boosting it with questionable rules interpretations?

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
  • The Ferret
    • View Profile
Re: 1,067,212 attacks in a single action
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2011, 08:15:36 PM »
But why you are quibbling over what would be allowed in an actual game instead of what is allowable on paper by the given rules is beyond me.

I'm not quibbling over whether this would be allowed in a game, I'm quibbling over whether this would be allowed on paper

It fits the only qualifier we have. Why doesn't it work on paper?

And the point is to push the envelope as far as possible. Sadly I haven't had more time to continue pushing it; even without all my personal stuff, work is hardly affording me the time I would like to tackle my to do list for the build.