Author Topic: 4d6 damage cantrip: legitimate?  (Read 21188 times)

Captnq

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: 4d6 damage cantrip: legitimate?
« Reply #60 on: February 01, 2013, 04:27:00 AM »
Look Cap, I can buy the logic behind "rules don't say I can't fire a weapon with size mismatched ammunition". (I don't agree with it but I can understand the logic behind it.)
However, you're really going to have to let this "AMMUNITION HAS NO SIZE" side of the argument go.

Oh, I have. Only because dragonskyknight finally came up with proof. I never thought to check the psionic books. I can't remember what I have not read.

There is multiple evidence to the contrary. Not just the RotW tables, not just the description of bolts themselves (which explicitly call out that THEY HAVE A FREAKING SIZE), not just the fact that bolts are listed individually and sometimes at different costs in weapon tables, but also the rules for improvised weapons, including improvised THROWN weapons, in Complete Warrior, page 158.

I have already stated how that is circumstantial. You may choose to believe it's proof, but it's not.

See, that's your problem. I point out how it might appear to say what you think, but when you look at and follow the actual chain of proof, it falls short. It is not enough to argue that a given passage says X is true. It can't say something else is true as well.

You infer and conjecture. I point out how I can read it a different way and you have no proof which interpertation is right. Over and over again you point out you can read something a certain way. I tell you, and show you, how it has multiple interpertation and is useless to me for proving anything as RAW. You are arguing RAI as far as I am concerned. I am writing a handbook and I avoid RAI except as a footnote.

Dragonskyknight is the only one in this argument who actually spent the time to find a source that can only be read one way and one way only. There is no doubt that he has proof that ammunition has size. Now, I am unhappy about the source, but it meets all the criteria to qualify as proof that Ammunition has size.

Your proof, however, continues to be circumstantial, as I have posted elsewhere. In the future, repeating yourself does not make you right. You don't point out any other sources. Not one comparison. Nothing. You don't even bother to understand my proof and point out it's flaws.

You just talk about how improvised weapons have size, which is nice, but a bolt is either being used as an improvised weapon, or is being used as a bolt. When it's being used as a bolt, it does not have it's improvised qualities. Like a shield doesn't add to armor class when you attack with it.

Futhermore all improvised weapons have made up values as defined under improvised weapons. The DM can say a Bolt does 3d6, if he feels like it. I feel using made up values, even if those made up values are printed in the book, is a shaky position. The size of the bolt is not anything but what the DM feels like. One DM could feel it is a different size then another. One DM could decide size isn't important and that it is size-less, ignoring the size rules all together. And each and every DM would be right, under the improvised weapon rules. Telling me that something has size because the rules that say, "Use your best judgement" claim it has a size is circumstantial. I'm sorry you cannot see it that way.

And before you simply throw your hands up in the air and assume I'm insane. Go read The SpellBook handbook. I don't start with spells. I start with every single goddamn rule about spells. All of them. Every Single Book. Each one read. Verified. Confirmed. Cross checked. Clarified. Explained in detail. The latest rules displacing the pervious editions and earlier printings. All the rules with absolute proof that any given rule does what it does, how it does it, why it does it, what you can expect from those rules, and what you can extrapolate from those rules.

My list of spells is nice, but the REAL usefulness is the complete consolidation of the rules, including a complete list of all possible alternate interpertations of any given rule if I CAN'T pin it down. That's the problem I've had with ammo. I have high standards before I can state something is true. I stand my my work as rock solid. I argue the very existance of what others take for granted because as far as I am concerned, my reputation is on the line and I will not slap together a piece of crap.

Now, on to another piece of the argument. (Stuff about penalties)

Which I cannot answer at this time because I am currently looking for proof of what those penalties are. It is currently looking like that if you use oversized ammunition in a launcher, that you can use one size class higher. This results in an upgrade of the damage dice by one level on the oversized weapon chart. Futhermore, I believe I can prove a -4 non-weapon proficency penalty flaw, which is negated by taking an exotic weapon feat. Sort of like how a Bastard sword is a Martial two-handed weapon, but an exotic one-handed weapon

Also, I am not certain of this yet, but it appears that using oversized ammo in a launcher requires that the user take a full-round action to fire one projectile.

If I can prove THAT, then it proves that you have to use the correct size ammo to use your weapon without penalty. I know that sounds like the worst type of bootstrapping, but I have yet to find any proof that you need the matching size ammunition in a projectile weapon.

However, I can prove it has a size, and I think I can prove using the wrong size has a penalty, so that would imply that there is a right size, vis-a-vis, you must has matching sizes for ammo and projectile.

Alas, I am having a problem showing what happens if the ammunition is too small. I do so hate loose ends. This could take a few days to finally complete.

So we have the following proving bolts have a size...
- psionic power that says specifically says so
- using the bolt as a dagger of the appropriate size
- having a weight thus size on the weapon table


And you have the following saying they don't...
- its ammo, therefore can't have size
Did I miss anything?

Sort of. I will correct.

- Psionic Power: Bolt proves that ammo has a size.
- Improvised weapons have made up values subject to DM whims. A bolt can be used as an improvised weapon, which has a size. Since the size is made up, you cannot use the size it has as a improvised weapon to prove it has size as ammo.
- It has weight on the chart and the weight of any weapon on the chart is altered by size. The chart is superseded by text in every case, thus charts are shaky proof of anything. Futhermore, it is possible that Ammunition is not a ranged weapon, thus not subject to weight modification, thus not proof it has a size.
- Bone Bow implies that ammunition has size, but also states that the ammo is "specially made of it". That makes the ammo special and thus an exception. Exceptions cannot be used to prove a general rule, only help define it.

RainehDaze

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 165
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: 4d6 damage cantrip: legitimate?
« Reply #61 on: February 01, 2013, 05:47:29 AM »
Quote
- It has weight on the chart and the weight of any weapon on the chart is altered by size. The chart is superseded by text in every case, thus charts are shaky proof of anything. Futhermore, it is possible that Ammunition is not a ranged weapon, thus not subject to weight modification, thus not proof it has a size.

Is there any text actually saying that bolts don't have a size? It's not exactly shaky if it's never contradicted in any way. Also, is there an indication that ammunition isn't subject to weight modification in the same way? A possibility that it might be disproved is not sufficient reason to discard something.

I also never got a response on this: if it must be fired as if the caster could wield it, then would a combination of strongarm bracers, monkey grip, and wielding a larger crossbow one-handed (therefore, using two hands but not being able to reload--which isn't necessary in this situation) allow a medium sized caster to fire a gargantuan light crossbow at a -4 penalty to attack rolls?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 05:56:49 AM by RainehDaze »

Kuroimaken

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: 4d6 damage cantrip: legitimate?
« Reply #62 on: February 01, 2013, 07:27:35 AM »
I'm... talking about nonproficiency penalties. A flat -4, I thought that was obvious.

Kuroimaken

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: 4d6 damage cantrip: legitimate?
« Reply #63 on: February 01, 2013, 08:00:39 AM »
I also hope to hell and back you never become a judge, because otherwise no one is ever going to get convicted.

Let me be perfectly clear: circunstantial evidence is ALL WE HAVE FOR EITHER SIDE TO SOME DEGREE. If we had definite proof of this one way or the other there wouldn't BE an argument.

Despite your best efforts to repeat yourself otherwise, THERE IS NO CLEAR RAW IN THIS CASE. At this point it's pretty much strictly a RAI discussion.
Quote
You just talk about how improvised weapons have size, which is nice, but a bolt is either being used as an improvised weapon, or is being used as a bolt. When it's being used as a bolt, it does not have it's improvised qualities. Like a shield doesn't add to armor class when you attack with it.

Which is something you can say about essentially anything! I have a fork, it can be used either as an improvised weapon or as cutlery, but not both at the same time. I have defending armor spikes, they can give me a bonus to AC or have their enhancement bonus be used for attack but not both...

See where I'm going with this?

If it has non-negligible weight it can be used as a weapon (however ineffective). If it can be used as a weapon it has a size category.
Quote
- Improvised weapons have made up values subject to DM whims. A bolt can be used as an improvised weapon, which has a size. Since the size is made up, you cannot use the size it has as a improvised weapon to prove it has size as ammo.

Not if you follow the rules on CW. Find the weight, find the damage, classify the weapon, that's all there is to it.

Weapon classifications are arbitrary to begin with. Take a light mace, for example. 1d6 damage, 20 crit range, bludgeoning damage, light weapon. We upsize it to large, now it deals 1d8 damage, same crit range, same damage type, and it's now one-handed...

Whaddaya know, it looks exactly like a heavy mace! Except for some bizarre reason (balance? weird grip?), someone with heavy mace proficiency but no light mace proficiency can't use it right, and even someone WITH the proficiency takes a -2 penalty for it being inappropriately sized... bummer.

You can find similar examples in other weapons such as the handaxe, but I think you've captured my point by now.

Quote
(stuff about inappropriately sized ammo)

Generally, when one has no specific rules to work with, one needs to extrapolate from the rules he DOES have. We DO have rules for inappropriately sized weapons. I for one would see no problem with saying "okay, you fire the giant's arrow from your longbow, but because the arrow is really big, you have a hard time aiming. Take a -2 penalty." Or "You try to fire the pixie's arrow from your shortbow, but the shaft is simply too short for you to be able to pull back the string far enough to give it lift".

It is a perfectly applicable rule to the situation. Is it RAW? No, because it doesn't say anywhere "use this rule for situation X". But it's all we got, might as well work with it.

Here's a different brand of noodle-scratcher for you. The rules for jump do not say you need stable footing to jump. Thus, suppose a character who has an ability wherein he's always considered to have a running start for jumping. His player up and says "I use my move action to initiate a jump, and at the apex, I use my standard action to initiate ANOTHER jump". Can it be done, yes or no? Trust me, you won't find any specific rules saying it can't be done. They won't say it CAN be done, either. You've noted yourself that common sense is anything BUT common so it can't be trusted.

afroakuma

  • Administrator
  • Elite
  • *****
  • Posts: 437
  • Gender: Male
  • Prayer Wing Scroll of Scribes Problem Solver RoC Staff Art Aficionado Aquarius Eye of Seeing Dev Team
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: 4d6 damage cantrip: legitimate?
« Reply #64 on: February 01, 2013, 11:38:35 AM »
Second time I'm coming in here to ask people to cool it. This is not worth getting this worked up about. Play nice. Relax. Have waffles.

zook1shoe

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: 4d6 damage cantrip: legitimate?
« Reply #65 on: February 01, 2013, 12:08:59 PM »
I like mine Belgium-style with a side of bacon ;)
Do you like DnD 3.x high optimization?
Ask me about a cool 3.5 multiplayer gestalt gladiator game!

awaken_D_M_golem

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: 4d6 damage cantrip: legitimate?
« Reply #66 on: February 01, 2013, 04:25:36 PM »
Personally I've had way too many waffles
... hence the switch to my kitty avatar.
I miss the BG_Baby's +1 Rattle of Cuteness pic, already ... (sniff)

Is this the Post-Modron Apocalypse ?!

skydragonknight

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 67
  • Gender: Male
  • Barrels.
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: 4d6 damage cantrip: legitimate?
« Reply #67 on: February 01, 2013, 09:27:27 PM »
All right, we can chill afro. :)

Anyway, basically the spell emulates a light crossbow. It is plausible for the light crossbow to be sized based on the caster or based on the ammunition, since a large/huge/gargantuan bolt would be the appropriate ammunition for a large/huge/gargantuan light crossbow. Whether the light crossbow is sized for you or the ammunition is never mentioned, nor is there any way to determine it from the vagueness of the text, hence there are two valid readings. So everyone here is correct. It's a tie, guys. Let's just leave it as that. :)
I find most everything with Google, even my own stuff, so this is probably going to be unused space aside from a pointless message.