Should Defensive Blast be altered in Conan 2nd?

[Foxworthy]

Am I the only one who thinks Sutek cracked the riddle? I think his logic is impeccable and I think its admirable he's smart enough to actually read the rules in his defense.

I don't cite rules because I'm using a Pocket Guide and my page refrences would be off from the AE. Until I get my AE back from my friend I won't post page refrences. Of course I do mention the section where I get my info from but some people tend to over look that.

 

[Sutek]

What's written is:

"slay an opponent by sorcery or combat"

and

"whether by magic, melee, or ranged attacks"

Sorcery is casting spells, and combat is making attacks.

From that you're creating a new term "magic attack", having a long debate over what a "magic attack" is and having another debate over whether DB qualifies.

I didn't make up "magic attack"! (LOL) Mongoose did, dude. Thus the "magic attack bonus" and what type of action casting a spell is and how you go about fitting that into a combat sequence. But you're goingot have to read the follow entries to understand how it really all works: Saving Throws p151 ("unusual of magic attacks"), Cast a Spell p158 (which have components and PP expendature), The Magic Attack Roll p194.

DB and Opp. Sac. have been discusses many times on this forum. Never once has anyone from Mongoose posted something like:

Just to clarify how Opp. Sac works, it requires a "magic attack" not just "magic", sorry some bad editing allowed an ambiguous statement through there. Oh and we also got the first paragraph of that feat wrong, it implies something more specific than it reads at the moment. Connected to this we also missed out the section of the rules that defines exactly what a "magic attack" is and entries in the spell sections indicating which of them qualifies as a "magic attack" and which doesn't.

I suppose it also only requires that melee be occuring, not that you actually need to participate in melee. Oh, and the ranged attack doesn't need to be yours, it can just be some guy throwing something at some other guy, so you OppSac.

Reducilous.

You can't argue that the presence of the word "melee" means "melee attack" and that "magic" just means "any old magic lying around the house." It means, if you kill someone with one of those kinds of attacks, either a magic one, a melee one or a ranged one, then you can pull of an OppSac in lieu of needing to make a coup de grace.

Defensive Blast has nothign to do with the Hyborian World. I've never seen it in the stories, movies or the horrible TV show. A walking fireball is DnD. If people wnated to play Conan with DnD rules they would have just used the SRD as is.

I've said countless times through this thread, dude, that the only other argument against it is aesthetic, so interjecting that now is pretty lame. We arent'discussing that as I've alsready conceeded that since my solution solves the mechanical issues, the only argument left for losing DB at all is cononical reasons.

Come on man. :roll:

Casting Spells is covered in the combat section, and therefore are clearly attacks.

Therefore lighting a torch is a combat action. Thank you for not being able to comprehend your own post. Now if you'd like to reread the combat chart please tell me where the Attack (Magic) entry is? Oh wait... it's not there... I wonder why...

Page 155, Actions in Combat chart, Casta spell is right there, dude. SO is Light a torch, so...uh...yeah...lighting a torch is a friggin combat action!! Is it described in it's own section in the Combat chapter? No, but casting spells in combat is. Plus, attacking or dealing damage as a Magical Attack is explained in the Sorcerery chapter under a little section called "The Magic Attack Roll."

I agree with handle animal. The difference is that OppSac doesn't put the word Attack after magic.

It doesn't put the word "attack" after friggin "melee"either, but no one has a severe logic problem with that!! Sheesh!!! :shock:

But maybe I'm not right about any of that either...

:roll:

Am I the only one who thinks Sutek cracked the riddle? I think his logic is impeccable and I think its admirable he's smart enough to actually read the rules in his defense.

I don't cite rules because I'm using a Pocket Guide and my page refrences would be off from the AE. Until I get my AE back from my friend I won't post page refrences. Of course I do mention the section where I get my info from but some people tend to over look that.

Well, then, by the same token, my citing rules and listing a bunch of page numbers is equally meaningless to you because you can't look them up to varify my findings. Hardly a good basis to "call me out on the mat" about it, I'd think...

 

[jadrax]

I hate to try and break up this delightful discussion, But actually the "Rule of the Master" + Defencive blast is way more broken than the "Opportunist Sacrifice" feat, at least you have to buy the feat.

 

[Sutek]

With that a Sorcerer can dish out +5d6 damage the first round and 5d6 damage in other rounds if he has more than one thrall. It needs a magical link though, so the best bet is to kill the Thralls first. 8)

 

[slaughterj]

At this point Sutek, if you could also provide a succinct summary of the reasons it should not be considered an attack, maybe we can achieve some resolution on this matter to your satisfaction (everyone else seems to agree it is an attack, but hey, maybe everyone else is wrong).

Succinct? Okay....

DEFENSIVE Blast.

Nice try. And the best defense is a strong offense, i.e., an attack. So what did you show? Merely a lack of ability to cogently and calmly present your argument, niiiice.

 

[slaughterj]

Edit: Also by your reasoning Attaco Of Oppurtnities aren't attacks. Since theya ren't on the combat action chart. Which means DB couldn't be used when you are able to make an AoO cause it's not an attack.

They aren't. AOOs are just that - AOOs. The occur in a limited fashion (1, unless you have COmbat Reflexes) and they occur when you are not normally eligible to attack. They are further limited by only being melee types of attacks whihc are only provoked under certain circumstances.

Besides that, the DB entry also states very clearly that you can initiate a DB when you are eligible to make an AOO, too.

Now who's suffering from a lack of comprehension?

Apparently you are lacking comprehension. Attacks of opportunity have the word "ATTACK" right in their name. That should begin to clue you in that they are attacks. And here's some more references to make sure you understand that AOOs are attacks:
P. 152: "These free attacks are attacks of opportunity."
P. 152: "An attack of opporutnity is a single melee attack and you can only make one per round."

By you saying AOOs are not attacks, you totally remove any credibility from yourself in this discussion, you realize that don't you?

 

[jadrax]

With that a Sorcerer can dish out +5d6 damage the first round and 5d6 damage in other rounds if he has more than one thrall. It needs a magical link though, so the best bet is to kill the Thralls first. 8)

Or 10D6 damage every other round, or 15D6 damage very 3 rounds. Fight defensively, prolong the combat and blast your opponents to ribbons.

And his Thralls can be absolutely anywhere, he can have them safe in Hyperboria while hes blasting people in Turan.

 

[Oly]

I didn't make up "magic attack"! (LOL) Mongoose did, dude.

I still can't see any reference to "magic attack" outside of of the saving throws section. Even there it's just a mention rather than a definition. Compare that to the three other kinds of attacks that do exist, ranged, melee and unarmed. All clearly defined and indexed.

You can't argue that the presence of the word "melee" means "melee attack" and that "magic" just means "any old magic lying around the house."

Yes I can.

As I said earlier If I say "I can get there by car, surface or underground trains" then it's clear that "trains" doesn't apply to the first option of "car".

There's no ambiguity there, it's clear that train doesn't apply to car so therefore the sentence can be written that way with the reader deciding whether or not to apply "train" to each of "car", "surface" or "underground".

If there were such a Conan definition as "magic attack" then writing the sentence would be ambiguous, you can kill by both "magic" and "magic attack" so what would it mean? It would then be a badly written sentence.

As is it's not badly written because "magic attack" doesn't mean anything so it's OK to write it like that.

I'm quite prepared to admit there is some awful editing in the rule book but again it's back to that first sentence ("sorcery or combat") and the lack of any actual definition of "magic attack".

The simplest interpretation is that the sentence just means "by magic, ranged attack or melee attack".

With all respect to yourself I do wonder if this is just a language thing. I remember having a similar discussion with you over your belief that all ranged attacks were sneak attacks. Maybe it's something about British English that to myself appears simple but to a non-English person might in fact be otherwise. Two countries separated by a common language and all that.

 

[Sutek]

A) He'd have to count on every round to do the trick, or suck it all into one big blast to try and kill everyone in charge range, other wise, with crappy hit dice and FORT saves, a sorcerer is dead when the first melee guy gets to him (see discussions on two-handed weapons - lol).

B) If the characters are there before findingout that the guy has thralls all over, then they probably deserve to get wasted, with oir without DB.

It seems like you have to have the right backgrounds and gain an apprentice or more to do all that though, so it's not something that PCs are likely to get into without being problematic for the party, and it coversely seems like the best reason to stop evil sorcerers early in thier carreer or be sneaky about it later on in thier career (range attack sneak).

 

[Spectator]

Ok I am absolutely amazed at how many people who don't like DB/OS keep try and justify its existence?

1. What do you think the original intent of Ian Sturrock was? To have scholars going off like pocket nukes? Of course not.

2. Despite the canonical lack of DB/OS I think many agree that it does have a place here, notice the 57% support on the poll.

3. Ok, so if the rules were not explicit in saying: Cant use DB wth OS, don't you think that it would at least go against the original concept of the game.

4. If Sutek gives you a reasonable and mechanically sound explanation (given the rules provided) why is there so much flak about it?

5. It really sounds like nobody wants the DB/OS combo, but heaven forbid you give Sutek a bone and say "wow" the rules may have been right all along?

Just my 2 cents.
I think that DB has a place as a one-off shot, not as a reloading scholar bomb.

 

[jadrax]

A) He'd have to count on every round to do the trick, or suck it all into one big blast to try and kill everyone in charge range, other wise, with crappy hit dice and FORT saves, a sorcerer is dead when the first melee guy gets to him (see discussions on two-handed weapons - lol).

B) If the characters are there before findingout that the guy has thralls all over, then they probably deserve to get wasted, with oir without DB.

It seems like you have to have the right backgrounds and gain an apprentice or more to do all that though, so it's not something that PCs are likely to get into without being problematic for the party, and it coversely seems like the best reason to stop evil sorcerers early in thier carreer or be sneaky about it later on in thier career (range attack sneak).

Dunno, I have fought several sorcerers who where very good in combat, I think the Sorcerers are weak in combat thing comes from peoples expectations in D&D rather than trying to build a Combat Shaman or Monk. Especially if said Sorcerer multiclasses. In fact imho one of the most broken things about the Rule of defense is how much bang for the buck it gives you from even a few levels of sorcerer.

Lot of sorcerers are priests (or equivalent), and tend to have a lot of thralls in easily defended temples. Yeah the guy who sits in a tower on his own on the edge of civilization often i'snt that much of a threat, it's often the king's Vizer Types I fight though, and there organized ;o)

And as for the PC thing, interestingly every charicter apart from one in my current game has leadership and a ton of followers. (Admittedly none of us are sorcerers.)

 

[slaughterj]

Ok I am absolutely amazed at how many people who don't like DB/OS keep try and justify its existence?

You miss the point. It's about logically reading and interpreting the rules, that's all. If you want to ignore logic and just decide on a reading based on your emotional preference, that's your choice, but leave that illogical method to manipulative politicians, not those who need to know the rules in order to run their games.

1. What do you think the original intent of Ian Sturrock was? To have scholars going off like pocket nukes? Of course not.

Intent is irrelevant, the rules are what matters. If after some time went by and Mongoose felt the rules needed a change, they easily could have issued some errata, but they did not. So the rules stand for those who choose to use them. If you don't like it, you can always house rule it.

2. Despite the canonical lack of DB/OS I think many agree that it does have a place here, notice the 57% support on the poll.

And? That seems contradictory to your thinking that it should not exist. Further, there is some support, but perhaps the mechanics didn't work out ideally.

3. Ok, so if the rules were not explicit in saying: Cant use DB wth OS, don't you think that it would at least go against the original concept of the game.

Why should that matter? You argue that DB itself is against the original concept of the game, but it is present in the rules, so that doesn't mean finding some twisted interpretation to outlaw it - instead, house-rule it if you don't like it.

4. If Sutek gives you a reasonable and mechanically sound explanation (given the rules provided) why is there so much flak about it?

He's wrong, that's why. First he has to show that Opp Sac requires an attack and only an attack (i.e., not simply slay, or slay by magic), and then he has to show that DB is not an attack. He has failed on both accounts, and most would prefer to not operate on bad logic. They would rather recognize there is a problem with the rules and correct it instead, if necessary.

5. It really sounds like nobody wants the DB/OS combo, but heaven forbid you give Sutek a bone and say "wow" the rules may have been right all along?

Sutek has been repeatedly wrong about the rules on various occasions, and continues to be wrong here. Perhaps you lack that context, or perhaps you lack reading comprehension like he does, but either way, why should anyone give in to bad logic? That makes less sense.

 

[Foxworthy]

Casting Spells is covered in the combat section, and therefore are clearly attacks.

Therefore lighting a torch is a combat action. Thank you for not being able to comprehend your own post. Now if you'd like to reread the combat chart please tell me where the Attack (Magic) entry is? Oh wait... it's not there... I wonder why...

Page 155, Actions in Combat chart, Casta spell is right there, dude. SO is Light a torch, so...uh...yeah...lighting a torch is a friggin combat action!! Is it described in it's own section in the Combat chapter? No, but casting spells in combat is. Plus, attacking or dealing damage as a Magical Attack is explained in the Sorcerery chapter under a little section called "The Magic Attack Roll."

Read what you said, you said that casting spells are in the combat section so that means they are attacks. Lighting a torch is in the combat section but is not an attack.

Thank you for the Magic Attack Roll mention. Please go read that. A Defensive Blast requires a Magic Attack roll to set the save DC. Please see pg 282 of the Pocket Guide. As such Defensive Blast conforms to the requirments of a magical attack as you see it.

 

[Foxworthy]

Defensive Blast has nothign to do with the Hyborian World. I've never seen it in the stories, movies or the horrible TV show. A walking fireball is DnD. If people wnated to play Conan with DnD rules they would have just used the SRD as is.

I've said countless times through this thread, dude, that the only other argument against it is aesthetic, so interjecting that now is pretty lame. We arent'discussing that as I've alsready conceeded that since my solution solves the mechanical issues, the only argument left for losing DB at all is cononical reasons.

Come on man. :roll:

I wasn't addressing you unless you are the poster I quoted. Also since your reason is wrong it makes sense that I'd post about why it shouldn't be in the game.

Am I the only one who thinks Sutek cracked the riddle? I think his logic is impeccable and I think its admirable he's smart enough to actually read the rules in his defense.

I don't cite rules because I'm using a Pocket Guide and my page refrences would be off from the AE. Until I get my AE back from my friend I won't post page refrences. Of course I do mention the section where I get my info from but some people tend to over look that.

Well, then, by the same token, my citing rules and listing a bunch of page numbers is equally meaningless to you because you can't look them up to varify my findings. Hardly a good basis to "call me out on the mat" about it, I'd think...

Never said it was meaningless but citing page numbers doens't help me at all. I'm not calling you out at all. We are being told that we don't cite sources since we don't quote page numbers. Despite the fact that we are posting quote of rules, and or using the info brought up before us. If I say check the combat chart on pg whatever, like I have, the page refrence is useless to people not using the pocket guide. Where as most people can just look for the chart with the title I said.

Someone telling us we aren't citing resources isn't really reading our posts.

 

[argo]

4. If Sutek gives you a reasonable and mechanically sound explanation (given the rules provided) why is there so much flak about it?

Because it isn't mechanically sound? Because his shaky logic is built upon a foundation of incorectly parsing the sentence in the Opp. Sacrifice feat?

Because he is Begging the Question?

As I've said above, I don't mind house rules, I just want them clearly labeld as such.

Later.

 

[Spectator]

Sumboddi sed i lakced reedinng komprehenshun, whut tha phukc?

 

[Spectator]

Someone said Original intent did not matter?

How can someone be so ludicrous as to say that?
Whenever you have a problem with the law, you look at the legislative intent of the lawmakers, the committee notes, and stump speeches on how the law was being touted (Notice I live and work in the capital of Florida and see this type of analysis daily). WE don't have the luxury of a lot of material such as campaign staffers, or committee notes, but we do have the context in which it was written.
IT was a defensive blast. Not offensive.
Arguably it was meant to be a one-off shot: as stated in the Pocket rules, p. 281 it states: yada yada yada: "...as a LAST RESORT counterattack:"

I don't think that the "last resort" language and the prospect of renewing BPP via O.S. are compatible.

I would argue that Sutek is mechanistically correct; but some don't agree with me.

PS guys, can you keep the ad-hominem attacks off the table. I would argue that all of our reading comp. skills are fairly good.

 

[rgrove0172]

yawn......

 

[argo]

PS guys, can you keep the ad-hominem attacks off the table. I would argue that all of our reading comp. skills are fairly good.

But its not and ad hominem attack. I disagree with Sutek's reading of the sentence in question. By which I mean that I think his reading of the sentence (his reading comprehension skill) is wrong.

And his reading is the foundation of his entire argument. If you accept my reading (which I believe most people on this thread do) then the rest of the argument evaporates.

As I said, he is begging the question.

Later.

 

[Strom]

I say you guys dice for it. High roll wins.

Or not.