Multiattack, claws, bites...
Werebat
Apparently, a creature gets to use all of its primary natural weapons
once per round each at its full attack bonus.
It gets a -5 penalty to all secondary attacks, unless it takes the
Multiattack feat (then the penalty is dropped to -2).
Now my recent reading of the rules for this, in the MM 3.5, led me to
believe that a creature (lets say a half-dragon) with both claw and bite
attacks that has "claw" as its primary natural weapon gets an attack at
full attack bonus WITH EACH CLAW, not just the first claw attack per
round, and then an attack with the bite with a -5 penalty.
If the creature somehow had six claws and one bite, and the claws were
the "primary" natural weapons, it would get SIX attacks at its full
attack bonus, and then a bite (secondary natural weapon) with a -5
penalty.
Is this right?
If it is, why can't humans get two punches per round, each at full attack
bonus? Why do human monks suffer a -2 penalty when attacking with their
fists in a flurry of blows?
Something about the rules just doesn't add up here.
- Ron ^*^
Deric Bernier
Werebat wrote:
Because *ahem* 3.5 SCREWS THE MONK. Heheh
Actually my problems with the number of attacks a monk gets went away
recently when I found a feat in sword and the fist that gives a monk 2
additional unarmed attacks. Now if I could just figure out why they screwed
his movement rate I would be happy.
D
Ed Chauvin IV
A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Werebat
>
> Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
> >OK, here's something I noticed from reading the 3.5 MM...
> >
> >Apparently, a creature gets to use all of its primary natural weapons
> >once per round each at its full attack bonus.
> >
> >It gets a -5 penalty to all secondary attacks, unless it takes the
> >Multiattack feat (then the penalty is dropped to -2).
> >
> >Now my recent reading of the rules for this, in the MM 3.5, led me to
> >believe that a creature (lets say a half-dragon) with both claw and bite
> >attacks that has "claw" as its primary natural weapon gets an attack at
> >full attack bonus WITH EACH CLAW, not just the first claw attack per
> >round, and then an attack with the bite with a -5 penalty.
> >
> >If the creature somehow had six claws and one bite, and the claws were
> >the "primary" natural weapons, it would get SIX attacks at its full
> >attack bonus, and then a bite (secondary natural weapon) with a -5
> >penalty.
> >
> >Is this right?
> >
> >If it is, why can't humans get two punches per round, each at full attack
> >bonus? Why do human monks suffer a -2 penalty when attacking with their
> >fists in a flurry of blows?
> >
> >Something about the rules just doesn't add up here.
>
> A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
- Ron ^*^
Bradd W. Szonye
> If the creature somehow had six claws and one bite, and the claws were
> the "primary" natural weapons, it would get SIX attacks at its full
> attack bonus, and then a bite (secondary natural weapon) with a -5
> penalty.
>
> Is this right?
Yes, that's correct.
> If it is, why can't humans get two punches per round, each at full attack
> bonus?
Some attack routines are all at once, like an animal's natural weapons.
Others use iterative attacks, like manufactured weapons. The main
difference: manufactured weapons rely on skill, natural weapons on
instinct. Humanoid unarmed attacks follow the rules for "skilled"
weapons rather than "instinctual" weapons.
> Why do human monks suffer a -2 penalty when attacking with their fists
> in a flurry of blows?
They don't, at high levels. At low levels, they suffer the usual
penalties for pushing the number of skilled attacks you can make in a
round.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
My Usenet e-mail address is temporarily disabled.
Please visit my website to obtain an alternate address.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
It's not bullshit at all, if you know why the rules are different for
natural and manufactured weapons. Humanoid punches are much more similar
to the latter than to the former -- they rely on skill rather than
instinct, it's hard to coordinate simultaneous strikes, etc.
Sir Bob
He doesn't, at higher levels - by 9th level, he gets two attacks at his
full, primary base attack bonus when flurrying. Heck, by 11th level the
monk is getting *more* primary attacks than he has hands. =P
- Sir Bob.
Matthew Miller
> He doesn't, at higher levels - by 9th level, he gets two attacks at his
> full, primary base attack bonus when flurrying. Heck, by 11th level the
> monk is getting *more* primary attacks than he has hands. =P
That's because he's not necessarily punching.
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Sir Bob
news:slrnbobvpe...@jadzia.bu.edu...
> Sir Bob <sir...@penguinking.com> wrote:
> > He doesn't, at higher levels - by 9th level, he gets two attacks at his
> > full, primary base attack bonus when flurrying. Heck, by 11th level the
> > monk is getting *more* primary attacks than he has hands. =P
>
> That's because he's not necessarily punching.
True, but try to keep it in context - Werebat was asking about punching in
particular.
- Sir Bob.
Matthew Miller
>> > He doesn't, at higher levels - by 9th level, he gets two attacks at his
>> > full, primary base attack bonus when flurrying. Heck, by 11th level the
>> > monk is getting *more* primary attacks than he has hands. =P
>> That's because he's not necessarily punching.
> True, but try to keep it in context - Werebat was asking about punching in
> particular.
Well, and he was wrong about that. :)
Michael Scott Brown
> > A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
>
> That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
The statement is not bullshit. Notice a few key qualities of things
the game calls "natural weapons":
(1) real damage
(2) found attached to monsters and animals
(3) pointy/hard bits - claws/teeth/spikes
(4) attacker is treated as armed; no AoO for attacking.
Humanoids are *feeble* combatants without the use of tools; this is
why, sans d6-damage clubs, we are *meat*. Now we can wander into a
semantic minefield; unarmed strikes are certainly a human's "natural
attacks", and to some degree one might call the human's only "natural"
weapon, but by the standards of the game, a human's natural "weapon"
*isn't* a credible weapon and thus it doesn't really warrant the term
"Natural Weapon", which implies that a creature packs an attack
sufficiently puissant as to constitute actually being armed.
The rationales for the differences in combat effects for 'persons' and
monsters are explained in the 3.0 FAQ, and they essentially reflect a
profound difference in the way that monsters and animals attack - they
don't duel, they don't feint and parry and look for openings, they breach
and savage their targets in an all out attack (unless they're fighting
cautiously). Watch cats fight, for instance. People don't fight like
that. Not if they are proficient at unarmed combat, at any rate (without
sharp and pointy bits, if we don't put some effort into maximizing the
power of our attacks we may as well not have made them).
Consequently, monsters are not assigned iterative attacks (unless they
can and will fight "like people"); they are assigned an attack routine that
reflects their natural way of fighting.
-Michael
Robert Scott Clark
>>
>> A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
>
> That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
Humans are not designed for combat.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Geoffrey Brent
> It's not bullshit at all, if you know why the rules are different for
> natural and manufactured weapons. Humanoid punches are much more similar
> to the latter than to the former -- they rely on skill rather than
> instinct, it's hard to coordinate simultaneous strikes, etc.
JOC, how do monks *with* natural weapons work? (Dragon with class
levels, monk/druid fighting in animal form, etc etc).
CARRIER LOST
> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> > Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
> > > attack bonus? Why do human monks suffer a -2 penalty when attacking
> > > with their fists in a flurry of blows?
> >
>
> That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
but it's the answer. put feathers on a man and he cannot fly. the
singular or cumulative effect of a fist, without some force such as
monk's ki behind it, is nowhere near as effective as the claw of a
monster who lives and dies by it.
--
___ ._.
| ._|---.---.---.-| | dr...@visi.com <http://www.visi.com/~drow/>
| ._| . | _ | ._| _ | ---------------------------------------------------
|_| |_|_|___|_| |___| Fnord is the blue stripes in the road that never
get painted.
Deric Bernier
CARRIER LOST wrote:
> Cheap Jedi Mind Tricks led Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> to write:
> > Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> > > Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
> > > > If it is, why can't humans get two punches per round, each at full
> > > > attack bonus? Why do human monks suffer a -2 penalty when attacking
> > > > with their fists in a flurry of blows?
> > >
> > > A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
> >
> > That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
>
> but it's the answer. put feathers on a man and he cannot fly. the
> singular or cumulative effect of a fist, without some force such as
> monk's ki behind it, is nowhere near as effective as the claw of a
> monster who lives and dies by it.
This argument is refuted by the very fact that even untrained an unarmed attack
by a human still does damage.
D
Geoffrey Brent
>
> CARRIER LOST wrote:
>>but it's the answer. put feathers on a man and he cannot fly. the
>>singular or cumulative effect of a fist, without some force such as
>>monk's ki behind it, is nowhere near as effective as the claw of a
>>monster who lives and dies by it.
>
>
> This argument is refuted by the very fact that even untrained an unarmed attack
> by a human still does damage.
*Subdual* damage by default, unlike a typical monster attack. If you
want to do lethal damage you're at a big penalty (-4 TH, IIRC?) relative
to a monster using natural weaponry. Even then, the damage isn't great
by the standards of Medium creatures.
Michael Scott Brown
message
They're just like any other monster-class combination, with the sole
exception of having two different non-stacking damage dice when it makes
monkish attacks (ie; monk damage or natural weapon damage, whichever is
better).
As a result, a monk-monster can
(a) make its full suite of natural attacks
(b) make iterative attacks for {monk/natural weapon} damage
- with the option to take any "unoccupied" natural weapons as
secondary attacks (-5 to hit).
-Michael
Werebat
>
> Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > If the creature somehow had six claws and one bite, and the claws were
> > the "primary" natural weapons, it would get SIX attacks at its full
> > attack bonus, and then a bite (secondary natural weapon) with a -5
> > penalty.
> >
> > Is this right?
>
> Yes, that's correct.
>
> > If it is, why can't humans get two punches per round, each at full attack
> > bonus?
>
> Some attack routines are all at once, like an animal's natural weapons.
> Others use iterative attacks, like manufactured weapons. The main
> difference: manufactured weapons rely on skill, natural weapons on
> instinct. Humanoid unarmed attacks follow the rules for "skilled"
> weapons rather than "instinctual" weapons.
Sounds like a lotta highfalutin' mumbo-jumbo to me, Buah.
> > Why do human monks suffer a -2 penalty when attacking with their fists
> > in a flurry of blows?
>
> They don't, at high levels. At low levels, they suffer the usual
> penalties for pushing the number of skilled attacks you can make in a
> round.
Eh. Seems kinda weak.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> > Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> >> A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
>
> Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
>
> It's not bullshit at all, if you know why the rules are different for
> natural and manufactured weapons. Humanoid punches are much more similar
> to the latter than to the former -- they rely on skill rather than
> instinct, it's hard to coordinate simultaneous strikes, etc.
So the monk has... Ehrm... *MANUFACTURED* hands, now?
Or he's using his hands with *SKILL*, unlike the way a tiger uses its
claws... You know, with no skill involved?
Sounds all-around hokey to me. Bring on the Awakened Snakes and the
Monks of the Stumpy Torso!
- Ron ^*^
Sir Bob
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >
> > Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > If the creature somehow had six claws and one bite, and the claws were
> > > the "primary" natural weapons, it would get SIX attacks at its full
> > > attack bonus, and then a bite (secondary natural weapon) with a -5
> > > penalty.
> > >
> > > Is this right?
> >
> > Yes, that's correct.
> >
> > > If it is, why can't humans get two punches per round, each at full
attack
> > > bonus?
> >
> > Some attack routines are all at once, like an animal's natural weapons.
> > Others use iterative attacks, like manufactured weapons. The main
> > difference: manufactured weapons rely on skill, natural weapons on
> > instinct. Humanoid unarmed attacks follow the rules for "skilled"
> > weapons rather than "instinctual" weapons.
>
> Sounds like a lotta highfalutin' mumbo-jumbo to me, Buah.
Then think of it this way: the possession of a natural attack routine is a
special ability, just like any other monster ability or racial quality on
the books. It's not intrinsic to simply having X number of limbs.
- Sir Bob.
Werebat
manufactured weapon. Bullshit.
I notice you don't mention slam attacks in all of your pontification.
When a raging half-orc with a 24 Strength starts throwing punches, *you*
tell him how "feeble" a combatant he is.
- Ron ^*^
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F861E...@cox.net..
Werebat
>
> Cheap Jedi Mind Tricks led Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> to write:
> > Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> > > Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
> > > > If it is, why can't humans get two punches per round, each at full
> > > > attack bonus? Why do human monks suffer a -2 penalty when attacking
> > > > with their fists in a flurry of blows?
> > >
> > > A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
> >
> > That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
>
> but it's the answer. put feathers on a man and he cannot fly. the
> singular or cumulative effect of a fist, without some force such as
> monk's ki behind it, is nowhere near as effective as the claw of a
> monster who lives and dies by it.
Ah... So a fist just "lacks that snapping action", then.
Bullshit!
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
A Cloud Giant monk still follows the same rules as a human, though.
Bullshit!
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
This is slightly less inane, yes.
- Ron ^*^
Bradd W. Szonye
>> It's not bullshit at all, if you know why the rules are different for
>> natural and manufactured weapons. Humanoid punches are much more
>> similar to the latter than to the former -- they rely on skill rather
>> than instinct, it's hard to coordinate simultaneous strikes, etc.
Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> So the monk has... Ehrm... *MANUFACTURED* hands, now?
No, but it fights the same way: with skill, parrying, finesse, timing,
one hand at a time.
> Or he's using his hands with *SKILL*, unlike the way a tiger uses its
> claws... You know, with no skill involved?
The tiger relies on instinct when fighting, and it's specially designed
to attack with claws and fang simultaneously. Humans aren't.
> Sounds all-around hokey to me. Bring on the Awakened Snakes and the
> Monks of the Stumpy Torso!
Speaking of animals, it sounds like you're playing the Weasel Boy (local
nomenclature for munchkins looking to get something for nothing).
Sir Bob
> Micheal, you're trying to argue that a fist/foot/forehead is a
> manufactured weapon. Bullshit.
<snip>
Is this going to be one of those threads were you deliberately and
egregiously misinterpret every argument posed to you until it degenerates
into a flamewar and half the participants decide you're a muffinhead and
killfile you? And if so, when did you become a Disciple of Burke? ;)
- Sir Bob.
Sir Bob
And a cloud giant's fists are pathetic weapons for a creature of its size,
too.
- Sir Bob.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Some attack routines are all at once, like an animal's natural
>> weapons. Others use iterative attacks, like manufactured weapons. The
>> main difference: manufactured weapons rely on skill, natural weapons
>> on instinct. Humanoid unarmed attacks follow the rules for "skilled"
>> weapons rather than "instinctual" weapons.
Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> Sounds like a lotta highfalutin' mumbo-jumbo to me, Buah.
Whatever, Ron. That's the official explanation, and it makes sense to
me. Humans don't fight the same way that animals do, not even with their
"natural weapons."
Michael Scott Brown
> > This argument is refuted by the very fact that even untrained an
unarmed attack
> > by a human still does damage.
>
> *Subdual* damage by default, unlike a typical monster attack. If you
> want to do lethal damage you're at a big penalty (-4 TH, IIRC?) relative
> to a monster using natural weaponry. Even then, the damage isn't great
> by the standards of Medium creatures.
1d3 at -4 to hit? That's barely a weapon.
(though it does seem to capture the upgrade in lethality we see by a
person who picks up a knife ...).
-Michael
Bradd W. Szonye
> Bullshit!
Still posting all of your trolls in Pacific Daylight Time, eh?
Geoffrey Brent
> "Geoffrey Brent" <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.nos.pam.au.invalid> wrote in
> message news:bm51f3
>>*Subdual* damage by default, unlike a typical monster attack. If you
>>want to do lethal damage you're at a big penalty (-4 TH, IIRC?) relative
>>to a monster using natural weaponry. Even then, the damage isn't great
>>by the standards of Medium creatures.
>
>
> 1d3 at -4 to hit? That's barely a weapon.
Exactly the point I was driving at :-)
> (though it does seem to capture the upgrade in lethality we see by a
> person who picks up a knife ...).
Or just a good-sized rock.
Deric Bernier
Geoffrey Brent wrote:
Never said it was, in fact its pretty measly, but it still qualifies by all
definition as a natural weapon attack.
D
Geoffrey Brent
>
> Geoffrey Brent wrote:
>>*Subdual* damage by default, unlike a typical monster attack. If you
>>want to do lethal damage you're at a big penalty (-4 TH, IIRC?) relative
>>to a monster using natural weaponry. Even then, the damage isn't great
>>by the standards of Medium creatures.
>
>
> Never said it was, in fact its pretty measly, but it still qualifies by all
> definition as a natural weapon attack.
By common-usage definition, certainly. Whether it meets the D&D
definition isn't entirely clear.
Note also that some creatures in MM (e.g. some birds, IIRC) combine two
claws into a single attack. A claw is at least as much a 'natural
weapon' as a fist, but some claws are feeble enough that two of them
only make for one effective 'attack'. So the human who only gets one
punch attack despite having both fists available isn't actually a unique
case.
Rupert Boleyn
<cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
>>
>> That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
>
>
>Humans are not designed for combat.
Actually we were - just not combat in which we've no equipment.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"A pessimist is simply an optimist with a sense of history."
Rupert Boleyn
<bradd...@szonye.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>> Some attack routines are all at once, like an animal's natural
>>> weapons. Others use iterative attacks, like manufactured weapons. The
>>> main difference: manufactured weapons rely on skill, natural weapons
>>> on instinct. Humanoid unarmed attacks follow the rules for "skilled"
>>> weapons rather than "instinctual" weapons.
>
>Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Sounds like a lotta highfalutin' mumbo-jumbo to me, Buah.
>
>Whatever, Ron. That's the official explanation, and it makes sense to
>me. Humans don't fight the same way that animals do, not even with their
>"natural weapons."
IMO the closest thing to a natural weapon humans have is actually
grappling, which we're actually not too bad at. When I look at a dog's
stats in the MM3.5 I see that it even works that way - if you can
avoid getting bitten on the way in, and then get ahold of the dog
there's a reasonable chance you can pin it or choke it. This matches
my experiences with dogs reasonably well.
Deric Bernier
Rupert Boleyn wrote:
Damn I forgot, we are talking about DnD here, where the average housecat can
slaughter commoners.
D
Werebat
>
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> Some attack routines are all at once, like an animal's natural
> >> weapons. Others use iterative attacks, like manufactured weapons. The
> >> main difference: manufactured weapons rely on skill, natural weapons
> >> on instinct. Humanoid unarmed attacks follow the rules for "skilled"
> >> weapons rather than "instinctual" weapons.
>
> Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Sounds like a lotta highfalutin' mumbo-jumbo to me, Buah.
>
> Whatever, Ron. That's the official explanation, and it makes sense to
> me. Humans don't fight the same way that animals do, not even with their
> "natural weapons."
The only animals that rely completely on instinct for fighting are those
that are pretty low on the intelligence scale. Lobsters and scorpions,
for example.
Tigers, wolves, etc., meanwhile, have to *learn* to use their weapons
effectively. This is why pitfighting dogs are *trained* to fight. If it
were just instinct, there'd be no need.
It may be the official explanation, but it's a lame one.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> It's not bullshit at all, if you know why the rules are different for
> >> natural and manufactured weapons. Humanoid punches are much more
> >> similar to the latter than to the former -- they rely on skill rather
> >> than instinct, it's hard to coordinate simultaneous strikes, etc.
>
> Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > So the monk has... Ehrm... *MANUFACTURED* hands, now?
>
> No, but it fights the same way: with skill, parrying, finesse, timing,
> one hand at a time.
Even when drunk and enraged?
> > Or he's using his hands with *SKILL*, unlike the way a tiger uses its
> > claws... You know, with no skill involved?
>
> The tiger relies on instinct when fighting, and it's specially designed
> to attack with claws and fang simultaneously. Humans aren't.
Bullshit. Tigers rely on instinct to a degree, but so do humans. Tigers
also have to learn how to use their weapons effectively, which is what
tiger cubs tussling in the grass is all about. It's not all instinct.
Take a tiger cub and feed it beef steak for its whole life so it never
has to bring down another animal. Then pit it in a fight against a wild
tiger that has had to kill for every meal in order to survive. If your
theory about instinct is correct, it'll be an even match -- but my
money's riding on the wild tiger.
> > Sounds all-around hokey to me. Bring on the Awakened Snakes and the
> > Monks of the Stumpy Torso!
>
> Speaking of animals, it sounds like you're playing the Weasel Boy (local
> nomenclature for munchkins looking to get something for nothing).
Hey, I don't even play a monk. Actually, the first person I thought of
when reading the 3.5 rules was a fellow player who runs a Dragon
Disciple -- and HE would seem to benefit from what I read regardless of
your argument.
No, what I find irritating is the simple lack of consistency, and then
the flock of ditto-heads willing to back it up "'cause that's the way it
is".
If it's all about game balance, even though it's a stupid and
inconsistent ruling, then fine, but come out and call it what it is.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
They'll be doing much more damage than the tiny daggers in the hands of
the dual-weilding halfling that the cloud giant is fighting -- but the
halfling will mysteriously be using more favorable rules because he is
"better armed".
Pah.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
Unless you're the kind of person who thinks of fists as somehow NOT part
of the body.
What about a gorilla? Are a gorilla's hands natural weapons, or no?
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
It's all a conspiracy concocted by dual-wielding Awakened ninja crows
with spiked chains!
- Ron ^*^
Michael Scott Brown
> Micheal, you're trying to argue that a fist/foot/forehead is a
> manufactured weapon. Bullshit.
You are welcome to find where that contention appears in my thorough,
polite, and *correct* explanation of the situation to you. I recommend you
read it again - or reveal yourself to be uselessly rabblerousing again.
> I notice you don't mention slam attacks in all of your pontification.
Nothing about slamming with a tentacle or powerful limb changes the
fundamentals any.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> >
> > but it's the answer. put feathers on a man and he cannot fly. the
> > singular or cumulative effect of a fist, without some force such as
> > monk's ki behind it, is nowhere near as effective as the claw of a
> > monster who lives and dies by it.
>
> Ah... So a fist just "lacks that snapping action", then.
> Bullshit!
Why are you crying bullshit when you hurt *yourself* more than the brick
wall you punch?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> The only animals that rely completely on instinct for fighting are those
> that are pretty low on the intelligence scale. Lobsters and scorpions,
> for example.
> Tigers, wolves, etc., meanwhile, have to *learn* to use their weapons
> effectively. This is why pitfighting dogs are *trained* to fight. If it
> were just instinct, there'd be no need.
<rolls eyes> Pitfighting dogs are trained to fight *in a specific
situation* - namely, in a pit, to the death, on command. This is not the
normal pattern of canine aggression, which is challenge and submission in
order to determine dominance.
You are talking out your ass in a shockingly magnificent way.
Ron, it's clear that you are well outside the range of issues about
which you have the slightest comprehension.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Bullshit. Tigers rely on instinct to a degree, but so do humans. Tigers
> also have to learn how to use their weapons effectively, which is what
> tiger cubs tussling in the grass is all about. It's not all instinct.
You might want to *think* about that a little longer. Two tiger cubs
*will* tussle in the grass.
Without having been shown how.
<shakes head sadly>
Nothing about the observation that an animal has to practice being
itself (just like any creature) changes the observation that they fight
*instinctively*.
-Michael
Werebat
>
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F8675...@cox.net..
>
> > that are pretty low on the intelligence scale. Lobsters and scorpions,
> > for example.
> > Tigers, wolves, etc., meanwhile, have to *learn* to use their weapons
> > effectively. This is why pitfighting dogs are *trained* to fight. If it
> > were just instinct, there'd be no need.
>
> <rolls eyes> Pitfighting dogs are trained to fight *in a specific
> situation* - namely, in a pit, to the death, on command. This is not the
> normal pattern of canine aggression, which is challenge and submission in
> order to determine dominance.
This in a thread where the original argument stated that animals, unlike
humans, engage in *all-out* *attacks* and do *not* use dodgine and
finesse. This is why I mentioned drunken humans, moron.
> You are talking out your ass in a shockingly magnificent way.
>
> Ron, it's clear that you are well outside the range of issues about
> which you have the slightest comprehension.
What's clear is that you don't give a whit for logic, not so much as you
care for spouting more of your ignorant verbal diarrhea.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F8677...@cox.net..
>
> > also have to learn how to use their weapons effectively, which is what
> > tiger cubs tussling in the grass is all about. It's not all instinct.
>
> You might want to *think* about that a little longer. Two tiger cubs
> *will* tussle in the grass.
> Without having been shown how.
Hence the instinctual *component*. Idiot.
Human kids *will* run and jump, without having been shown how. None of
them spontaneously become Olympic gold medalists.
> <shakes head sadly>
More like "sucks own cock"
> Nothing about the observation that an animal has to practice being
> itself (just like any creature) changes the observation that they fight
> *instinctively*.
The same can be said of humans, then, if you want to go that way. Moron.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
> > >
> > > but it's the answer. put feathers on a man and he cannot fly. the
> > > singular or cumulative effect of a fist, without some force such as
> > > monk's ki behind it, is nowhere near as effective as the claw of a
> > > monster who lives and dies by it.
> >
> > Ah... So a fist just "lacks that snapping action", then.
> > Bullshit!
>
> Why are you crying bullshit when you hurt *yourself* more than the brick
> wall you punch?
And when a tiger bites a slab of granite, HARD, it's going to hurt the
tiger.
Fucktard.
- Ron ^*^
Mark Blunden
Which is fully accounted for in the rules by his strength bonus to attack
and damage. What's your point?
--
Mark.
* Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness
Robert Scott Clark
news:b7jcovs1i5efier6f...@4ax.com:
> On 9 Oct 2003 19:58:02 -0500, Robert Scott Clark
> <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
>>>
>>> That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
>>
>>
>>Humans are not designed for combat.
>
> Actually we were - just not combat in which we've no equipment.
>
Maybe. I'd say it's more that we designed equipment that compensated for
our combat design flaws.
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Sir Bob
Sure. Being whacked in the chest with a big slab of meat isn't going to
inflict as much lasting harm as having six inches of steel jammed into your
torso.
- Sir Bob.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Deric Bernier wrote:
>
>>
>> Geoffrey Brent wrote:
>
>>>*Subdual* damage by default, unlike a typical monster attack. If you
>>>want to do lethal damage you're at a big penalty (-4 TH, IIRC?) relative
>>>to a monster using natural weaponry. Even then, the damage isn't great
>>>by the standards of Medium creatures.
>>
>>
>> Never said it was, in fact its pretty measly, but it still qualifies by all
>> definition as a natural weapon attack.
>
>By common-usage definition, certainly. Whether it meets the D&D
>definition isn't entirely clear.
Actually, it is perfectly clear that it doesn't.
>Note also that some creatures in MM (e.g. some birds, IIRC) combine two
>claws into a single attack. A claw is at least as much a 'natural
>weapon' as a fist, but some claws are feeble enough that two of them
>only make for one effective 'attack'. So the human who only gets one
>punch attack despite having both fists available isn't actually a unique
>case.
The human only has one "Unarmed Attack" available and doesn't get
*any* "Punch" attacks.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Ed Chauvin IV
>Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>
>> > Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> >> A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
>>
>> > That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
>>
>> natural and manufactured weapons. Humanoid punches are much more similar
>> to the latter than to the former -- they rely on skill rather than
>> instinct, it's hard to coordinate simultaneous strikes, etc.
>
No, he's using his "Unarmed Strike" to make his attacks. Not
necessarily a punch, not necessarily his hands, not even necessarily
not his head.
Chris
No, but it does indicate that they rely on instinct to a degree. To
bad Ron didn't say that, though.
Chris
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F863C...@cox.net...
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > >
> > > Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > If the creature somehow had six claws and one bite, and the claws were
> > > > the "primary" natural weapons, it would get SIX attacks at its full
> > > > attack bonus, and then a bite (secondary natural weapon) with a -5
> > > > penalty.
> > > >
> > > > Is this right?
> > >
> > > Yes, that's correct.
> > >
> > > > If it is, why can't humans get two punches per round, each at full
> attack
> > > > bonus?
> > >
> > > Some attack routines are all at once, like an animal's natural weapons.
> > > Others use iterative attacks, like manufactured weapons. The main
> > > difference: manufactured weapons rely on skill, natural weapons on
> > > instinct. Humanoid unarmed attacks follow the rules for "skilled"
> > > weapons rather than "instinctual" weapons.
> >
>
> special ability, just like any other monster ability or racial quality on
> the books. It's not intrinsic to simply having X number of limbs.
>
> - Sir Bob.
I buy that argument, not the argument that the difference is based on
skill versus instinct.
Mark Blunden
> Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
> news:b7jcovs1i5efier6f...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 9 Oct 2003 19:58:02 -0500, Robert Scott Clark
>> <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
>>>>
>>>> That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
>>>
>>>
>>> Humans are not designed for combat.
>>
>> Actually we were - just not combat in which we've no equipment.
>>
>
> Maybe. I'd say it's more that we designed equipment that compensated
> for our combat design flaws.
Both. As we began using tools to enhance our combat abilities, we evolved to
specialise in using those tools.
--
Mark.
* If you're able to keep your head while all around you are losing
theirs, they probably know something you don't
Michael Scott Brown
> > > Ah... So a fist just "lacks that snapping action", then.
> > > Bullshit!
> >
> > Why are you crying bullshit when you hurt *yourself* more than the
brick
> > wall you punch?
>
> And when a tiger bites a slab of granite, HARD, it's going to hurt the
> tiger.
Unlikely. Nothing about biting something its teeth can't penetrate is
inherently destructive to its teeth. Whereas a human's "weapon" *breaks*
under hard usage.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > You might want to *think* about that a little longer. Two tiger cubs
> > *will* tussle in the grass.
> > Without having been shown how.
>
> Hence the instinctual *component*. Idiot.
> Human kids *will* run and jump, without having been shown how. None of
> them spontaneously become Olympic gold medalists.
And what does not being a gold medalist have to do with anything? The
point you seem to have lost in all this is that animals don't *think* about
how they fight the way that people do; they don't rely on these concepts of
feint and parry - they fight relying on instinct and those instincts *drive
them to fight differently* than people. Having dangerous flesh-ripping
weaponry makes that all work out for them in a way that it doesn't for us.
The multiattacking rules *well describe* what an animal or monster
brings to the table when it attacks someone - shredding claws and tearing
bite.
What's your beef, Ron?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > <rolls eyes> Pitfighting dogs are trained to fight *in a specific
> > situation* - namely, in a pit, to the death, on command. This is not
the
> > normal pattern of canine aggression, which is challenge and submission
in
> > order to determine dominance.
>
> This in a thread where the original argument stated that animals, unlike
> humans, engage in *all-out* *attacks* and do *not* use dodgine and
> finesse. This is why I mentioned drunken humans, moron.
Your reply is a complete non sequitur.
> > You are talking out your ass in a shockingly magnificent way.
> >
> > Ron, it's clear that you are well outside the range of issues about
> > which you have the slightest comprehension.
>
> What's clear is that you don't give a whit for logic, not so much as you
> care for spouting more of your ignorant verbal diarrhea.
<yawn>
Ron, are you here to learn, or to Burke? We've seen the "stubbornly
resist all knowledge and insight" dance before, and he does it better than
you.
-Michael
Werebat
>
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F8678...@cox.net..> > > > Geoffrey Brent wrote:
> > > And a cloud giant's fists are pathetic weapons for a creature of its
> size,
> > > too.
> >
> > They'll be doing much more damage than the tiny daggers in the hands of
> > the dual-weilding halfling that the cloud giant is fighting -- but the
> > halfling will mysteriously be using more favorable rules because he is
> > "better armed".
>
> Sure. Being whacked in the chest with a big slab of meat isn't going to
> inflict as much lasting harm as having six inches of steel jammed into your
> torso.
A halfling dagger is probably not six inches long -- and a cloud giant's
fist is a bit more than a "big slab of meat". Would you rather be
stabbed by a halfling or stomped on by cloud giant? Assuming the
halfling isn't a rogue, of course.
Your argument falls apart here.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> Mere moments before death, Werebat hastily scrawled:
> >Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> >> >> A "Punch" is not a "Natural Weapon".
> >>
> >> Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> > That is bullshit in so many ways, I don't know where to begin.
> >>
> >> It's not bullshit at all, if you know why the rules are different for
> >> natural and manufactured weapons. Humanoid punches are much more similar
> >> to the latter than to the former -- they rely on skill rather than
> >> instinct, it's hard to coordinate simultaneous strikes, etc.
> >
> >So the monk has... Ehrm... *MANUFACTURED* hands, now?
>
> No, he's using his "Unarmed Strike" to make his attacks. Not
> necessarily a punch, not necessarily his hands, not even necessarily
> not his head.
The Monks of the Stumpy Torso LIVE!!!
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<hivhb.4597$av5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> > "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F8677...@cox.net..
> >
> > > also have to learn how to use their weapons effectively, which is what
> > > tiger cubs tussling in the grass is all about. It's not all instinct.
> >
> > You might want to *think* about that a little longer. Two tiger cubs
> > *will* tussle in the grass.
> > Without having been shown how.
> > <shakes head sadly>
> >
> > Nothing about the observation that an animal has to practice being
> > itself (just like any creature) changes the observation that they fight
> > *instinctively*.
>
> No, but it does indicate that they rely on instinct to a degree. To
> bad Ron didn't say that, though.
That's exactly what I said, you pissdick shitfucker.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
> > > > Bullshit!
> > >
> > > Why are you crying bullshit when you hurt *yourself* more than the
> brick
> > > wall you punch?
> >
> > And when a tiger bites a slab of granite, HARD, it's going to hurt the
> > tiger.
>
> Unlikely. Nothing about biting something its teeth can't penetrate is
> inherently destructive to its teeth.
Go chew on some granite then. Shithead.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F86C1...@cox.net..
>
> > > *will* tussle in the grass.
> > > Without having been shown how.
> >
> > Hence the instinctual *component*. Idiot.
> > Human kids *will* run and jump, without having been shown how. None of
> > them spontaneously become Olympic gold medalists.
>
> And what does not being a gold medalist have to do with anything?
Skill, you idiot! TRAINED, HONED SKILL!!!
> The
> point you seem to have lost in all this is that animals don't *think* about
> how they fight the way that people do;
Inasmuch as animals don't think the way people do, yes. They tend to
rely on instinct more than people do.
But they don't totally rely on instinct. That's a bullshit argument.
> they don't rely on these concepts of
> feint and parry - they fight relying on instinct and those instincts *drive
> them to fight differently* than people.
You are certainly right, in part.
However it should be plain for even you to see that the tiger who has
never had to kill to survive will be at a serious disadvantage compared
to the tiger who has, should the two of them ever get into a fight.
Probably not so, or not as much, with two scorpions, or other animals
that rely almost entirely on instinct in order to accomplish anything in
life.
> Having dangerous flesh-ripping
> weaponry makes that all work out for them in a way that it doesn't for us.
And yet a human psion who grows claws does not suddenly get two attacks
per round with them at full BAB.
> The multiattacking rules *well describe* what an animal or monster
> brings to the table when it attacks someone - shredding claws and tearing
> bite.
And a cloud giant would have a crushing fist, which seems equally
dangerous, if not more so! Yet he only gets one attack.
> What's your beef, Ron?
The bullshit argument that any of this has anything to do with
"instinct", mostly. Higher order animals do NOT do everything based on
instinct, and that includes fighting!
Also the bullshit argument that "natural" weapons are somehow different
from "natural" weapons.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
> Also the bullshit argument that "natural" weapons are somehow different
> from "natural" weapons.
Let me elaborate. The human fist/foot/forehead does 1d3 damage per hit.
Some are saying that this means it is "too feeble" a weapon to be
considered a "natural weapon".
However, a badger's claw does less (1d2), and is still considered a
natural weapon despite being less potent than the human fist! Do you see
how this is a bullshit argument?
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
> Ron, are you here to learn, or to Burke? We've seen the "stubbornly
> resist all knowledge and insight" dance before, and he does it better than
> you.
I see you and a few others clinging tenaciously to a rule set that makes
no sense, and then going through all sorts of gymnastic contortions in
order to have it make sense. It's like talking to fundamentalists about
evolution.
There's no point arguing with a "true believer", I guess.
- Ron ^*^
Michael Scott Brown
> > Unlikely. Nothing about biting something its teeth can't penetrate
is
> > inherently destructive to its teeth.
>
> Go chew on some granite then. Shithead.
Biting <> chewing. Chewing provides the opportunity for abrasion.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Let me elaborate. The human fist/foot/forehead does 1d3 damage per hit.
1d3 *SUBDUAL* damage, Ron.
And it's so dangerous to attack with these implements that trying to
hurt someone with them risks injury to yourself.
> Some are saying that this means it is "too feeble" a weapon to be
> considered a "natural weapon".
When it only does subdual by default? Hell yes.
Pay close attention: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO KILL PEOPLE WITH YOUR BARE
HANDS (without special training). -4 to hit for 1d3 lethal damage. When a
"tool" you choose to help you kill someone gives you a *penalty* for doing
so, this is usually an indication that it is NOT THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE
JOB.
We define the tools we consider 'weapons' with the concept of something
that makes it easier to kill.
*Think*.
> However, a badger's claw does less (1d2), and is still considered a
> natural weapon despite being less potent than the human fist!
Clearly, you haven't been savaged by a badger. If one went to town on
you, you would be hospitalized.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > > Human kids *will* run and jump, without having been shown how. None
of
> > > them spontaneously become Olympic gold medalists.
> >
> > And what does not being a gold medalist have to do with anything?
>
> Skill, you idiot! TRAINED, HONED SKILL!!!
Your ranting seems to have taken you to a place where your statements
no longer convey or reflect information.
Being the pinnacle of physical perfection has nothing to do with "how
monsters fight". A monster instinctively fights by biting and clawing; a
human by flailing his useless limbs in a completely ineffective flurry that
can only damage an opponent he outnumbers. A human's natural and
'instinctive' combat skills are *so pathetic* that a different strategy is
required.
> > The point you seem to have lost in all this is that animals don't
*think* about
> > how they fight the way that people do;
>
> Inasmuch as animals don't think the way people do, yes. They tend to
> rely on instinct more than people do.
> But they don't totally rely on instinct. That's a bullshit argument.
<yawn> The point we've been trying to tell you is that animals - as a
result of their fighting instincts - fight differently. Therefore, their
game stats are arranged differently. Where's the beef?
> You are certainly right, in part.
>
> However it should be plain for even you to see that the tiger who has
> never had to kill to survive will be at a serious disadvantage compared
> to the tiger who has, should the two of them ever get into a fight.
Such darwinization factors would be reflected in game mechanics by
differences in their hit points.
> > Having dangerous flesh-ripping
> > weaponry makes that all work out for them in a way that it doesn't for
us.
>
> And yet a human psion who grows claws does not suddenly get two attacks
> per round with them at full BAB.
Um ... I recall that this is, in fact, exactly what he gets.
> > The multiattacking rules *well describe* what an animal or monster
> > brings to the table when it attacks someone - shredding claws and
tearing bite.
>
> And a cloud giant would have a crushing fist, which seems equally
> dangerous, if not more so! Yet he only gets one attack.
?? Giants get iterative attacks.
> The bullshit argument that any of this has anything to do with
> "instinct", mostly. Higher order animals do NOT do everything based on
> instinct, and that includes fighting!
Ron, they're not fighting based on *reason*.
> Also the bullshit argument that "natural" weapons are somehow different
> from "natural" weapons.
?
Allow me to be the third person to tell you that your head is
completely up your ass.
-Michael
Black Powder Pete
>
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F8728...@cox.net..
>
> 1d3 *SUBDUAL* damage, Ron.
> And it's so dangerous to attack with these implements that trying to
> hurt someone with them risks injury to yourself.
The whole point of this argument was the invalidity of the system you are
using to back up your point of view.
> > Some are saying that this means it is "too feeble" a weapon to be
> > considered a "natural weapon".
>
> When it only does subdual by default? Hell yes.
> Pay close attention: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO KILL PEOPLE WITH YOUR BARE
> HANDS (without special training). -4 to hit for 1d3 lethal damage. When a
> "tool" you choose to help you kill someone gives you a *penalty* for doing
> so, this is usually an indication that it is NOT THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE
> JOB.
> We define the tools we consider 'weapons' with the concept of something
> that makes it easier to kill.
> *Think*.
Yes, I did think, and my conclusion was that the rules as written were
bullshit.
> > However, a badger's claw does less (1d2), and is still considered a
> > natural weapon despite being less potent than the human fist!
>
> Clearly, you haven't been savaged by a badger. If one went to town on
> you, you would be hospitalized.
Even so, I'd rather be clawed once by a badger than punched once by a
raging, 24-strength half-orc barbarian. And you?
No answer to that one, eh, Michael?
I thought as much.
- Ron ^*^
Black Powder Pete
>
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3F8726...@cox.net..
>
> is
> > > inherently destructive to its teeth.
> >
> > Go chew on some granite then. Shithead.
>
> Biting <> chewing. Chewing provides the opportunity for abrasion.
Then bite a statue, with intent to kill it. Fuckwad.
- Ron ^*^
Black Powder Pete
>
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F8728...@cox.net..
> of
> > > > them spontaneously become Olympic gold medalists.
> > >
> > > And what does not being a gold medalist have to do with anything?
> >
> > Skill, you idiot! TRAINED, HONED SKILL!!!
>
> Your ranting seems to have taken you to a place where your statements
> no longer convey or reflect information.
None that you seem capable of wrapping your thick skull around, anyway.
> Being the pinnacle of physical perfection has nothing to do with "how
> monsters fight". A monster instinctively fights by biting and clawing; a
> human by flailing his useless limbs in a completely ineffective flurry that
> can only damage an opponent he outnumbers.
Nice math skills there, Mike.
> A human's natural and
> 'instinctive' combat skills are *so pathetic* that a different strategy is
> required.
But a human can "learn" more effective combat skills, right? By becoming
a monk?
Remember that later in this post.
> > > The point you seem to have lost in all this is that animals don't
> *think* about
> > > how they fight the way that people do;
> >
> > Inasmuch as animals don't think the way people do, yes. They tend to
> > rely on instinct more than people do.
> > But they don't totally rely on instinct. That's a bullshit argument.
>
> <yawn> The point we've been trying to tell you is that animals - as a
> result of their fighting instincts - fight differently.
As a result of their physical differences and the time they have spent
LEARNING how to work those differences to their advantage. Nothing to do
with instinct, or at the very least instinct is only a small part.
> Therefore, their
> game stats are arranged differently. Where's the beef?
Inconsistency.
> > You are certainly right, in part.
> >
> > However it should be plain for even you to see that the tiger who has
> > never had to kill to survive will be at a serious disadvantage compared
> > to the tiger who has, should the two of them ever get into a fight.
>
> Such darwinization factors would be reflected in game mechanics by
> differences in their hit points.
POWER WORD BULLSHIT!!!
The tigers ability to use its weapons effectively has nothing to do with
how many times it can be hit in combat and live (offensive vs.
defensive).
If your "logic" were used, then a disoriented person (who can't hit as
well in combat) would lose hit points instead of AB. That's stupid.
> > > Having dangerous flesh-ripping
> > > weaponry makes that all work out for them in a way that it doesn't for
> us.
> >
> > And yet a human psion who grows claws does not suddenly get two attacks
> > per round with them at full BAB.
>
> Um ... I recall that this is, in fact, exactly what he gets.
That's not what the "claws" power says.
> > > The multiattacking rules *well describe* what an animal or monster
> > > brings to the table when it attacks someone - shredding claws and
> tearing bite.
> >
> > And a cloud giant would have a crushing fist, which seems equally
> > dangerous, if not more so! Yet he only gets one attack.
>
> ?? Giants get iterative attacks.
EXACTLY!!! How are they different from humans, other than size?
Does a human get iterative attacks when fighting rats?
And what about gorillas?
> > The bullshit argument that any of this has anything to do with
> > "instinct", mostly. Higher order animals do NOT do everything based on
> > instinct, and that includes fighting!
>
> Ron, they're not fighting based on *reason*.
>
> > Also the bullshit argument that "natural" weapons are somehow different
> > from "natural" weapons.
>
> ?
>
> Allow me to be the third person to tell you that your head is
> completely up your ass.
It's your argument, not mine.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> > I see you and a few others clinging tenaciously to a rule set that makes
> > no sense, and then going through all sorts of gymnastic contortions in
> > order to have it make sense.
>
> and bite routines JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS HAVE? And representative of how
> they fight in real life? Go find to cats that hate each other and watch
> how things go. A little circling, a little growling intimidation, a few
> desultory swipes (that are actually lead-ins for claws-hooking-in-flesh to
> pull in for a grapple), and then an all out
> leap-in-to-bite-and-claw-and-rake until one of them disengages, having
> yielded.
> When animals attack people, it is much the same.
> Have you ever seen an animal *duelling*? Using attack combinations?
> Parrying? Hmm?
Wolves get trip attacks.
Thereby proving, the rest of your argument is pure bullshit.
Thanks, Micheal.
- Ron ^*^
Bradd W. Szonye
> POWER WORD BULLSHIT!!! ....
Grow up, Ron.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
My Usenet e-mail address is temporarily disabled.
Please visit my website to obtain an alternate address.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Wolves get trip attacks.
> Thereby proving, the rest of your argument is pure bullshit.
No, not really. But keep up the crybaby shenanigans. They make you look
so *manly*.
Werebat
>
> Black Powder Pete <PMc...@ozark.net> wrote:
> > POWER WORD BULLSHIT!!! ....
>
> Grow up, Ron.
It's the truth, Bradd. His argument is completely vacuous.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Wolves get trip attacks.
> > Thereby proving, the rest of your argument is pure bullshit.
>
> No, not really. But keep up the crybaby shenanigans. They make you look
> so *manly*.
Keep your eyes off my dick, Bradd.
- Ron ^*^
Michael Scott Brown
news:a9e8322d.03101...@posting.google.com...
> > Then think of it this way: the possession of a natural attack routine
is a
> > special ability, just like any other monster ability or racial quality
on
> > the books. It's not intrinsic to simply having X number of limbs.
>
> skill versus instinct.
The issue isn't *greater* skill vrs. instinct, the issue is that humans
fight using reason to decide how to move and attack (because this serves as
a better way to use what feeble natural "weapons" we have to use); animals
fight according to a different program. *Think*. Someone proficient in
unarmed combat (ie; trained in martial arts) is not even remotely fighting
"instinctively" for a human.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:3F8735...@ozark.net...
Ron, why are you dressing up with this ridiculous combination of names?
> > 1d3 *SUBDUAL* damage, Ron.
> > And it's so dangerous to attack with these implements that trying
to
> > hurt someone with them risks injury to yourself.
>
> The whole point of this argument was the invalidity of the system you are
> using to back up your point of view.
Ron, WHAT IS INVALID? The animal claws and bites. The human feints and
parries and strikes. Where's the beef?
> > Pay close attention: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO KILL PEOPLE WITH YOUR
BARE
> > HANDS (without special training). -4 to hit for 1d3 lethal damage.
When a
> > "tool" you choose to help you kill someone gives you a *penalty* for
doing
> > so, this is usually an indication that it is NOT THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE
> > JOB.
> Yes, I did think, and my conclusion was that the rules as written were
bullshit.
You have yet to explain a single reason *why*, Ron.
Go on - tell us why the rules are "bullshit".
How should they be improved?
> > > However, a badger's claw does less (1d2), and is still considered a
> > > natural weapon despite being less potent than the human fist!
> >
> > Clearly, you haven't been savaged by a badger. If one went to town
on
> > you, you would be hospitalized.
>
> Even so, I'd rather be clawed once by a badger than punched once by a
> raging, 24-strength half-orc barbarian. And you?
The barbarian is rather a lot stronger than a badger, which allows him
to still be dangerous to mere mortals even though he is using a
ridiculously inefficient attack mode (-4 to hit to inflict 1d3+7 damage)
that exposes him to an immediate counterattack (such that he takes damage
every time he strikes).
What does this have to do with any of this "bullshit" you keep going on
about, Ron? A wildly strong person using his soft and fleshy limb to
pummel people isn't using a very dangerous weapon.
1d3+7 at -4 to hit, or 2d6+10 at -0 to hit. Hmm. Maybe that's why we
use weapons?
-Michael
Werebat
>
> "Black Powder Pete" <PMc...@ozark.net> wrote in message
> news:3F8735...@ozark.net..
>
Only because of the ruleset you bow down to and kiss on the feet.
And the Barbs "ridiculously inefficient" attack mode is still a lot more
effective than the badger's -- yet the badger is given every advantage!
Your argument runs something like this -- "Well of course the badger is
more dangerous, because the rules say it is, so the rules must be right."
BULLSHIT!
> What does this have to do with any of this "bullshit" you keep going on
> about, Ron? A wildly strong person using his soft and fleshy limb to
> pummel people isn't using a very dangerous weapon.
> 1d3+7 at -4 to hit, or 2d6+10 at -0 to hit. Hmm. Maybe that's why we
> use weapons?
And exactly why lizardmen use weapons, too -- despite their "superior"
claws!
Fuckwit.
- Ron ^*^
Deric Bernier
Michael Scott Brown wrote:
Not that I am looking to get flamed or anything, but in any martial art I have
ever been exposed to, the entire point of training was so it would become
"instinctual". So when shit hit the fan you would react "without" thinking
about it.
D
Werebat
>
> "Chris" <c_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a9e8322d.03101...@posting.google.com..
> is a
> > > special ability, just like any other monster ability or racial quality
> on
> > > the books. It's not intrinsic to simply having X number of limbs.
> >
> > I buy that argument, not the argument that the difference is based on
> > skill versus instinct.
>
> The issue isn't *greater* skill vrs. instinct, the issue is that humans
> fight using reason to decide how to move and attack (because this serves as
> a better way to use what feeble natural "weapons" we have to use); animals
> fight according to a different program. *Think*.
Tigers think while they are fighting.
Remove the parts of their brain needed for higher-order thought (such as
they are capable of), and their fighting ability is impaired.
That you argue against this truth is proof of your awesome fucktitude.
> Someone proficient in
> unarmed combat (ie; trained in martial arts) is not even remotely fighting
> "instinctively" for a human.
And the only "instinctive" moves that a tiger has are the same wobbly
ineffective ones it starts with as a cub. It has to practice these in
order to hone them into becoming an effective killing machine.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
>
> > "Chris" <c_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a9e8322d.03101...@posting.google.com..
> > is a
> > > > special ability, just like any other monster ability or racial quality
> > on
> > > > the books. It's not intrinsic to simply having X number of limbs.
> > >
> > > I buy that argument, not the argument that the difference is based on
> > > skill versus instinct.
> >
> > The issue isn't *greater* skill vrs. instinct, the issue is that humans
> > fight using reason to decide how to move and attack (because this serves as
> > a better way to use what feeble natural "weapons" we have to use); animals
> > fight according to a different program. *Think*. Someone proficient in
> > unarmed combat (ie; trained in martial arts) is not even remotely fighting
> > "instinctively" for a human.
>
> Not that I am looking to get flamed or anything, but in any martial art I have
> ever been exposed to, the entire point of training was so it would become
> "instinctual". So when shit hit the fan you would react "without" thinking
> about it.
Just like a tiger using its claws.
- Ron ^*^
Michael Scott Brown
> > Being the pinnacle of physical perfection has nothing to do with
"how
> > monsters fight". A monster instinctively fights by biting and clawing;
a
> > human by flailing his useless limbs in a completely ineffective flurry
that
> > can only damage an opponent he outnumbers.
>
> Nice math skills there, Mike.
Irony, Ron. Barring a spectacularly strong specimen, humans have to
mob each other to do real damage if no-one is armed.
> > A human's natural and 'instinctive' combat skills are *so pathetic*
that a different strategy is
> > required.
>
> But a human can "learn" more effective combat skills, right? By becoming
a monk?
Monks, as you might care to recall, are supernaturally gifted. It's
unclear whether D&D presumes that their basic level of ability (d6 damage
unarmed combat) represents the pinnacle of biomechanical efficiency or
already represents the influence of their super-foo ki powers. Modern-era
d20 systems only give trained martial artists on the order of d4 sized real
damage, which suggests that Monks start out larger than life.
> > <yawn> The point we've been trying to tell you is that animals - as
a
> > result of their fighting instincts - fight differently.
>
> As a result of their physical differences and the time they have spent
> LEARNING how to work those differences to their advantage. Nothing to do
> with instinct, or at the very least instinct is only a small part.
Again, we see that you don't know fuck-all about animals, Ron. They
come hardwired to prefer certain things. Calling an animal "learning" how
it will be itself is about at the level of a human child learning to walk
and use its hands - figuring out how to work your body is not in any way
the equivalent of a human mind's study of matters martial.
> > Therefore, their game stats are arranged differently. Where's the
beef?
>
> Inconsistency.
With *what*, Ron?
> > > However it should be plain for even you to see that the tiger who has
> > > never had to kill to survive will be at a serious disadvantage
compared
> > > to the tiger who has, should the two of them ever get into a fight.
> >
> > Such darwinization factors would be reflected in game mechanics by
> > differences in their hit points.
>
> POWER WORD BULLSHIT!!!
> The tigers ability to use its weapons effectively has nothing to do with
> how many times it can be hit in combat and live (offensive vs.
defensive).
You seem to be missing the point, Ron. The only advantage of the
wildling is in toughness - not "precision" at making attacks or
"experience" with how best to kill. Tigers' play behaviour gives them all
the tools they need to take it to the next level; that's all an expression
of their hardwiring. A cat killing a bird is no different from pouncing on
a feathered toy - in fact, it's not entirely clear that the cat even knows
the difference or understands that there might be. It just knows "flittey
feathery things MUST POUNCE." Cat's play-fighting do everything the same
as in the real situation, except for how hard they bite and whether or not
the extend the claws. In short, cats living as cats do spend their entire
lives preparing for this fight you claim they are inherently disadvantaged
to be involved in. Your *ASSUMPTION* that the less wild cat is going to
have "trouble" attacking effectively is *WRONG*. The only deficiency may
be found in the domestic cat's ability to push on in the face of serious
injuries. Ie; hit points.
Animals don't learn from combat experience the way people do; after a
fight they won't sit back and study which tactics were good and which
weren't - the animal that instinctively chose the "right" responses
succeeds, and the one that doesn't fails. This has been going on for
millions of years. When a cat goes into a killing frenzy, it is relying on
its raw athletics. And all tigers come with that programming. Notice what
Roy just experienced - he made the mistake of looking like prey for a
moment and *bam* the tiger, who has certainly never killed before - was on
him in a flash and dragging him off the stage.
> If your "logic" were used, then a disoriented person (who can't hit as
> well in combat) would lose hit points instead of AB. That's stupid.
A disoriented person loses AC, which does lose hit points.
> > > And yet a human psion who grows claws does not suddenly get two
attacks
> > > per round with them at full BAB.
> >
> > Um ... I recall that this is, in fact, exactly what he gets.
>
> That's not what the "claws" power says.
Throw up the relevant text of Claws of the Bear and Claws of the
Vampire. Are there any claw spells?
Because, for consistency's sake, a clawed human should be the
equivalent of any clawed humanoid like a lizardman.
> > > And a cloud giant would have a crushing fist, which seems equally
> > > dangerous, if not more so! Yet he only gets one attack.
> >
> > ?? Giants get iterative attacks.
>
> EXACTLY!!! How are they different from humans, other than size?
Full-scale giants are rather tougher in construction than what you'd
get with a simply 'bigger' human; heavy natural armor, supernatural
toughness (see their hit dice?)... they're rather a lot more than just 'big
people'. Their limbs qualify as 'slam' weapons in their own right, which
isn't the case for an enlarged human. And for whatever reason, every giant
is an gifted warrior (rather untrue of human commoners). But even giants
are on a sliding scale; Ogres still suffer all the usual "fleshy meatpod"
problems of humans when it comes to not having weapons handy and they don't
have a high enough BAB based on their natural rough-and-tumble quotient.
(but all this gets into one of the big D&D design flaws; locking hit
dice to BAB for monsters - which I think is rather silly).
> Does a human get iterative attacks when fighting rats?
Yes, presuming he has the experience to warrant them.
> And what about gorillas?
Gorillas don't fight like people. Or did you miss the memo where they
were primate animals with the minds of children?
Again, your point seems to be lost on the intelligent audience here.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > Have you ever seen an animal *duelling*? Using attack combinations?
> > Parrying? Hmm?
>
> Wolves get trip attacks.
> Thereby proving, the rest of your argument is pure bullshit.
<peers quizzically> Wolves like to bring their prey down. Where's the
beef?
Really, Ron - are you going to say *anything* remotely intelligent on
this thread?
Or are you just going to spout non sequiturs that illustrate that you
are, by design or accident, being a complete moron?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:3F871EB0...@mc2k.com...
> > The issue isn't *greater* skill vrs. instinct, the issue is that
humans
> > fight using reason to decide how to move and attack (because this
serves as
> > a better way to use what feeble natural "weapons" we have to use);
animals
> > fight according to a different program. *Think*. Someone proficient
in
> > unarmed combat (ie; trained in martial arts) is not even remotely
fighting
> > "instinctively" for a human.
>
> Not that I am looking to get flamed or anything, but in any martial art I
have
> ever been exposed to, the entire point of training was so it would become
> "instinctual". So when shit hit the fan you would react "without"
thinking
> about it.
Exactly - ie; you must *retrain* your base instincts, so that even
under stress your reactions call upon the skills you have mastered, rather
than resorting to tunnel-visioned neanderflailing.
-Michael
Sir Bob
> > > > > Geoffrey Brent wrote:
>
> > > > And a cloud giant's fists are pathetic weapons for a creature of its
> > size,
> > > > too.
> > >
> > > They'll be doing much more damage than the tiny daggers in the hands
of
> > > the dual-weilding halfling that the cloud giant is fighting -- but the
> > > halfling will mysteriously be using more favorable rules because he is
> > > "better armed".
> >
> > Sure. Being whacked in the chest with a big slab of meat isn't going to
> > inflict as much lasting harm as having six inches of steel jammed into
your
> > torso.
>
> A halfling dagger is probably not six inches long
Really? A human-sized dagger can be about a foot long - it's only above 18"
that you're really crossing into "sword" territory. The tiny blades we
customarily think of as daggers in modern times would barely qualify as
utility knives back in the day.
> -- and a cloud giant's
> fist is a bit more than a "big slab of meat". Would you rather be
> stabbed by a halfling or stomped on by cloud giant? Assuming the
> halfling isn't a rogue, of course.
I *would* much rather be punched square in the chest by a cloud giant than
stabbed with a halfling's dagger - I'd get pretty bruised up and maybe break
a few bones, but deep puncture wounds to the torso are almost universally
fatal without prompt treatment.
- Sir Bob.
Michael Scott Brown
> And the only "instinctive" moves that a tiger has are the same wobbly
> ineffective ones it starts with as a cub. It has to practice these in
> order to hone them into becoming an effective killing machine.
Everything you add to this discussion proves that you know nothing.
Why are you bothering?
And just when *are* you going to explain where the 'inconsistency' is,
Ron? You're running around saying that having animals get attack routines
is "bullshit" but you can't seem to explain to us why or how we might want
to share your opinion. So far, you've just said a lot of wrong things about
how animals work (which doesn't really go very far in inspiring confidence
that you might have something worth a damnn to say as to the original
issues).
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > The barbarian is rather a lot stronger than a badger, which allows
him
> > to still be dangerous to mere mortals even though he is using a
> > ridiculously inefficient attack mode (-4 to hit to inflict 1d3+7
damage)
> > that exposes him to an immediate counterattack (such that he takes
damage
> > every time he strikes).
>
> Only because of the ruleset you bow down to and kiss on the feet.
> And the Barbs "ridiculously inefficient" attack mode is still a lot more
> effective than the badger's -- yet the badger is given every advantage!
> Your argument runs something like this -- "Well of course the badger is
> more dangerous, because the rules say it is, so the rules must be right."
Ron, you seem to have a fundamental problem with understanding the term
"efficiency". A Laser would be lucky to be 10% efficient, but if I put one
Megawatt into one end of one it's going to cook you like Thanksgiving
turkey. The human fist is likewise an *inefficient* way of trying to kill
things without perfect technique, but if you put a TWENTY FOUR STRENGTH
behind it (hint, Ron - that is stronger than any human can *ever* hope to
be without supernatural augmentation), then even though it is markedly
inefficient it is still dangerous to those it strikes.
> > What does this have to do with any of this "bullshit" you keep
going on
> > about, Ron? A wildly strong person using his soft and fleshy limb to
> > pummel people isn't using a very dangerous weapon.
> > 1d3+7 at -4 to hit, or 2d6+10 at -0 to hit. Hmm. Maybe that's why
we
> > use weapons?
>
> And exactly why lizardmen use weapons, too -- despite their "superior"
claws!
Again with the non sequitur.
-Michael
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Grow up, Ron.
Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> It's the truth, Bradd. His argument is completely vacuous.
1. I disagree.
2. Your teen-punk antics aren't helping your case any. Grow up.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Only because of the ruleset you bow down to and kiss on the feet.
Kaos does this much, much better than you.
I dunno what sent you off on this bitter, "I AM KEWL R3B3L!!1!" kick,
but you're sounding like Burke's sockpuppet. Go get laid or something.
That's how teenagers age cope with frustration, right?
Bradd W. Szonye
>> ... keep up the crybaby shenanigans. They make you look so *manly*.
Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> Keep your eyes off my dick, Bradd.
Quit waving it around trying to get attention, asshole. Don't you have a
new girlfriend to play with it?
Werebat
> > A halfling dagger is probably not six inches long
>
> Really? A human-sized dagger can be about a foot long - it's only above 18"
> that you're really crossing into "sword" territory. The tiny blades we
> customarily think of as daggers in modern times would barely qualify as
> utility knives back in the day.
But at that size, the dagger would simply fold under the pressure of the
blow, no matter how sharp it was.
> > -- and a cloud giant's
> > fist is a bit more than a "big slab of meat". Would you rather be
> > stabbed by a halfling or stomped on by cloud giant? Assuming the
> > halfling isn't a rogue, of course.
>
> I *would* much rather be punched square in the chest by a cloud giant than
> stabbed with a halfling's dagger - I'd get pretty bruised up and maybe break
> a few bones, but deep puncture wounds to the torso are almost universally
> fatal without prompt treatment.
How's the halfling going to reach your torso, then, eh? You're assuming
he'll hit you in the heart or other vital organ -- in other words,
assuming that he has Sneak Attack.
Anyway, I think you're barmy if you think one stab with a dagger is bound
to kill... People can get stabbed repeatedly and live to tell about it.
I know several people who have experienced this. Meanwhile, I don't
know ANYONE who has been punched by a cloud giant and lived to tell about
it -- ergo, cloud giant punches must be more dangerous.
Or, in game terms... Even using the Holy System that you bow down and
kiss with reverence... A punch from the average cloud giant simply does
more damage than a stab from the average halfling's dagger. I rest my
case, you lose.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> "Black Powder Pete" <PMc...@ozark.net> wrote in message
> news:3F8738...@ozark.net..
> Again, we see that you don't know fuck-all about animals, Ron. They
> come hardwired to prefer certain things. Calling an animal "learning" how
> it will be itself is about at the level of a human child learning to walk
> and use its hands - figuring out how to work your body is not in any way
> the equivalent of a human mind's study of matters martial.
More utter bullshit from Micheal Scott Brown.
In my town, there are rings of undesireables who pit fight dogs. They
have to TRAIN the dogs to do this. Untrained dogs end up dead. There is
obviously some experience factor going on here, and some learning on the
part of the dogs, else their masters wouldn't bother.
Now, Bettas are as dumb as fish get, so I would accept that THEY operate
solely on instinct when fighting other Bettas. But wolves? Tigers?
Please. These animals can and do learn combat techniques. Even in the
context of the GAME, Micheal, they learn combat techniques -- take a
gander at the creature advancement rules sometime.
> > If your "logic" were used, then a disoriented person (who can't hit as
> > well in combat) would lose hit points instead of AB. That's stupid.
>
> A disoriented person loses AC, which does lose hit points.
Funny, the last time I checked, those were two different things.
RELATED, yes, but different.
Are you saying the wild tiger should have a better AC, now?
> > > > And yet a human psion who grows claws does not suddenly get two
> attacks
> > > > per round with them at full BAB.
> > >
> > > Um ... I recall that this is, in fact, exactly what he gets.
> >
> > That's not what the "claws" power says.
>
> Throw up the relevant text of Claws of the Bear and Claws of the
> Vampire. Are there any claw spells?
> Because, for consistency's sake, a clawed human should be the
> equivalent of any clawed humanoid like a lizardman.
That much, at least, you can see.
Now, the million dollar question -- how many slam attacks does a Hound
Archon get? Why?
> > > > And a cloud giant would have a crushing fist, which seems equally
> > > > dangerous, if not more so! Yet he only gets one attack.
> > >
> > > ?? Giants get iterative attacks.
> >
> > EXACTLY!!! How are they different from humans, other than size?
>
> Full-scale giants are rather tougher in construction than what you'd
> get with a simply 'bigger' human; heavy natural armor, supernatural
> toughness (see their hit dice?)... they're rather a lot more than just 'big
> people'. Their limbs qualify as 'slam' weapons in their own right, which
> isn't the case for an enlarged human. And for whatever reason, every giant
> is an gifted warrior (rather untrue of human commoners).
And yet they DO NOT get one attack per slamming limb, like lizardmen do
(with claws). As if getting clawed by a lizardman were somehow deadlier
than getting punched by an angry storm giant.
If you fail to see the ridiculousness of this, there is nothing I can do
for you.
> But even giants
> are on a sliding scale; Ogres still suffer all the usual "fleshy meatpod"
> problems of humans when it comes to not having weapons handy and they don't
> have a high enough BAB based on their natural rough-and-tumble quotient.
> (but all this gets into one of the big D&D design flaws; locking hit
> dice to BAB for monsters - which I think is rather silly).
>
> > Does a human get iterative attacks when fighting rats?
>
> Yes, presuming he has the experience to warrant them.
He doesn't get one attack per fist, which is what a theoretical claws
pixie would be entitled to.
> > And what about gorillas?
>
> Gorillas don't fight like people. Or did you miss the memo where they
> were primate animals with the minds of children?
You keep going over the same "infallible" logic feedback loop, Micheal.
"People don't fight like animals, because they don't have the same bodies
-- therfore, it's OK that they use different rules for their natural
attacks, which aren't really natural attacks anyway." Any other example
anyone can come up with, you will always respond with the same pat answer
-- "well, it's OK, because they aren't humans". The only thing that
seems capable of convincing you that you are wrong is a "dangerous"
creature that is human, but is not human.
And even THAT won't do it, because you cling tenuously to the awesomely
stupid idea that getting clawed by a normal badger is somehow more
dangerous than getting punched full in the face by the solid rocket of
muscle, bone, and sinew that is a raging 24-strength half-orc barbarian's
fist. Like I said, I can't argue with a True Believer.
> Again, your point seems to be lost on the intelligent audience here.
The only person I see responding is you, so I'm not sure who it is you
are talking about.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F8742...@cox.net..
> him
> > > to still be dangerous to mere mortals even though he is using a
> > > ridiculously inefficient attack mode (-4 to hit to inflict 1d3+7
> damage)
> > > that exposes him to an immediate counterattack (such that he takes
> damage
> > > every time he strikes).
> >
> > Only because of the ruleset you bow down to and kiss on the feet.
> > And the Barbs "ridiculously inefficient" attack mode is still a lot more
> > effective than the badger's -- yet the badger is given every advantage!
> > Your argument runs something like this -- "Well of course the badger is
> > more dangerous, because the rules say it is, so the rules must be right."
>
> Ron, you seem to have a fundamental problem with understanding the term
> "efficiency". A Laser would be lucky to be 10% efficient, but if I put one
> Megawatt into one end of one it's going to cook you like Thanksgiving
> turkey. The human fist is likewise an *inefficient* way of trying to kill
> things without perfect technique, but if you put a TWENTY FOUR STRENGTH
> behind it (hint, Ron - that is stronger than any human can *ever* hope to
> be without supernatural augmentation), then even though it is markedly
> inefficient it is still dangerous to those it strikes.
Then why don't bullets puncture armor in the game? Huh? Answer me that,
smart guy! Talk about inefficiency!
You are arguing that a pebble is less dangerous than a knife, and if I
say that I would rather be stabbed by a knife than hit by a ten-ton
boulder, you backpedal and say, "Well, of *course* a pebble is more
dangerous than a knife! It's all about efficiency!"
Your arguments are completely vacuous! The ten-ton boulder is a POTENT
weapon, regardless of the strength required to weild it. It is still
fundamentally just a big pebble, though. If it follows the same rules as
pebbles do, you get an attack of opportunity. This, as I am saying, is
bullshit.
> > > What does this have to do with any of this "bullshit" you keep
> going on
> > > about, Ron? A wildly strong person using his soft and fleshy limb to
> > > pummel people isn't using a very dangerous weapon.
> > > 1d3+7 at -4 to hit, or 2d6+10 at -0 to hit. Hmm. Maybe that's why
> we
> > > use weapons?
> >
> > And exactly why lizardmen use weapons, too -- despite their "superior"
> claws!
>
> Again with the non sequitur.
It's not a non sequitur. It's the whole point!
Werebat
>
> Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Only because of the ruleset you bow down to and kiss on the feet.
>
> Kaos does this much, much better than you.
>
> I dunno what sent you off on this bitter, "I AM KEWL R3B3L!!1!" kick,
> but you're sounding like Burke's sockpuppet. Go get laid or something.
> That's how teenagers age cope with frustration, right?
Viagra isn't working, eh, Bradd?
Seriously -- what's eating you?
- Ron ^*^
P.S. My initial argument was that it was silly that a limb that does 1d3
piercing (claw) damage follows completely different rules from a limb
that does 1d3 blunt (punching) damage. Especially when you are attacking
skeletons.
Werebat
>
> "Werebat" <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:3F8738...@cox.net..
>
> > > Parrying? Hmm?
> >
> > Wolves get trip attacks.
> > Thereby proving, the rest of your argument is pure bullshit.
>
> <peers quizzically> Wolves like to bring their prey down. Where's the
> beef?
On a cow, you idiot.
> Really, Ron - are you going to say *anything* remotely intelligent on
> this thread?
Why? You aren't listening. You seem to think that being stepped on by
Ultraman is less dangerous than being stabbed by a smurf.
> Or are you just going to spout non sequiturs that illustrate that you
> are, by design or accident, being a complete moron?
Wolves get trip attacks, and therefore use attack combinations.
Ergo, you are wrong. Suck it up.
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> ... keep up the crybaby shenanigans. They make you look so *manly*.
>
> Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Keep your eyes off my dick, Bradd.
>
> Quit waving it around trying to get attention, asshole. Don't you have a
> new girlfriend to play with it?
Why don't you suck your thumb?
Oh, that's right -- you haven't GOT one!
- Ron ^*^
Werebat
>
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >> Grow up, Ron.
>
> Werebat <rpoi...@cox.net> wrote:
> > It's the truth, Bradd. His argument is completely vacuous.
>
> 1. I disagree.
You're free to do that.
> 2. Your teen-punk antics aren't helping your case any. Grow up.
I don't shut up, I grow up -- and when I see your face, I throw up.
- Ron ^*^
Michael Scott Brown
> > Really? A human-sized dagger can be about a foot long - it's only
above 18"
> > that you're really crossing into "sword" territory. The tiny blades we
> > customarily think of as daggers in modern times would barely qualify as
> > utility knives back in the day.
>
> But at that size, the dagger would simply fold under the pressure of the
> blow, no matter how sharp it was.
No, Ron. Kindly learn engineering and try again. The whole point of
being a 'dagger' is that the device is shaped such that it can inflict
puncturing strikes without failing from the stresses.
> Anyway, I think you're barmy if you think one stab with a dagger is bound
> to kill... People can get stabbed repeatedly and live to tell about it.
And people can get stabbed once and die from infection caused by
ruptrued bowels three days later.
However, I would rather take a halfling's dagger than a giant's punch,
myself. It's unlikely to kill me on the spot, and it may not even get
anythign vital, and so I can probably get medical care. A giant's punch,
on the other hand, is guaranteed to inflict a mortal injury to nonheroic
sorts such as myself. There's no coming back from dead, last time I
checked.
-Michael