|
Post by Scott on Feb 11, 2011 9:16:04 GMT -5
If you use the weapon vs. AC type adjustments, do you think they should apply to magical staves, specifically a Staff of Striking? The adjustments for staves are tough, to the point where using a staff against any heavy armor should be useless. So is the magic staff damage contingent to a good solid hit, or does the magic allow a ‘touch attack’ type of effect?
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Feb 11, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Hmmm... I never really thought about it in those terms. I would say that a staff of striking maybe imbues a "magical impact" damage that is not dependent on wood striking metal armor. ^__^
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Feb 11, 2011 13:01:05 GMT -5
To clarify that thought: Ordinarily, a wooden staff striking metal armor (especially if padded) wouldn't do any real damage; but a Staff of Striking might imbue a "magical shockwave" that does penetrate armor...
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 11, 2011 13:09:10 GMT -5
That's how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 7, 2012 12:09:07 GMT -5
I've only used AC adjustments for actual armored opponents in the tiebreaker situation or the one-on-one duel as per the official "its up to you" stand on them.
In both situations, I'd rule for the penalty otherwise it wouldn't be considered in a roomful of opponents in standard group (party or large scale) play. However, if a player wanted to be a stickler for every point I'd rule in the penalty, etc. in his case.
|
|
|
Post by Merkholz on Nov 8, 2012 7:17:22 GMT -5
What about a staff of withering? It makes sense that it must touch the victim in order to rot away flesh.
How about rods? What weapon do they compare to? Is a proficiency required?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 8, 2012 9:17:18 GMT -5
What about a staff of withering? It makes sense that it must touch the victim in order to rot away flesh. To restate the obvious a hit would definitely be required. In regards to what I said in my previous post specifically as I play it "officially" I'd rule the same: Weapon (incl staff) no ac adj unless: A) tiebreaker (spell or spell effect is in use, general "big monster panic" has started with players "nickeling and diming", etc.) B) or one-on-one duel. So when I play a magical staff would hit with no ac adj against armored opponents as if they had natural armor until the players deliberately slow down the pace for their own advantage with piling-on (thieves demanding multipliers when surprise is over, spellcasters casting spells in combat, etc.) However this is just the way I have adapted the rule AC adj. to fit the Gygax spirit of moving along and keeping it official feeling. There are other ways to implement by having ac adj. hit just armored opponents and not natural armored but this is too revealing to the players I've found. (Disclosing what type armor when they might not know.). NOTE: AC adj. came up in a conversation that I had with Gary and I told him how I did a lot of combat and he just reiterated what he's said over and over is that they were just in there for wargamers. However I followed with that those adjustments are an element that conjures the feel which was easily lost on many D&D fans years later and he concurred. So for me it always must be considered even if not using. How about rods? What weapon do they compare to? Is a proficiency required? It would roughly look like a king's scepter (sceptre) and MIGHT be analogous to a D&D "mace" (a short pole with a ball or flange) however the only example of it being considered "metal" and a "weapon" is the rod of lordly might so otherwise it would be treated as nothing in regards to weapon proficiency but the ROLM would be a considered as a mace. So I play it as most rods may be of less sturdy material and scepter-like and are touch unless noted.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jan 28, 2018 16:40:50 GMT -5
If you use the weapon vs. AC type adjustments, do you think they should apply to magical staves, specifically a Staff of Striking? The adjustments for staves are tough, to the point where using a staff against any heavy armor should be useless. So is the magic staff damage contingent to a good solid hit, or does the magic allow a ‘touch attack’ type of effect? I am looking into this staff of striking weapon type versus AC type ruling, to be ready to determine results when Lareth is encountered in the VOH module adventure? Maybe that's why Lareth keeps a mace on hand for a weapon he would prefer to use against heavily armored adversaries, instead of his staff of striking. I have not DM'ed Lareth in the past as a two handed fighting style with the staff of striking in his primary hand and mace as a secondary handed weapon, since this was added in TOEE {I guess to match VOH module cover artwork?} and not part of the original VOH module text. As depicted in TOEE it seems contra to DMG dual weapon fighting rules? Unless Lareth is intended as a giant human, akin to bugbear sized, then he might use the mace as a thrown weapon?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jan 29, 2018 10:26:59 GMT -5
If you use the weapon vs. AC type adjustments, do you think they should apply to magical staves, specifically a Staff of Striking? The adjustments for staves are tough, to the point where using a staff against any heavy armor should be useless. So is the magic staff damage contingent to a good solid hit, or does the magic allow a ‘touch attack’ type of effect? I am looking into this staff of striking weapon type versus AC type ruling, to be ready to determine results when Lareth is encountered in the VOH module adventure? Maybe that's why Lareth keeps a mace on hand for a weapon he would prefer to use against heavily armored adversaries, instead of his staff of striking. I have not DM'ed Lareth in the past as a two handed fighting style with the staff of striking in his primary hand and mace as a secondary handed weapon, since this was added in TOEE {I guess to match VOH module cover artwork?} and not part of the original VOH module text. As depicted in TOEE it seems contra to DMG dual weapon fighting rules? Unless Lareth is intended as a giant human, akin to bugbear sized, then he might use the mace as a thrown weapon? Ok, I looked up and found the staff of striking answer: per DMG "if weapon vs. armor type adjustment is made, the staff of striking is always treated as the most favorable weapon type vs. any armor"
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Jan 29, 2018 13:09:17 GMT -5
I am looking into this staff of striking weapon type versus AC type ruling, to be ready to determine results when Lareth is encountered in the VOH module adventure? Maybe that's why Lareth keeps a mace on hand for a weapon he would prefer to use against heavily armored adversaries, instead of his staff of striking. I have not DM'ed Lareth in the past as a two handed fighting style with the staff of striking in his primary hand and mace as a secondary handed weapon, since this was added in TOEE {I guess to match VOH module cover artwork?} and not part of the original VOH module text. As depicted in TOEE it seems contra to DMG dual weapon fighting rules? Unless Lareth is intended as a giant human, akin to bugbear sized, then he might use the mace as a thrown weapon? Ok, I looked up and found the staff of striking answer: per DMG "if weapon vs. armor type adjustment is made, the staff of striking is always treated as the most favorable weapon type vs. any armor" This makes Lareth even tougher! On average +3 additional bonus to hit weapon vs. armor class adjustment when using the staff of striking.
|
|