tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35589784.post2817492242230759192..comments2024-03-01T00:37:58.699-08:00Comments on SAVE OR DIE!: The Ultimate Sandbox: Supplement I - Greyhawk Part 3Nathan P. Mahneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01184246437497081701noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35589784.post-64435072985958368892014-07-06T20:19:11.660-07:002014-07-06T20:19:11.660-07:00Mr. Howell, I like your style. You've hit on ...Mr. Howell, I like your style. You've hit on a solution that is not only by-the-book, but that also makes decent real-world sense. I salute you!<br /><br />Also, it's pretty safe to say that nearly every book Gary Gygax ever wrote needed to be rewritten for clarity.Nathan P. Mahneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184246437497081701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35589784.post-91399638758223632762014-07-06T11:31:46.706-07:002014-07-06T11:31:46.706-07:00Far too late for your needs, but I think I underst...Far too late for your needs, but I think I understand what this line was trying to say. It's just badly worded.<br /><br />The natural interpretation of:<br /><br />"attacks from the right and/or rear consider armor only when two or more opponents attack"<br /><br />is to read "only" as modifiying the following phrase, "when two or more opponents attack". In other words, a single opponent gets to ignore armor when attacking from these directions. This is where you're running into trouble, since that's a rather crazy idea, though apparently it's the interpretation you chose.<br /><br />I think what was actually intended was for "only" to modify "armor". Thus, by "armor only", they meant "armor without shield". In other words, when you are attacked by multiple attackers, and one is coming from the right or rear, that attacker gets to ignore your shield, because in this situation your shield is committed to fending off the other opponents.<br /><br />Basically, the sentence badly needed to be rewritten for clarity.Colin Howellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16260291960921882366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35589784.post-28409276748352805492009-03-18T21:55:00.000-07:002009-03-18T21:55:00.000-07:00In the interests of keeping it as 'by-the-book...In the interests of keeping it as 'by-the-book' as possible, I have come up with an absurd yet plausible working here.<BR/><BR/>I may interpret the line thus: Basically, if a guy attacks you from the rear or the side you don't have a shield (and he's attacking by himself) he is able to carefully aim a blow that bypasses all armor. He can't do it if there are two attackers, because they put each other off.<BR/><BR/>So there - by the book, and it kinda-sorta makes D&D sense.Nathan P. Mahneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184246437497081701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35589784.post-88558220967921694882009-03-18T17:29:00.000-07:002009-03-18T17:29:00.000-07:00The subtleties of the legal mind are equal to the ...The subtleties of the legal mind are equal to the emergency. The thing is really quite simple; the insertion of a single word will do it. Let it stand that "attacks from the right and/or rear consider armor <B>adjustments</B> only when two or more opponents attack" and there you are, out of your difficulty at once! <BR/><BR/>Riffs on Iolanthe aside, once you consider Shield to be part of AC it almost makes sense...Joshua Macyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10838733328132877699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35589784.post-23538700515288330092009-03-18T17:14:00.000-07:002009-03-18T17:14:00.000-07:00That would make sense, but it's the exact opposite...That would make sense, but it's the exact opposite of what is actually stated.Nathan P. Mahneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01184246437497081701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35589784.post-4266373194091540382009-03-18T05:32:00.000-07:002009-03-18T05:32:00.000-07:00I think it's got to mean shields, and that you onl...I think it's got to mean shields, and that you only lose the shield bonus for being attacked from the right or rear if there's at least one other attacker to keep you from just turning around to interpose the shield.Joshua Macyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10838733328132877699noreply@blogger.com