First of all, I'm starting this thread NOT to make any argument, but as an intellectual-type discussion, because we had a brief in-game discussion about it, it was mentioned that an out of game discussion here on the BB would make sense, and because the traffic on the site is just too darn low!

Note:   Steve, no need to make Rule Shrew comments, we're not shrewing here, just using the books as a guideline and deciding how we're going to do it.  I think.   



That said...


However the following paragraph states:


(There is also a critical hit section on P140 in the sidebar at the bottom, but it's the same wording)

I admit it is poorly written so as to beg the question, "What is normal damage for a weapon?"

I did some research for this same discussion online, and came up with the following:
 
here:  http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-219792.html

and here:  http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7604849


So from all that I'd say that Dan was correct and I was wrong; taking the comment from one of the threads I found:



To sum up:  If it's a +x sword, the x is multiplied, as are strength bonuses and any other bonus that is fixed.  If it's a  special thing that does an extra 1-6 points, that damage is only added once, as is Sneak Attack damage and any other ranged damage bonus. 

Flat bonus = multiplied.  Range bonus = not multiplied.

Agree?  Disagree?  Commentary welcome.








* my apologies for being dimwitted last Saturday.  On Sunday I found out I had a severe double ear infection.  I now understand why children cry when they have them.

I didn't notice any extra dimwittedness.......

I hope you are feeling better.

Ahh, so you only noticed the NORMAL amount of dimwittedness.    I guess that's good. 



I am, thanks.  Starting late yesterday afternoon I stopped feeling worse and had more energy.

OK, so it's been a while since I checked even though it was my suggestion to put this up for discussion here.  In any case, there's not much point in discussing it after one side of the argument has conceded to the other side and even done the research to support the other side of the argument.  Well done!  Thanks for saving us the time and trouble of having a discussion.

Of course, the downside is that the site traffic will remain low 

Perhaps you can recall another point of contention for us to discuss.

 

Well said!

You know, of all the times I'd played in 3.5, strangely, this rule never came up for me....I mean I'd read the pertinent parts of the rulebook and it was a "when it comes up, I'll look at it more closely" thing.  I'd always had criticals at lower levels, without any magical bonus.

Now....let's see if I can come up with a bone of contention....or at least one that we haven't contended over before!!   

Contention here you go...

PUCS, why did it fail?

My guess it a combo of two things: 
1.  Lack of interest from folks who didn't want to learn a new system that wasn't as realistic (rule heavy) as some other games.

2.  And ironically, we got away form the basic principle of keeping it simple with minimal rules when we kept introducing new rules.

yes, combat worked great, magic hosed everything up

I guess we're all power gamers at heart....since without magic it would be hit and run, rest up for several days, then do it again.

Well as you know, I've never much enjoyed the magical part of the game.  Monsters I like, magic not so much.  Magical monsters, not a problem.

PUCS:  I think all the changes we made for melee to accommodate magic made it overly complex.  We should have stuck with either 1 action pre second or all actions per combatant in order of initiative.  Once we went with 10 second round and keeping track of actions per round... it sucked.

So If I had it to do over... One action per second.  Magic would work the same way... magic being more of psyionic action.  Oh well.