|
I find it entertaining how you guys seem to be arguing over exactly how not-weapon-damage various kinds of effects are when, to my knowledge, this has essentially zero practical implications *and* complicates the ruleset simultaneously.
Wait, not entertaining. Disappointing. That's the word I was looking for.
(Note: To be clear, I only think that abilities that require attack rolls count as weapon damage. Things like Stone Call or Spike Stones do not count as weapons *or* weapon damage because it they do not require an attack roll.)
OP is rude. I agree he is looking for someone to specifically bring proof for his desired interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it entertaining how you guys seem to be arguing over exactly how not-weapon-damage various kinds of effects are when, to my knowledge, this has essentially zero practical implications *and* complicates the ruleset simultaneously.
Wait, not entertaining. Disappointing. That's the word I was looking for.
(Note: To be clear, I only think that abilities that require attack rolls count as weapon damage. Things like Stone Call or Spike Stones do not count as weapons *or* weapon damage because it they do not require an attack roll.)
I think most people involved in the conversation at one point or another have asked whether the distinction is ultimately something that matters. Or they've asked about why the OP really wants the question answered.
That's pretty much how I responded. "I don't know that it matters, but if it does, this is my answer..."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I tell you my hidden motive you can with an absolute certainty explain to everyone how to correctly define what weapon damage is... interesting.
It would help. We're not able to specifically answer your question because you what you asked is vague in the extreme.
We can help you solve individual cases, we cannot provide you with a catch-all answer to something you aren't even attempting to properly explain. On top of that, you're being very adversarial.
I find it entertaining how you guys seem to be arguing over exactly how not-weapon-damage various kinds of effects are when, to my knowledge, this has essentially zero practical implications *and* complicates the ruleset simultaneously.
Wait, not entertaining. Disappointing. That's the word I was looking for.
I find it disappointing that you deem yourself worthy to judge the intentions, desires, or actions of anyone, anywhere, anytime.
No one is forcing you to be here or take part.
Some people enjoy these kinds of discussions and the mental stimulation it brings, even if there isn't any kind of significant end result. Whenever you get to the place where you don't find it enjoyable you should find something else constructive to do with your time. Those kinds of comments don't help anyone with anything and make you seem unsavory at best.