Thus Spake Zargrabowski/AccuracyWithoutDistance - Revision history

Wordman: Script: fix links messed up in conversion

2010-06-09T04:10:49Z

Script: fix links messed up in conversion

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-06T01:18:05Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-05T08:08:22Z

link fix

Conversion script: link fix

2010-04-03T09:05:46Z

link fix

Hapushet: *

2005-10-29T01:10:27Z

New page

>>>This is still an appeal for an offical ruling on the usage of Accuracy Without Distance. The central question plauging us is if the "succead regardless of the roll" effect is applied before or after the target's defensive roll. As it is, we're not clear on if it's a compleately perfect attack, or just a way to overcome high difficulties and penalties.<<<

Unless the target has a perfect defense or one of the semi-perfect defenses where you just roll the Attribute + Ability against difficulty 1 and not the attack, they automatically hit you for one success.

Geoffrey C. Grabowski 
Exalted Developer, WWGS 
raindog@white-wolf.com
----

>>>Now the big question becomes, "how does AWD interact with Rain of Feathered Death"? If you can make -all- the duplicates automatically hit for a measly 1 mote + 1 wp, that's very powerful, especially if you go on to assume that the duplication occurs after damage-enhancers like Dazzling Flare Attack take effect (rather than saying that the cost must be paid separately for each duplicate). <<<

I'd probably charge the AWD fee once per shot but if they want every effective instance of an attack to have a damage enhancer, then I'd make them pay for each instance of that.

Geoffrey C. Grabowski 
Exalted Developer, WWGS 
raindog@white-wolf.com
----

/NonGCGComments

24-216-228-209.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com: *

2005-10-28T23:19:29Z

24-216-228-209.dhcp.mdfd.or.charter.com: *

2005-10-28T23:19:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:10, 9 June 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:
	----		----

−	[[Thus_Spake_Zargrabowski~~/AccuracyWithoutDistance~~/NonGCGComments]]	+	[[Thus_Spake_Zargrabowski/NonGCGComments]]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 I'd probably charge the AWD fee once per shot but if they want every effective instance of an attack to have a damage enhancer, then I'd make them pay for each instance of that.
 Geoffrey C. Grabowski<br>
@@ Line 21: / Line 17: @@
 ----
-/NonGCGComments
+[[Thus_Spake_Zargrabowski/AccuracyWithoutDistance/NonGCGComments]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:05, 3 April 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:
	----		----

−	/NonGCGComments	+	[[/NonGCGComments]]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 I'd probably charge the AWD fee once per shot but if they want every effective instance of an attack to have a damage enhancer, then I'd make them pay for each instance of that.
-      An argument keeps popping up, what about Arrow Consuming Flame Defense?
+An argument keeps popping up, what about Arrow Consuming Flame Defense?  It specifically says
-It specifically says that the arrow will be consumed by the flames stopping the arrow from doing any harm,
+that the arrow will be consumed by the flames stopping the arrow from doing any harm,
 AWD will always hit but will it be able to do any damage?

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 I'd probably charge the AWD fee once per shot but if they want every effective instance of an attack to have a damage enhancer, then I'd make them pay for each instance of that.
 Geoffrey C. Grabowski<br>
@@ Line 17: / Line 21: @@
 ----
-[[/NonGCGComments]]
+/NonGCGComments

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:18, 6 April 2010
(No difference)