TRPG General Chat

1:02 AM

So... Sister's work got hacked. Password on their Accounting software changed. That threw up a red flag. Apparently the PC itself was doing all sorts of weird stuff for about a month (closing, randomly shutting down, Windows Explorer restarting.

Went in and basically formatted the PC, re-installed windows, and told them to change all their passwords

trogdor

Sheesh

Sounds scary and annoying

Ben

Yeah, definitely. I went over and did that all as a "favour", but I'll be sending them an invoice for some Firewall hardware... I daresay they'll definitely be going for it after that haha

trogdor

I would

Isn't a firewall generally software though?

Ben

1:24 AM

@trogdor Well, yeah. Lol. But this is technically considered firewall "hardware" as it is a dedicated piece of hardware that runs and manages the firewall and network security.

Ben

1:34 AM

And it runs in place of your modem, so it's first-line of defense for your entire network. There's no chance of any malicious software getting into you network and hiding in a corner - it has to get past the firewall first.

trogdor

Ah ok

Makes sense

The Oracle

2:17 AM

1

Q: 2018 200-word RPGs: user testimonials

The 2018 200-word RPG contest results have arrived. You can see the finalists here or all 2018 entries. If you're not aware, the 200-word RPG contest is a free, public competition in which numerous stackizens have participated over the years. Here we collect stackizen reflections/reviews/impr...

1

Q: Established homebrew specifics: is asking on topic?

Is it on topic to ask about the specifics of established homebrew content (such as the house rules used by Matt Mercer on Critical Role) or where such things can be found?

discussion on-topic

Joel Harmon

3:14 AM

@nitsua60 I'd say the Letters to the Home Front game takes on a very weird twist if you read it literally as "losing moral" rather than the presumable intent, "losing morale".

nitsua60

@JoelHarmon Thank you! I'd meant to put a note about s/moral/morale, and you reminded me =)

Joel Harmon

I coudn't not read it that way, so it lost a bit of impact (for me).

nitsua60

Understandable.

Joel Harmon

In my mind, it turned into a setup where a pair of rogues were inflicting morality on each other, and that could be a good game, too.

Ben

trogdor

3:55 AM

That definitely makes Aladin look like a jerk

XD

ravery

4:07 AM

Have I misstated this answer: rpg.stackexchange.com/a/129590/42354. or are they nitpicking because it is not the answer he wanted.

Ben

4:19 AM

@ravery Yeah, you've misstated the rule. The Whirlwind requires an attack action, as do any other POW attacks. (As the other answer points out). So, while you are correct in saying no it can't be used like that, it's because you can use one or the other, because both require an attack action to use.

Not because a POW grants any additional bonuses, or anything like that. They just simply can't be used together.

ravery

@Ben -- noted, though I think the phrase I quoted is integral to that...ie if level 5 with extra attacks, you still could not include POW with WWA.

though you could do a POW twice

Ben

@ravery If at an time you have the ability to use 2 attack actions, you can use both in the same turn

ravery

not sure about that. WWA forbids extra attacks from abilities. It uses your entire attack. but gives an attack on every creature in range.

Ben

@ravery Attack actions are different to attacks.

I can't quote/link the rule right now, but as an example, some monsters get multiple attacks as part of one attack action.

ravery

"When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks " and "you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities."... thus if you use WWA, you only get the one "attack".

Ben

4:30 AM

Here's a rpg.se question about it

Yes, some feats let you attack more than once per attack action.

WWA states that as part of that attack action, you forfeit those extra attacks

ravery

yes, and natrural multiattack. but WWA specifically states that it uses all of your attacks. or Uses your full Attack Action, if that is worded better

Ben

That's the important distinction. An attack action is different to an attack. The rule states that you give up additional attacks, not additional attack actions

So say I had a natural multi attack. If I used WWA, I would not be able to use my second attack, granted by the multi attack. But, if I had 2 Attack Actions, I could use WWA, then in my next Attack Action, I could use my multi attack, or even another WWA (if the feat would allow).

ravery

I may be missing something because of ver differences, but as I understand: you have one Attack Action, which may include multiple attacks. If this is the case, the wording of WWA says it can not be used with any other attack

Ben

@ravery Yes. The way that wording usually works is that it only states what it refers to. Since it has no effect on multiple attack actions, it doesn't mention it.

ravery

though I guess there are some feats that allow an attack as a Bonus Action

Ben

4:39 AM

The way WWA works in a turn:

Attack Action 1: WWA. Any other feats and additional attacks are negated.
Attack Action 2: (Multi Attack) Attack; Attack.

Miniman

@ravery ...Pathfinder doesn't even have bonus actions.

ravery

@Ben ok, got that .. but seems to support my answer, as the question was if he could use a POW Strike as the WWA attack...

OP doesn't seem to like that he's being told no

but anyway I'm more familiar with D&D than pathfinder

Ben

4:56 AM

To be more specific:

Attack Action 1: WWA
Attack Action 2: POW

That's how the rule is interpreted.

As for "not liking being told no", well no one really does, especially when they come up with a cool idea, only for it to be shot down. But that doesn't mean it's going to affect how the vote on your answer, especially with such an experienced user as the OP.

ravery

@Ben yes, but the OP wants to use POW as the melee attack used in WWA, since it states "make a melee attack", not "attack with a melee weapon" so seems that the part I quoted is the relevant restriction...

Ben

@ravery those two are the same thing, more or less; but that has nothing to do with this problem. It doesn't matter what the requirements of the POW attack are, the fact is that both WWA, and POW each require an attack action.

ravery

yes, I know it didn't effect the vote (I've deleted my answer).

@Ben along those lines, could POW be applied to multiattack or to only one of the attacks?

Ben

5:11 AM

That's a whole other question haha.

ravery

yes, I know :)

Ben

It depends on what you're trying to do, but basically, if your POW action is only an attack, then yes, you would be able to get another attack in, if your feats/abilities allow.

Pending some clarification stating otherwise

ravery

One of the reasons I never really got into 3.5e or pathfinder. The rules were growing exponentially, and opened up a lot of rules lawyering.

Ben

@ravery They are huge games, yeah. Lol