Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
No, that's not how rules work. If the rule specifies exceptional handling for one case but not for others, that doesn't mean that you should have it do some arbitrary thing you made up in all the other cases, it means that in the other cases it follows the regular rule. In the event that the carrier attack hits but does not penetrate, the follow-up also hits but interacts with the target's DR normally.
|
If you're the GM you can do whatever you want. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea, but I don't see any shenanigans coming out of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
There are balance problems with how linked damage works (2X points in one attack is almost always better than X points in each of two linked attacks), but making them cumulative against DR would be both a big hassle (for reasons gotten into above) and have its own balance problems (by using a cheap attack to start with, and then the expensive attack tacked on at the end).
|
The hassle isn't too bad, just require that it be noted when the attack is created. As for balace, compare Corrosion 1d + Impaling 2d (follow-up penetrating, +20%) [10+20] Vs. Impaling 2d (armor Divisor 3, +100%) [32] The first is better against low armored opponents, but not much moreso thanthe secod, while the second rapidly outpaces the first on DR greater than 6. There might be trouble if you allow Crushing or Toxic as the carrier, but that's easily enough vetoed, and makes no sense anyway.