|
3 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2010 - 10:23AM
#111
|
|
|
If I've been reading this correctly, at an RPGA event a DM is hamstrung by RAW. The DM follows the rules as they are presented within the books/compendium/CB and errata.
Artoomis said that it was fine for the DM to rule the way he did if there was a valid interpretation of the power to back his ruling (which I agree with). I don't see this second mysterious reading of the power that would allow for the DM to think it wasn't an automatic kill power and so even though the DM was making the best call for game balance and non-stupidity's sake, I don't know if it was the right one without some sort of actual rules to back it up is all I was getting at.
Well, the RPGA rules don't say that a DM can't ever make a call about the way the rules come into play, because sometimes a DM has too.
Houseruling is different then making a call. The DM didn't house rule the power, he made a call on the limit of the power. Just like about being venurable to damage types doesn't cause a damage loop.
Vunerable 5 fire means you take 5 extra fire damage, but that extra damage doens't retrigger the vunerablity. Same here.
And we all know that no power causes an infinite damage loop, no matter what the wording is, especially at level 1.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2010 - 10:56AM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
You cannot go off of RaI because you do not actually know what the intention was. You can guess, but you have to know what the rules actually are. To use RaI only is to set yourself up with creating houserules where youare not allowed to make them (if you are a RPGA judge).
As Written is the only clear way to run things, especially in a formal tournament.
Well, the vast majority of RPGA judges in this thread (and in the one I started on the RPGA board) appear to disagree, making contrary opinions mostly moot (i.e. what any one player feels the judges are allowed to do is pretty much moot in face of what they ultimately will do).
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2010 - 11:16AM
#113
|
|
|
Saying you can't go off intentions, I disagree. But take it as a per case basis, rather then a general way to approach the game.
No one seems to be saying that the game designers are intending to put an insta kill power, even if you miss in the game at level one. In fact they have made a big point about saying they moved away from zap your dead, because that's not much fun to play.
So, here we are with this power. I'm confident in my assertion that the designers did not intend for this level 1 monk power to be an insta kill death loop at any level, even if you miss.
It's also clear from the rules, that damage from a triggering effect, doesn't retrigger the effect, the damage loop isn't the correct way to read the power.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2010 - 11:46AM
#114
|
|
|
If I've been reading this correctly, at an RPGA event a DM is hamstrung by RAW. The DM follows the rules as they are presented within the books/compendium/CB and errata.
Artoomis said that it was fine for the DM to rule the way he did if there was a valid interpretation of the power to back his ruling (which I agree with). I don't see this second mysterious reading of the power that would allow for the DM to think it wasn't an automatic kill power and so even though the DM was making the best call for game balance and non-stupidity's sake, I don't know if it was the right one without some sort of actual rules to back it up is all I was getting at.
Well, the RPGA rules don't say that a DM can't ever make a call about the way the rules come into play, because sometimes a DM has too.
Houseruling is different then making a call. The DM didn't house rule the power, he made a call on the limit of the power. Just like about being venurable to damage types doesn't cause a damage loop.
Vunerable 5 fire means you take 5 extra fire damage, but that extra damage doens't retrigger the vunerablity. Same here.
And we all know that no power causes an infinite damage loop, no matter what the wording is, especially at level 1.
I already posted why vunerable 5 doesn't have anything to do with the power in question. I repaste what I said
if that is how vulnerable 5 worked or worded then yes I could see some confusion or comparsions to the power in question.
From the compendium
A creature that is vulnerable to a specified damage type usually takes a specific amount of extra damage
This is pretty clear that the extra damage is not a separate source of damage, but adds to the damage taken from that source. It's pretty cut and dry what the intent of this is and what the raw is. This isn't a good example of what your trying to prove that the power can be read differently purely though a raw perspective
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2010 - 1:04PM
#115
|
|
|
...
This is pretty clear that the extra damage is not a separate source of damage, but adds to the damage taken from that source. It's pretty cut and dry what the intent of this is and what the raw is. This isn't a good example of what your trying to prove that the power can be read differently purely though a raw perspective
The Compendium is official, but it isn't errata. Until errata changes what's in the PHB, the PHB rules for vulnerability are valid.
"Oh bother." sighed Pooh as he chambered another round.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2010 - 1:13PM
#116
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
...
This is pretty clear that the extra damage is not a separate source of damage, but adds to the damage taken from that source. It's pretty cut and dry what the intent of this is and what the raw is. This isn't a good example of what your trying to prove that the power can be read differently purely though a raw perspective
The Compendium is official, but it isn't errata. Until errata changes what's in the PHB, the PHB rules for vulnerability are valid.
Not that this really matters, anyway.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2010 - 2:14PM
#117
|
|
|
...
This is pretty clear that the extra damage is not a separate source of damage, but adds to the damage taken from that source. It's pretty cut and dry what the intent of this is and what the raw is. This isn't a good example of what your trying to prove that the power can be read differently purely though a raw perspective
The Compendium is official, but it isn't errata. Until errata changes what's in the PHB, the PHB rules for vulnerability are valid.
what? I was talking about comparing the rules ofvulnerability are not valid comparison to the power in question
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2010 - 2:24PM
#118
|
|
|
If I've been reading this correctly, at an RPGA event a DM is hamstrung by RAW. The DM follows the rules as they are presented within the books/compendium/CB and errata.
Artoomis said that it was fine for the DM to rule the way he did if there was a valid interpretation of the power to back his ruling (which I agree with). I don't see this second mysterious reading of the power that would allow for the DM to think it wasn't an automatic kill power and so even though the DM was making the best call for game balance and non-stupidity's sake, I don't know if it was the right one without some sort of actual rules to back it up is all I was getting at.
Well, the RPGA rules don't say that a DM can't ever make a call about the way the rules come into play, because sometimes a DM has too.
Houseruling is different then making a call. The DM didn't house rule the power, he made a call on the limit of the power. Just like about being venurable to damage types doesn't cause a damage loop.
Vunerable 5 fire means you take 5 extra fire damage, but that extra damage doens't retrigger the vunerablity. Same here.
And we all know that no power causes an infinite damage loop, no matter what the wording is, especially at level 1.
I already posted why vunerable 5 doesn't have anything to do with the power in question. I repaste what I said
if that is how vulnerable 5 worked or worded then yes I could see some confusion or comparsions to the power in question.
From the compendium
A creature that is vulnerable to a specified damage type usually takes a specific amount of extra damage
This is pretty clear that the extra damage is not a separate source of damage, but adds to the damage taken from that source. It's pretty cut and dry what the intent of this is and what the raw is. This isn't a good example of what your trying to prove that the power can be read differently purely though a raw perspective
The rule is that extra damage from a triggered effect can't trigger the effect that causes extra damage, because it would cause a damage loop.
Damage from being vunerable is an example of that, but not the rule in and of it's self.
So, when a person takes the strength damage, it doesn't trigger the effect. Only an outside source can do that. That is a general rule, unless a power specifically says it ignores a general rule.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2010 - 4:53PM
#119
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
Let me put another spin on this. Let's say your Str 18 monk uses HT against two creatures with resist all 5. HT hits and deals, say, 12 damage by itself. How much damage would each creature finally take?
There's two ways to calculate it. You could say that the base damage is reduced by 5, so the creatures take 7 damage. Then the effect triggers, and that damage is reduced to zero. Then everything ends. I think that is how you (Rian) would apply it.
But you could also say that the resistance applies to the total damage inflicted by the power. So the creatures each take 12 damage, plus 4 more from the effect. The effect doesn't loop because the damage is all being calculated at once, and each creature only took damage once. Then you apply the resistance, to yield a net damage of 16-5 = 11.
Both interpretations are internally consistent with the power text. The second is much more consistent with the rest of the rules, since normally when a rider on a power adds damage, you add all the effects together before applying resistance. For instance, if a rogue sneak attacks and scores a crit, the extra sneak attack dice and crit dice are all added together before the resistance is subtracted. In the second interpretation, we are treating the extra damage from HT in that exact same way.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 19, 2010 - 4:57PM
#120
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
The other interpretation seems to me a lot like reading the description of vulnerability in the PHB: "If you have vulnerable 5 fire, then any time you take fire damage, you take an additional 5 fire damage" and concluding that vulnerability forms an infinite loop.
That's a very good point
if that is how vulnerable 5 worked or worded then yes I could see some confusion or comparsions to the power in question.
That was an exact quote from the PHB, was vulnerability intended to be an instant kill in the three core rule books?
|
|
|
