|
3 years ago ::
Apr 27, 2010 - 12:49AM
#141
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
Right, because a power that has multiple interpretations of the wording is equivilent to one that is just missing words.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 27, 2010 - 5:13AM
#142
|
|
|
Harmonious Thunder
You punch one foe, then spin and deliver a kick to another. Thunder rumbles in the distance, rolls closer, and explodes between your two foes.
Daily Implement, Psionic, Thunder
Standard Action Melee touch
Target: One or two creatures
Attack: Dexterity vs. Fortitude
Hit: 3d6 + Dexterity modifier thunder damage.
Miss: Half damage.
Effect: When one of the targets takes damage, the other target takes thunder damage equal to your Strength modifier. This effect lasts until the end of the encounter or until one of the targets drops to 0 hit points.
If the power itself, with its poor wording, makes it loop, then look to the flavor text. It doesn't say "You damage two targets and thunder bounces back and forth between your foes until one dies", or "You damage two targets, which causes thunder to damage them, which causes thunder to damage them, which causes (etc.)"... it says "You damage two targets and thunder hits."
Of course, this makes me curious. According to the effect, you hit one causes thunder damage to the second. You hit the second, causes thunder damage to the first. If you miss one or the other, that section's thunder damage doesn't go off. I'm assuming that's the intention?
effects always go off regardless if you hit or miss
When one takes damage the other does. So one guy gets hit fro damage and the other guys takes damage. Oh wait that guy now took damage and now the orginal takes damage..oh my the orginal guy took damage and now the other guy does and so on and so on
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 27, 2010 - 1:43PM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2008
|
effects always go off regardless if you hit or miss
When one takes damage the other does. So one guy gets hit fro damage and the other guys takes damage. Oh wait that guy now took damage and now the orginal takes damage..oh my the orginal guy took damage and now the other guy does and so on and so on
Sure, that way works, if we live in stupidtown, land of no common sense.
Blah blah blah
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 27, 2010 - 2:16PM
#144
|
|
|
effects always go off regardless if you hit or miss
When one takes damage the other does. So one guy gets hit fro damage and the other guys takes damage. Oh wait that guy now took damage and now the orginal takes damage..oh my the orginal guy took damage and now the other guy does and so on and so on
Sure, that way works, if we live in stupidtown, land of no common sense.
I don't say this often but....
LOL what?
RAW says that is how it works. RAI say this isn't how it works.
You will not find a single person on these boards who will say that is the intent of the power and it suppose to instantly kill a creature.
I think they hire blind lemures to playtest these rules sometimes 
This power will get errated on the next batches of FAQ
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 27, 2010 - 2:35PM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2007
|
Common decency trumps RPGA rules. DM wins.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 27, 2010 - 2:35PM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2007
|
So I read how teachers aren't allowed to touch students under any circumstances, so in Algebra I started mouthing off to my teacher. When he told me to go to detention I threw a chair at him and did this sweet kung fu kick, and he punched me in the face! Punched me! At a public school! Am I mad for no reason or is this wrong? 
(I employ zie/zie/zir as a gender-neutral counterpart to he/him/his. Just a heads-up.)
Essentials definitely isn't for me as a player, and I feel that its design and implementation bear serious flaws which fill me with concern for the future of D&D, but I've come to the conclusion that it isn't going to destroy the game that I want to play. Indeed, I think that I could probably run a game for players using Essentials characters without it being much of a problem at all. Time will tell, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2010 - 10:15AM
#147
|
|
|
No, one reading of RAW says thats how it works. Another reading says otherwise, and thats how any sane person would determine the correct reading.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2010 - 11:06AM
#148
|
|
|
No, one reading of RAW says thats how it works. Another reading says otherwise, and thats how any sane person would determine the correct reading.
There really isn't another way of reading RAW. RAW says in a nut shell one of the creatures will die.
Again that was not what was intended by this power, but reading the rule word for word and not thinking what was intended by the developers this power says one creature dies
I can't think of a single DM that doesn't houserule this one though
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2010 - 11:09AM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Jul 28, 2003
|
No, one reading of RAW says thats how it works. Another reading says otherwise, and thats how any sane person would determine the correct reading.
There really isn't another way of reading RAW. RAW says in a nut shell one of the creatures will die.
Again that was not what was intended by this power, but reading the rule word for word and not thinking what was intended by the developers this power says one creature dies
I can't think of a single DM that doesn't houserule this one though
It's already been shown that you can read this one of two ways per RAW. At this point, it's a matter on interpretation for which way to go. It seems obvious to me (and most) which is the correct interpretation.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2010 - 11:18AM
#150
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
It's already been shown that you can read this one of two ways per RAW.
Yes but one of those ways doesn't make sense within either the english language or the rules.
The other merely doesn't make sense in terms of it being too powerful.
|
|
|
