|
3 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2010 - 1:53PM
#151
|
Date Joined:
Sep 24, 2009
|
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.
I beg to differ. How does "assuming that the damage occurs at the exact same time for both targets" not make sense within the rules or the English language?
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.
You do not have to read this such that they ping pong back and forth with a fraction of a round in between each taking damage. In fact, I would think that it would be necessary for time constraints to read it as though the damage happens at the same time, much in the same way that a burst or blast attack occurs instantaneously for all targets.
-TheNative
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2010 - 3:51PM
#152
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
Because occuring at the same time or not is totally irrelevant to it causing a loop, it just means the damage is infinite instantly. As well as being there not being any rules support for "simultaneous damage prevents loops from occuring."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2010 - 11:47PM
#153
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2007
|
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 was suppose to loop, or even instantly kill an enemy, then why did the author even bother writing that Effect: line above? Would it not have been easier just to write:
Effect: You kill one of the targets.
_________________________________________________
"Jacking up the level rewards has always carried the taint of bribery, in my mind. If people need to be bribed to play D&D, then something's wrong with the game."
-Steve Winter (http://www.howlingtower.com/2012/01/illusory-math.html)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 28, 2010 - 11:57PM
#154
|
Date Joined:
Jun 10, 2002
|
What it is was obviously intended to do and what it actually does don't match. That's the whole point.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2010 - 12:27AM
#155
|
|
|
Because occuring at the same time or not is totally irrelevant to it causing a loop, it just means the damage is infinite instantly. As well as being there not being any rules support for "simultaneous damage prevents loops from occuring."
The laws of casuality prevent the loop in this case. WotC doesn't make ALL the rules. At any rate if you agree that the power sucks as per your interpretation due to an infinite loop and thetr is a another interpretation that prevents the loop, why not at least try to use the better reading rather than wait for a rules update that may or may not be necessary? I mean what's the use of being right if being right is exactly what you don't want?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2010 - 5:36AM
#156
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2004
|
Because occuring at the same time or not is totally irrelevant to it causing a loop, it just means the damage is infinite instantly. As well as being there not being any rules support for "simultaneous damage prevents loops from occuring."
I'm a little surprised that you don't see the point here.
How exactly do you think the rule is violated if if it doesn't loop? The Effect is technically satisfied as long as each target takes the extra damage once.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2010 - 5:58AM
#157
|
|
|
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 was suppose to loop, or even instantly kill an enemy, then why did the author even bother writing that Effect: line above? Would it not have been easier just to write:
Effect: You kill one of the targets.
because that was the intent of the power. The way it's written it says one of the two is instanly dead
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2010 - 6:14AM
#158
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2003
|
I went to a D&D Gameday awhile ago, and the DM was just awful. Now I know why. The only DMs they have left are the ones willing to put with this sort of nonsense. 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2010 - 6:24AM
#159
|
Date Joined:
Feb 27, 2010
|
Only a complete idiot would believe that the designers would intentionly create a power that created an infinite damage loop between 2 targets (or any number of targets), and only the worst kind of player would complain about it being ruled against regardes of being RPGA or otherwise. The power itself is quite obvious in what it is designed to do and the infinite damage loop being talked about to my view is no less than intentional cheating.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Apr 29, 2010 - 11:20AM
#160
|
|
|
Only a complete idiot would believe that the designers would intentionly create a power that created an infinite damage loop between 2 targets (or any number of targets), and only the worst kind of player would complain about it being ruled against regardes of being RPGA or otherwise. The power itself is quite obvious in what it is designed to do and the infinite damage loop being talked about to my view is no less than intentional cheating.
this topic has turned into what the RAW on the power is. The raw says the power does infinite damage. but again that was not the intent of the power.
|
|
|
