|
1 year ago ::
Dec 06, 2011 - 5:42PM
#241
|
|
|
it explicitly says that you choose to invoke shrouds when before you attack
 Thank you for the incredibly important correction.
Snarkiness aside, some kind of rules reference for why we should not use the rules of the english language in order to read a power by default would be very highly appreciated.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 06, 2011 - 6:02PM
#242
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
What part of English leads you to believe that "before" means the same thing as "when"?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 06, 2011 - 6:05PM
#243
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
What part of English leads you to believe that "before" means the same thing as "when"?
I don't know for sure but I think he was talking about what I was referring to earlier - how "then" means immediately after. I could be wrong about his intent though. I made that conclusion since the focus of his post was the damage section, not the attack section.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 06, 2011 - 8:21PM
#244
|
|
|
What part of English leads you to believe that "before" means the same thing as "when"?
Are you joking? I'm not, if you were wondering. I really don't know if you're serious right now, or screwing with me.
I just don't have an easy time believing that any intelligent person could conclude that I was talking about the word "before", rather than "then."
:sigh: screw it. unless you can show a direct rules reference that shows that AS doesn't follow the basic rules of English, I can safely just ignore you.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 06, 2011 - 9:46PM
#245
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2011
|
What part of English leads you to believe that "before" means the same thing as "when"?
Are you joking? I'm not, if you were wondering. I really don't know if you're serious right now, or screwing with me.
I just don't have an easy time believing that any intelligent person could conclude that I was talking about the word "before", rather than "then."
:sigh: screw it. unless you can show a direct rules reference that shows that AS doesn't follow the basic rules of English, I can safely just ignore you.
While I personally thought it was fairly obvious what you were talking about, cmon man, have a bit of leniency for a mistake. I think that was a bit of a harsh reaction. You did use "then" in place of "before" earlier, and then didn't really respond to his correction.. Not in any serious way. It's a pretty valid correction, and I think he just assumed your post was a rebuttal to his correction, in his haste.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 06, 2011 - 9:48PM
#246
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
My point was that the "then" means the removal happens after you determine how much extra damage the attack does, but all of that happens before the attack roll, because that's what the first sentence in that paragraph says.
You don't need to be rolling damage to know you add 1d6 damage to that roll.
I'll give you that it's ambiguous, but that's another person accusing me of lying just because they disagree with me. You have to be intellectually honest and open about changing your mind in order for this discussion to be even slightly productive. Otherwise it just devolves into a shouting match of "NO UR RONG!" "NO U R!" I've been at this long enough to have dispensed with such silliness - I mean what I say, honestly and truly. And if you can demonstrate why I can't be right, then that makes me wrong. It's happened plenty of times, and it will happen plenty of times more.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 06, 2011 - 9:50PM
#247
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
You did use "then" "when" in place of "before" earlier, and then didn't really respond to his correction.. Not in any serious way. It's a pretty valid correction, and I think he just assumed your post was a rebuttal to his correction, in his haste.
No, it was not an error, and it was not done hastily, but yes this is what I was referring to. That the :eyeroll: and sarcasm was present indicated a flippant reaction to the correction, when in fact the word "before" really is the premise for my entire argument. It's not a trivial detail, it is the core. That he thinks it is a trivial detail is the error that I'm trying to point out.
Replaced "then" with "when." He said "when" originally.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 06, 2011 - 10:02PM
#248
|
|
|
My point was that the "then" means the removal happens after you determine how much extra damage the attack does, but all of that happens before the attack roll, because that's what the first sentence in that paragraph says.
You don't need to be rolling damage to know you add 1d6 damage to that roll.
I'll give you that it's ambiguous, but that's another person accusing me of lying just because they disagree with me. You have to be intellectually honest and open about changing your mind in order for this discussion to be even slightly productive. Otherwise it just devolves into a shouting match of "NO UR RONG!" "NO U R!" I've been at this long enough to have dispensed with such silliness - I mean what I say, honestly and truly. And if you can demonstrate why I can't be right, then that makes me wrong. It's happened plenty of times, and it will happen plenty of times more.
Dammit. OK, stop for a second. My apologies. I did not intend to give you the impression of an accusation of dishonesty regarding any part of your argument about when shrouds disapear.
I was [halfway jokingly] accusing you of pulling my leg in reference to the misunderstanding about my meaning in the post wherein I rolled my eyes at the correction and moved immediately back to the topic of the thread.
And Velkon was right, my reaction was harsh in that case as well. For that, I also apologize.
But I'm still not seeing how the paragraph does anything except detail the shrouds as being invoked, damage being dealt, and then shrouds being removed.
and it was a slip of the tongue (read: keyboard). Of course, the placement (in time) of the shroud invocation doesn't impact the fact that the wording of the power clearly states that the removal happens last, after damage is dealt. At most, you could argue that you resolve shroud damage before rolling normal damage, and then the shrouds disapear, but even that is a stretch.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 06, 2011 - 11:10PM
#249
|
|
|
You can not determine the amount of shroud damage before making the attack roll because the success of the attack determines the number of d6s rolled for that damage.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Dec 07, 2011 - 7:04AM
#250
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
You can not determine the amount of shroud damage before making the attack roll because the success of the attack determines the number of d6s rolled for that damage.
Quite the opposite. What happens when you invoke the shrouds (which is before the attack roll) tells you how much damage you add to the attack (which changes based on hit or miss, as specified). After you have this knowledge, the shrouds vanish, because that's what the "what happens when you invoke shrouds" text says to do.
You don't have to be rolling damage to know that because you invoked two shrouds, the attack will deal +2d6 damage on a hit and +1d6 damage on a miss.
The invocation happens before the attack roll, and the shrouds disappear when you invoke. The attack roll happens before the damage roll, which means the shrouds are gone when damage is applied. That you already knew to add 2d6 or 1d6 does not mean that half of the invocation happens when the invocation says it happens and the other half at some other arbitrary time that makes sense to you but isn't actually stated anywhere. The "then" is not saying "after the damage roll, the shrouds vanish." It's saying "After you have counted and invoked X Shrouds to determine the added damage, the shrouds vanish." If the shrouds were to vanish after the damage roll completes they would have to say so, otherwise they vanish as part of the "if you invoke the shrouds" part of the sentence.
Seriously, it may be a pedantic, annoying argument, but you really can't make assumptions about these sort of timing effects without all sorts of problems. It's confusing, inconsistent, and counterintuitive, yes, but it is what the power says.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
