|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 1:56PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Somehow I doubt that anyone would be arguing that it retains the Fire type if Slashing Kama instead said "ongoing lightning damage equal to the damage your FoB would have dealt." Why it would be assumed that they didn't mean what they said when they left it untyped is something I question.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 1:59PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Several threads have attempted to hash out just how in the world damage keywords are meant to work. I don't think anyone really knows. And one possible view is that if a power has a keyword, then yes, all damage dealt by that power is of that keyword. It does run against some otherwise reasonable situations like you showed, but it also creates a uniform, simple, and consistent basis with which to adjudicate keywords.
I put in a claim to know how they do work, whether that's the way they're meant to work is another story.
"if a power has a keyword, all damage dealt by that power is of that keyword" is simply incorrect. Not only does it render an enormous number of powers broken by RAW if you do it that way, it's not what the keyword and type rules in the RC tell you to do.
"if a power has a keyword, it must deal damage of that type" and
"if a power has a keyword, all of its damage must be of that type"
are two very different things. The rules say the former, and not the latter.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 2:48PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2006
|
Again, I understand. I am not claiming your position isn't valid.
How do we know they did not intend the kama damage to remain the same type as the initial source? They way it is worded now is one possible way to write it to mean that. Granted, it would be written poorly if that was their intent, but it is as equally poorly written if they meant it to be untyped. Hence two equally valid interpretations.
And same as before. Both ways to read the keyword rule leads to ridiculous situations that cause the rules to break in different places. That one is just simpler to quickly adjudicate in a consistent manner is a good reason to support it. And that it doesn't say "all" is irrelevant. Both are logical results of the wording since it fails to specify singular or uniform application.
Point is, the keyword RAW is a mess. The best we can do for these kind of rule sections is identify the ways it could be interpreted, highlight the implications of the different readings, and maybe suggest which seems to approximate the RAI (if possible). Asserting an indisputable claim of RAW one way or another serves no constructive purpose, and is something I wish the boards would learn to steer away from.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 4:16PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I can guarantee you that they intended it to be untyped for two reasons:
1) they did not anticipate the possibility of a non-untyped FoB when they wrote the feat (which was PHB3, I believe - ages ago).
2) the feat is themed after cutting someone with a sharp blade, which leads to bleeding, which is represented in numerous instances by untyped ongoing damage.
Just because you can find a justification for an interpretation does not mean that it is valid. That you claim that you think the lack of the "all" is irrelevant demonstrates to me that you fundamentally don't understand how damage keywords work. I give the following example:
PowerName of Awesome Death
Implement, Arcane, (Damage Type Keywords?)
Hit: 1d10 lightning damage, and each creature adjacent takes 1d6 thunder damage.
The only possible result based on the damage the power deals is to have both the Lightning and Thunder keywords. That everyone agrees on. However, what you are claiming would make this power impossible, as written, since by your allegedly "equally valid" interpretation, the only possible damage this power could do is the following:
PowerName of Awesome Death
Implement, Arcane, Lightning, Thunder
Hit: 1d10 lightning and thunder damage, and each creature adjacent takes 1d6 lightning and thunder damage.
Those are two completely different. You can't say that the "all" not being there is irrelevant, because under your interpretation the following Hit lines are also invalid, even though the rules don't actually say what you are claiming they say:
Hit: 1d10 lightning damage and 5 ongoing thunder damage
Hit: 1d10 thunder damage and each creature adjacent takes 1d6 lightning damage
Hit: 1d10 lightning and thunder damage and 5 ongoing damage
Hit: 1d10 damage, and ongoing 5 thunder and lightning damage
To further explain, each one of these, including the original, meets the "if a power has a keyword, it must deal damage of that type" rule. They each deal lightning damage, and they each deal thunder damage. However not a single one, other than the second, meets the "if a power has a keyword, all of its damage must be of that type" rule. Your interpretation means that all damage is of a combined damage type, but that's not what the rule says. You're just incorrect.
The keyword RAW used to be a mess, but the RC fixed the vast majority of cases. Further errors are almost always due to misreading the rules.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 4:41PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2006
|
The keyword RAW is still completely jacked up. There are several powers that have the thunder keyword, but do NO thunder damage. That doesn't make them "impossible." It just means they are written poorly in connection to the rules. And take your Power of Awesome Death example (the first one). What if there are no adjacent creatures? That means no thunder damage is dealt, making it just as "impossible" to have the keyword unless the initial damage also has the type.
Not treating it as universal has as equally absurd and obviously non RAI implications as well. If you get a +1 to hit with fire powers and twinstrike with one weapon that does fire damage and a second that does cold, only the COLD attack gets the bonus to hit. That, strictly speaking, if a power is not doing damage, it is not doing damage with a type so therefore it loses the keywords until it does do damage. Keywords from zones and ongoing make no sense if the damage fails to trigger for one reason or another.
I also ask that you not resort to making claims about me. You can demonstrate all of that without such statements.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 5:16PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Feb 23, 2012
|
The only problem with that is the part about keywords that states if you remove keywords, the power loses those keywords. So by that statement, losing fire on the Slashing Kama Style target would mean that the power would lose the fire keyword. It would be different if it was like that from the beginning. However, it has has fire then it has fire removed with the ruling that Slashing Kama Style is untyped. While it does not say that it stays fire or goes untyped, there is also nothing in the rules that would keep the rest of the attack as fire.
If it was just a matter of doing two different keywords or if part was fire and part was something else then I could see it.
Slashing Kama Style is from Dragon #404 not the PHB3.
Edit: I still say 5 fire != 5 untyped because keywords matter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 10:10PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2012
|
Can i ask why hellfire master can not be used, since while there is speculation to whether the damage type remains, the power allowing you do the damge is the desert wind flurry of blows which does have the fire keyword. Since the hellfire master does not need the ongoing damage to be fire, it just needs it to be caused by a fire power, right???
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 10:34PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Hellfire Master should work fine since the Ongoing damage is still an effect bestowed by a Fire attack (Desert Wind Flurry of Blows) even if it doesn`t deal Fire damage in and of itself.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
