Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Red Box Monsters: Hints of Changes to Come?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5360224" data-attributes="member: 51942"><p>Right, so entering one square is unsplittably linked with leaving another. That's perfectly obvious, on the face of it, but the point is that there may be other such linkages as well. The obvious question being: can you resolve damage (including resistances, vulnerabilities and temporary hitpoints) without actually taking any? </p><p></p><p>Compare with attack rolls: when an attack roll is interrupted, and things like shield resolve <em>before</em> the hit, the effects of the attack roll aren't "saved" for later; you need to reevalutate the attack roll after the interrupt. You may say that the <em>attack roll</em> wasn't changed by shield, but just the seperate (and subsequent) notion of <em>hit</em> that involves comparing with AC, so that's OK; the <em>hit </em>is the trigger - not the attack roll and just the <em>hit</em> is negated. But many other powers don't work that way. </p><p></p><p>Consider Wizard's Escape: this power interrupts a hit and (RAI) teleports a wizard out of harms way. At that point, the wizard has clearly already been targeted and an attack roll made - yet once the wizard is gone (and presumably out of range), neither his defense nor the attack roll have changed (generally) - he is missed <em>since</em> neither the target nor the attack roll is "remembered", and in the situation after the interrupt, the entire attack fails because the target is no longer valid. So, <em>RAI</em> you can't <em>generally </em>take the attack sequence apart and interpret individual steps as a temporally sequential listing of distinct points in time. Things that happen lower on the list can impact things that happen earlier on the list in <em>at least some cases; </em>rather than a temporal sequence, it's just a bit accounting by the rules<em>.</em> To take the accounting analogy further: if you transfer moner from account A to B this involves reducing A's value and depositing that amount in B - yet if depositing it in B fails, then no money is deducted from A. We speak of and evaluate separate phases to make things simpler to describe, not because they can succeed or fail individually. As far as I can tell this is the norm: you generally reevaluate the entire attack when the attack is interrupted; you don't split an attack phase-by-phase.</p><p></p><p>Now consider the orc:</p><p>If an orc leaves the reach of a swordblow before he takes the damage why would you "remember" the damage and still apply it even after he's left the range of the blow? Doesn't it make more <em>sense </em>to reevalute the effects of that attack in light of the new situation? Doing that is also more consistent with other powers.</p><p></p><p> I can't deny it: I am (to an extent) and <strong>I'm not particularly happy about it either</strong> - I'd much prefer a clearcut rule. Unfortunately, the rules aren't explicit on this point. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that <em>actions</em> can't be split, I'm suggesting individual attacks can't be split.</p><p></p><p>Lets take, for example, close or area attacks. These attacks presumably are "unsplittable" since you're <em>simultaneously</em> attacking a bunch of creatures with a fireball (or whatever). Thus, it makes sense that even though they involve multiple attack rolls, such an attack counts as a single attack (as the rules explicitly state). But as soon as you permit triggers to resove half-way such an attack, that abstraction breaks down: what happens if the first burnt orc bullrushes his friend out of the flames? Or what happens when you interrupt not on "dropping to 0 hit points" but on being damaged by an attack (there are oodles of powers with such triggers) or even just being hit? How bout reactions? If you can interrupt not just an attack in it's entirety, but its the individual phases, why not react to a particular phase - which in principle anyone can do via a readied action.</p><p></p><p>If you evaluate attacks sequentially, then such interrupts can affect who's included in the area of effect or how they are affected. E.g. if someone pushes the swordmage out of the burst, can the swordmage then trigger his aegis since an attack that doesn't include him hits an ally? After all, you're executing attack phases sequentially, and at the point in time at which the swordmage chooses to use his aegies he is indeed no longer a target of the attack since he is no longer within the area of effect.</p><p></p><p>The sequence of targetting is undefined, and the sequence of attack effects is hardly defined - so for example, its nowhere said nor suggested that there's an interruptible phase between resolving damage and taking it. Indeed, those phases aren't even <em>named</em> to the best of my knowledge; splitting is no less "creating your own definition of what constitutes an event" than not splitting it (as e.g. for entering/leaving squares). I see attacks as <em>generally unsplittable</em> and further see "dropping to 0 hitpoints" as synonymous with "taking sufficient damage to drop to to 0 hitpoints" and as such would permit an interrupt triggering off dropping to 0 hitpoints to resolve before the damage in general, and in the specific case of an attack, to resolve before the entire attack.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="eamon, post: 5360224, member: 51942"] Right, so entering one square is unsplittably linked with leaving another. That's perfectly obvious, on the face of it, but the point is that there may be other such linkages as well. The obvious question being: can you resolve damage (including resistances, vulnerabilities and temporary hitpoints) without actually taking any? Compare with attack rolls: when an attack roll is interrupted, and things like shield resolve [I]before[/I] the hit, the effects of the attack roll aren't "saved" for later; you need to reevalutate the attack roll after the interrupt. You may say that the [I]attack roll[/I] wasn't changed by shield, but just the seperate (and subsequent) notion of [I]hit[/I] that involves comparing with AC, so that's OK; the [I]hit [/I]is the trigger - not the attack roll and just the [I]hit[/I] is negated. But many other powers don't work that way. Consider Wizard's Escape: this power interrupts a hit and (RAI) teleports a wizard out of harms way. At that point, the wizard has clearly already been targeted and an attack roll made - yet once the wizard is gone (and presumably out of range), neither his defense nor the attack roll have changed (generally) - he is missed [I]since[/I] neither the target nor the attack roll is "remembered", and in the situation after the interrupt, the entire attack fails because the target is no longer valid. So, [I]RAI[/I] you can't [I]generally [/I]take the attack sequence apart and interpret individual steps as a temporally sequential listing of distinct points in time. Things that happen lower on the list can impact things that happen earlier on the list in [I]at least some cases; [/I]rather than a temporal sequence, it's just a bit accounting by the rules[I].[/I] To take the accounting analogy further: if you transfer moner from account A to B this involves reducing A's value and depositing that amount in B - yet if depositing it in B fails, then no money is deducted from A. We speak of and evaluate separate phases to make things simpler to describe, not because they can succeed or fail individually. As far as I can tell this is the norm: you generally reevaluate the entire attack when the attack is interrupted; you don't split an attack phase-by-phase. Now consider the orc: If an orc leaves the reach of a swordblow before he takes the damage why would you "remember" the damage and still apply it even after he's left the range of the blow? Doesn't it make more [I]sense [/I]to reevalute the effects of that attack in light of the new situation? Doing that is also more consistent with other powers. I can't deny it: I am (to an extent) and [B]I'm not particularly happy about it either[/B] - I'd much prefer a clearcut rule. Unfortunately, the rules aren't explicit on this point. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that [I]actions[/I] can't be split, I'm suggesting individual attacks can't be split. Lets take, for example, close or area attacks. These attacks presumably are "unsplittable" since you're [I]simultaneously[/I] attacking a bunch of creatures with a fireball (or whatever). Thus, it makes sense that even though they involve multiple attack rolls, such an attack counts as a single attack (as the rules explicitly state). But as soon as you permit triggers to resove half-way such an attack, that abstraction breaks down: what happens if the first burnt orc bullrushes his friend out of the flames? Or what happens when you interrupt not on "dropping to 0 hit points" but on being damaged by an attack (there are oodles of powers with such triggers) or even just being hit? How bout reactions? If you can interrupt not just an attack in it's entirety, but its the individual phases, why not react to a particular phase - which in principle anyone can do via a readied action. If you evaluate attacks sequentially, then such interrupts can affect who's included in the area of effect or how they are affected. E.g. if someone pushes the swordmage out of the burst, can the swordmage then trigger his aegis since an attack that doesn't include him hits an ally? After all, you're executing attack phases sequentially, and at the point in time at which the swordmage chooses to use his aegies he is indeed no longer a target of the attack since he is no longer within the area of effect. The sequence of targetting is undefined, and the sequence of attack effects is hardly defined - so for example, its nowhere said nor suggested that there's an interruptible phase between resolving damage and taking it. Indeed, those phases aren't even [I]named[/I] to the best of my knowledge; splitting is no less "creating your own definition of what constitutes an event" than not splitting it (as e.g. for entering/leaving squares). I see attacks as [I]generally unsplittable[/I] and further see "dropping to 0 hitpoints" as synonymous with "taking sufficient damage to drop to to 0 hitpoints" and as such would permit an interrupt triggering off dropping to 0 hitpoints to resolve before the damage in general, and in the specific case of an attack, to resolve before the entire attack. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Red Box Monsters: Hints of Changes to Come?
Top