Search results

  1. Hussar

    Wizards of the Coast Head Explains Benefits to D&D Franchise Model

    Not to be obtuse, but, isn't the OGL (or now the CC) model essentially what is meant by a "franchise" model? WotC is still at the top of the chain, providing the base rules and setting the standard for publications and then everyone else gets to participate through the CC? WIth alternatives...
  2. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Probably because they realized that overly pedantic, deliberately obtuse readings of the rules result in the offender being pelted by dice and the problem resolves itself. :D
  3. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Heh. I'll freely admit that genre simulation is not something I particularly consider under the rubric of "simulation". To me, that's an entirely different beast. Mostly because any RPG that fits under a particular genre is always trying to evoke that genre in play. D&D is high magic...
  4. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Just to clarify - @clearstream is stating that it is impossible to incapacitate minions since any damage "destroys" them. Therefore, @clearstream is pretty clearly stating that minions are immune to a specific condition - incapacitated (at least by dealing damage). In any case, who cares...
  5. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    You did. The only way that destroyed precludes unconcious is if targets cannot be killed. Because anything that can be killed can be knocked unconcious instead of killed, as per the rules and as per the rules clarification in the later RC. But, you repeatedly claimed that because minions...
  6. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Probably because they didn't think that anyone would ever define destroyed in such a way to preclude killed or unalived. 🤷 I mean, I played 4e for quite a while, and have followed the rules discussions for years. This was the first time I'd ever seen anyone try this particular interpretation...
  7. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    From the Rules Compendium Can we put this to rest now? It's right there that you can knock a minion unconcious.
  8. 1756798342611.png

    1756798342611.png

  9. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    No. You do not. Because the players cannot create a story. They MUST destroy a minion. Full stop. They are bound by a single narrative that your exclusive interpretation (which has later been proven to be wrong) enforces on the game.
  10. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    By your interpretation, it is impossible for minions to be killed. Because if they can be killed, then they can be incapacitated. But, by your definition, they cannot be incapacitated, therefore they cannot be killed, only destroyed. And apparently, this was all resolved a short time later...
  11. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Except that your interpretation of the word "destroyed" gives ludicrous results - immortal minions that can never be killed since they can only be destroyed. OTOH, if destroyed includes "killed" then the rules for dealing non-lethal damage apply. No one is saying that it's not a rule. Minions...
  12. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Let's not forget the cherry picking too. After all, zombies, skeletons, ghouls, wights, specters and ghosts all can be destroyed AND incapacitated. Never minding every construct in the game. But, apparently, even though I can incapacitate a ghoul or a zombie, it becomes impossible to do so to...
  13. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Ok. so, if "when" is non-exclusive, then it includes being killed. Thus, the rule for not dealing lethal damage applies. You can't have it both ways. Either destroyed includes "killed" (non-exclusive interpretation), which means you are wrong, or destroyed doesn't include killed (exclusive...
  14. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Again, this is a very good example of the 6 impossible things before breakfast. It doesn't matter that the first six things are identical to the seventh thing. We make exceptions for the first six things because no one made us actually think about them before. But, that seventh one is right...
  15. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Again, it makes perfect sense when you've decided that this is the hill you are going to die on and no amount of evidence will shift your perspective. As I said, @clearstream's interpretation means that minions are immortal, never need to eat or sleep, and are utterly immune to diseases. The...
  16. 1756522644180.webp

    1756522644180.webp

  17. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Except that dying is rules defined and you're somehow trying to argue that those definitions don't apply to "destroyed" mostly because that specific interpretation supports your argument. You are rejecting any other interpretation. In other words, you're playing semantic silly buggers in order...
  18. Hussar

    D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

    Except that in no version of D&D can you actually kill a summoned entity. They just poof back to wherever they were summoned from. Now, are you trying to claim that a summoned creature may never be incapacitated? Where is that interpretation coming from?
Top