Search results

It has always bugged me that if the DM makes diamonds, say, very rare, the logically the price should rise so just a tiny pinch of dust is worth 300 gp. If even a tiny pinch is hard to find the diamonds should be nearly invaluable. Same thing happens with rubies.

So here’s an actual argument to consider. There are many effects that reduce your max hp. As far as I recall, all of them say you die if it is reduced to zero. You could reasonably generalize from that that you always die if your max hp is zero.

Absolutely, but I don’t believe this is one of those ambiguous cases, and if you want to argue otherwise I think you actually have to talk about the words and grammar involved.

You misunderstand the point. I don’t think anyone is saying the semantic argument is “absolutely” correct. We are only saying it is semantically correct. I believe however that dnd4vr is arguing that both interpretations are in fact semantically correct. Or possibly that there is no distinction...

Yes I see that, i think we read "toward" as "in the direction of" as opposed to "all the way to." But I can't say that makes perfect sense now.

Yes that is a big difference. Regarding the flinging, my memory of how we interpreted the spell was that you couldn't launch a creature that high into the air. I think that was based on the fact that if you launch a creature at a surface, it only takes 1d6 damage, so we figured you could only...

To be fair, the clickclicks were probably invulnerable to any other form of attack ;)

That ... is one of the main things semantics is about? Deciding whether two phrases mean the same thing. So yes, I agree with the first statement. But if you reject semantics, what basis do you have for the second? Rules lawyering at the gaming table is rude. Discussing semantics on a forum is...

You necro’d it to carry on the argument?

To me, this sounds like you are saying "The rule says that the the effect can only be removed with a long rest. But grammar is not relevant for understanding what the rule says." I can't comprehend this at all. How can you know what the rule says without thinking about the language that the...

So if I roll an 11, add my +4 bonus, and claim to have a result of 17, your response would be, "that's your interpretation"? But that is probably not fair, you say So the disagreement seem not to be whether concrete rules exist, but whether grammar is concrete? If I say "the sun will rise...

What do you mean exactly? I agree in the sense that it is the right and responsibility of the DM (and players) to use the rules in a way that works for them. If that means ignoring something that doesn't work for you, then that is absolutely a "valid" thing to do. On the other hand, the words...

Stripped the color tags for you, so folks with a white background can read it :)

I agree, but... how should I think about this then?

This is what I mean. Clearly there is a way of thinking about the vampire effect that makes sense to you, and you are willing to flex the wording of the rule to conform to that idea. Which is really totally fine, and I have no objection to your way of thinking about it. But most of the rest of...

Yes, it is fine to interpret as you think best. But this is still not correct: That is not a rule that is written down anywhere.

Yes, delivering the necrotic damage itself is straightforward enough, I don't imagine there is much disagreement. But I would guess that you see the effect of killing the target when it drops to zero as something like a curse or disease, which also manifests as the target rising as a spawn. I...

I'm seeing 15d6 per round, which is impressive, using the violent thrust version. How are you getting 25d6? I think the main limitation is toting a 375 lb object around constantly, but that is certainly within your capacity. It does seem pretty strong, but then high level 3e wizards are hella...

Wasn't 2e the one where the monster manual was a three ring binder? Those things can give a nasty pinch, so I agree, most deadly :)

I don't think there is any rule saying that, rather it says you can only benefit from one long rest per 24 hours. So I disagree that the "benefits" question is "meh" :)