Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Persiflage" data-source="post: 5252253" data-attributes="member: 73597">For the win:YES!&nbsp; Well, except for those rare occasions when you should. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />No, if we're back to D&amp;D equivalencies it just flat-out doesn't take the damage, any more than a warhammer used to deliver a 100hp smack upside the head takes 100hp-worth-of-damage-minus-hardness.&nbsp; In D&amp;Dland, a falling tree is an &quot;object&quot;, and falling objects - like weapons - DO damage, not TAKE it.&nbsp; It's not until an attack is made against an object that the hardness rules are invoked...&nbsp; A boulder falling 100' and hitting the monk on the head is undamaged unless you house-rule otherwise, yet if that same monk is tough enough he can go right ahead and headbutt that boulder to rubble.&nbsp; So yeah, science applied to D&amp;D is almost always ill-advised&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />My objections to the science, were to the science.Ayup, agree totally: this is why I posted the rules objections to it&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />You never get as far as invoking the falling rules, because you can only &quot;hop up&quot; onto an object, not into thin air.&nbsp; Likewise, the treant doesn't do damage as a falling object, because it isn't one.If the OP is deliberately looking for MOAR CHEEZ through exploiting piffling rules technicalities despite already playing a g*ddam Treant, then I would suggest that their cheese-fu is weak...&nbsp; Seriously, trying to exploit the jumping rules to do 70 points of damage against a single opponent with (minimum) two move actions?&nbsp; Small boys will follow you in gangs just to wave hedge-trimmers and jeer at you, and Mummy Treant will disown you and complain to anyone who'll listen that she always wanted a rose-bush instead.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Persiflage, post: 5252253, member: 73597"] For the win: YES! Well, except for those rare occasions when you should. ;) No, if we're back to D&D equivalencies it just flat-out doesn't take the damage, any more than a warhammer used to deliver a 100hp smack upside the head takes 100hp-worth-of-damage-minus-hardness. In D&Dland, a falling tree is an "object", and falling objects - like weapons - DO damage, not TAKE it. It's not until an attack is made [I]against[/I] an object that the hardness rules are invoked... A boulder falling 100' and hitting the monk on the head is undamaged unless you house-rule otherwise, yet if that same monk is tough enough he can go right ahead and headbutt that boulder to rubble. So yeah, science applied to D&D is almost always ill-advised ;) My objections to the science, were to the [I]science[/I]. Ayup, agree totally: this is why I posted the rules objections to it :) You never get as far as invoking the falling rules, because you can only "hop up" onto an object, not into thin air. Likewise, the treant doesn't do damage as a falling object, because it isn't one. If the OP is deliberately looking for MOAR CHEEZ through exploiting piffling rules technicalities despite already [I]playing a g*ddam Treant[/I], then I would suggest that their cheese-fu is weak... Seriously, trying to exploit the jumping rules to do 70 points of damage against a single opponent with (minimum) two move actions? Small boys will follow you in gangs just to wave hedge-trimmers and jeer at you, and Mummy Treant will disown you and complain to anyone who'll listen that [I]she[/I] always wanted a rose-bush instead. [/QUOTE]

Verification