Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A quick (but possibly challenging) Vicious question
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="Gerion of Mercadia" data-source="post: 3429527" data-attributes="member: 50527"><p>My response to this would be extremely political - I'm not going there despite people repeatedly trying to bait me into flaming them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The WotC reasoning behind separating Positive and Negative energy from the "other 5" has to do with the fact that some people would always call "adding a negative number subtracting".</p><p></p><p><u><em>8 + -4 = 4 is not an <strong>identical</strong> statement to 8 - 4 = 4; It is an <strong>equivalent</strong> one.</em></u></p><p></p><p>When you argue that damage falls into a given "type" it must conform to ALL of the characteristics of that type, otherwise it is "something else". The Ravid's ability doesn't meet that criterion as defined in the glossary. If it did, the Ravid's blows would heal living creatures. That clearly doesn't happen.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Emphasis Italics.</p><p></p><p>1. There are seven energy damage types by RAW. Positive and Negative "energy" get special treatment, because they may not be "damage" in ALL cases to ALL creatures.</p><p></p><p>2. Whenever <strong>potentially</strong> relevant to the rules, the damage type <strong>is explicitly specified</strong> as far as it needs to be specified.</p><p></p><p>2b. The "energy" damage from the "disruptive flash" is just damage by definition. It has no category which is or could potentially be relevant to a damage reducing/immunizing effect, because if it did, they would have listed it. It is thus simply added onto whatever other damage your "weapon" deals.</p><p></p><p>3. IF this "disruptive energy" it were INTENDED to be "energy damage" it would contain language like what follows:</p><p></p><p>Specific to the Ring of Vengance:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which IS an instance where you have "energy damage" WITHOUT a type.</p><p></p><p>4. Definitions, in rules lawyering "legalistic" arguments are givens. To support Hyp - you have to violate the "given" of energy damage.</p><p></p><p>Of course, you can state that WotC make a boo boo and:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course, we aren't considering what WotC intended, we are considering what they wrote.</p><p></p><p>As I said, right conclusion, wrong reasoning. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gerion of Mercadia, post: 3429527, member: 50527"] My response to this would be extremely political - I'm not going there despite people repeatedly trying to bait me into flaming them. The WotC reasoning behind separating Positive and Negative energy from the "other 5" has to do with the fact that some people would always call "adding a negative number subtracting". [u][i]8 + -4 = 4 is not an [b]identical[/b] statement to 8 - 4 = 4; It is an [b]equivalent[/b] one.[/i][/u] When you argue that damage falls into a given "type" it must conform to ALL of the characteristics of that type, otherwise it is "something else". The Ravid's ability doesn't meet that criterion as defined in the glossary. If it did, the Ravid's blows would heal living creatures. That clearly doesn't happen. Emphasis Italics. 1. There are seven energy damage types by RAW. Positive and Negative "energy" get special treatment, because they may not be "damage" in ALL cases to ALL creatures. 2. Whenever [b]potentially[/b] relevant to the rules, the damage type [b]is explicitly specified[/b] as far as it needs to be specified. 2b. The "energy" damage from the "disruptive flash" is just damage by definition. It has no category which is or could potentially be relevant to a damage reducing/immunizing effect, because if it did, they would have listed it. It is thus simply added onto whatever other damage your "weapon" deals. 3. IF this "disruptive energy" it were INTENDED to be "energy damage" it would contain language like what follows: Specific to the Ring of Vengance: Which IS an instance where you have "energy damage" WITHOUT a type. 4. Definitions, in rules lawyering "legalistic" arguments are givens. To support Hyp - you have to violate the "given" of energy damage. Of course, you can state that WotC make a boo boo and: Of course, we aren't considering what WotC intended, we are considering what they wrote. As I said, right conclusion, wrong reasoning. :cool: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
A quick (but possibly challenging) Vicious question
Top
