Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steve_MND" data-source="post: 6802784" data-attributes="member: 6801314">I understand the reasoning they are using behind it, but I really do not agree with the premise in the first place.&nbsp; There should not be any way to adjust the &quot;physical roll&quot; -- so to speak -- of any die roll.&nbsp; If you rolled a 17, you rolled a 17 -- the physical die, sitting on the physical table, shows a 17.&nbsp; That's not alterable; you can change a lot of things, you can add or subtract from the remainder of the calculation, you can roll another die and use that physical number instead, etc., but you shouldn't be able to &quot;change the physical roll.&quot;&nbsp; That was always kind of seen as inviolate.Besides, this just opens up a number of other questions/potential issues if certain effects can change the &quot;physical die roll&quot; in this manner.&nbsp; For example, that also means that theoretical effects like these can not only keep a critical from happening, but also make one happen.&nbsp; Rolled an 18 on the physical die?&nbsp; An effect of this type adds 2 to the die's 'face,' meaning you actually &quot;rolled&quot; a physical 20.Further, the rules say a 1 on the roll always misses, and a 20 on the roll always hits, regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC.&nbsp; But what if, using this new ruling, you &quot;roll&quot; a 22 on the twenty-sided die?&nbsp; Is that also a critical?&nbsp; It could be, because it's even better than &quot;rolling&quot; a 20.&nbsp; What about a similarly-worded effect that reduces the &quot;roll&quot; below 1?&nbsp; Like a &quot;roll&quot; of -1 on a 20-sided die, if you have +10 to hit, does that mean you miss an AC 8 opponent?&nbsp; You technically hit it by mathematics, but the &quot;roll&quot; you made is worse than what would cause you to automatically miss.I understand it in theory, but I personally think it was a bad call/intent and sets up a dangerous precedent.&nbsp; The raw &quot;roll&quot; on any die should be what's physically on the die itself -- anything beyond that should, by definition, only exist as a modifier of some sort, regardless of the semantics in use.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steve_MND, post: 6802784, member: 6801314"] I understand the reasoning they are using behind it, but I really do not agree with the premise in the first place. There should not be any way to adjust the "physical roll" -- so to speak -- of any die roll. If you rolled a 17, you rolled a 17 -- the [I]physical [/I]die, sitting on the [I]physical [/I]table, shows a 17. That's not alterable; you can change a lot of things, you can add or subtract from the remainder of the calculation, you can roll another die and use [I]that [/I]physical number instead, etc., but you shouldn't be able to "change the physical roll." That was always kind of seen as inviolate. Besides, this just opens up a number of other questions/potential issues if certain effects can change the "physical die roll" in this manner. For example, that also means that theoretical effects like these can not only keep a critical from happening, but also [I]make [/I]one happen. Rolled an 18 on the physical die? An effect of this type adds 2 to the die's 'face,' meaning you actually "rolled" a physical 20. Further, the rules say a 1 on the roll always misses, and a 20 on the roll always hits, regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. But what if, using this new ruling, you "roll" a [I]22 [/I]on the twenty-sided die? Is that also a critical? It [I]could [/I]be, because it's even better than "rolling" a 20. What about a similarly-worded effect that reduces the "roll" below 1? Like a "roll" of -1 on a 20-sided die, if you have +10 to hit, does that mean you miss an AC 8 opponent? You technically hit it by mathematics, but the "roll" you made is [I]worse [/I]than what would cause you to automatically miss. I understand it in theory, but I personally think it was a bad call/intent and sets up a dangerous precedent. The raw "roll" on any die should be what's physically on the die itself -- [I]anything [/I]beyond that should, by definition, only exist as a modifier of some sort, regardless of the semantics in use. [/QUOTE]

Verification