Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8424072" data-attributes="member: 7032025">There are so many reasons to be wrong here that it's really silly to go to that level of detail:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You are confusing the process of resolving an attack with its result</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You are forgetting that 5e has a specific beats general rule</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You are forgetting that Shield is a reaction: "CASTING TIME 1 Reaction * / * - which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You are forgetting (or do not even know) what reactions are: "A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's... If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You have not even read the description of the shield spell, which is very specific: "An invisible barrier of magical force appears and protects you. Until the start of your next turn, you have a +5 bonus to AC, including against the triggering attack,"</li> </ul>So clearly someone attacks you, the triggering attack occurs, it interrupts the hitter's turn, it applies the bonus to AC for that triggering attack, so the process might not be fully linear, but is there an obligation for what is clearly a purely technical process to be completely linear ? Especially since you cannot give any description of what happens until it is fully resolved ? All the reactions work that way, by the way, counterspell ("i cast a spell" "yes, but it does not take effect"). What is your problem with reactions ? There is even a ready action in 4e but like everything there it is very constrained, as you can only use an action as a trigger.And it's actually exactly the same thing in 4e, by the way:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Angelic Intercession Paladin Utility 16</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You teleport to the side of a friend in peril and take the effects of an attack meant for him.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Daily ✦ Divine, Teleportation</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Immediate Interrupt Personal</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Trigger: An ally within 5 squares of you is hit by an attack</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Effect: You teleport adjacent to the ally and are hit by the attack instead.</li> </ul>Oh My God, an ally is HIT by an attack, but no, wait, he is not and you are hit instead. They are called interrupts in 4e and they are even written and resolved exactly the same. And you know what, they are not called "retcons", they are called "interrupts".Anyway, this is the standard, RAW application of the shield spell that everyone uses in 5e, and when you show that you know nothing about the rules that everyone uses, you have the audacity to call this "a departure from the process stated in the 5e rules" ? This would be laughable if it was not so ridiculous, but maybe it's because there are too many rules tied in together, reactions and such?On the other hand, you seem to be incapable to read the single unitary rule from 4e, and it's your system of choice, all in a single section:Dying: When your hit points drop to 0 or fewer, you fall unconscious and are dying. Any additional damage you take continues to reduce your current hit point total until your character dies.✦ Death Saving Throw: When you are dying, you need to make a saving throw at the end of your turn each round. The result of your saving throw determines how close you are to death.How can it be more clear ? And from this, you infer that no, you are actually not dying (despite it being written clearly twice in as many sentences), you are in a shrodinger state that may last multiple rounds until somehow you die or revive ?I'm sorry, I fully support narrativism, but this does not hold water. You can pull it off now and then for dramatic effect, but claiming systematically that you are not dying when the game writes, in plain words "You are dying" is a bit too much.So what happens to the guy if someone looks at him and does not do anything one way or another ? Is he dying or not ? Or, like Heisenberg's principle, it takes the cat out of the box and suddenly he is dying ?So he was dying, right ? You even say it yourself.And have you READ THE F...G Paragraph: "You are no longer dying". So even in that case, the game tells you that you were dying before. That's the third time in as many short paragraphs. How many times must the game tell you that you are dying when at 0 HP ?Honestly, how can one discuss with you when you dare interpret rules that you know nothing about and are not even able to read the simple rules that you claim to apply every day ?THIS IS WHAT THE GAME TELLS YOU: YOU ARE DYING. After that, at your table, you can interpret it the way you want, obviously.And this is the part that I find ridiculous, totally technical, and with nothing in reality or in fiction to support, that "inspiring word" which is not even magical. I have given you tons of examples of genre fiction to support my views, surely you will be able to give me ONE supporting you ?Oh yes, sure, Conan or someone is dying and is revived by inspiring words. Right...These are all your own description, unsupported by anything in the rules. I have given you extract from the rules that you use, please read them again.What I meant is that the character, during his turn, moved towards the wight, maybe from the side. Sometimes later, when other characters or monsters have played and taken into account the position of the character (for example not taking him in an AoE), the wight uses his ability and blasts the character away, to another position. And your interpretation is that it is as if the character never approached the wight ? Despite the fact that the intermediate position was taken into account by players in between the actions ?Jumping on a another creature's back ? And acting from there ?Again, I'm not saying that it was a bad call, it was a really good one, my point being that you had to violate some rules to make your narration look cool, and the more rules there are, the more restrictive they are, the more you will have to violate them to make the narration look cool.After that the summary was extremely technical with powers that I have certainly forgotten in all these years if I ever knew them, but that is not really the point.Good for you. It was not for us. Every time we tried something, someone other rule told us "No, you can't do that." Case in point above, although you can enter a creature's space, as far as I know you can't stay there.And how about Superman and anyone else ?It's better when they have access to DIFFERENT resources, because it makes people complementary. Case in point, in comics, there is usually no overlap.And what it does is overall have a constrained and repetitive system because everyone uses the same thing, especially if it's a good one. I don't care if there is manageable difference in power, which has always been the case because a DM has many more strings to his bow than controlling precisely each character's power.</blockquote>

Verification