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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8425363" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know why they used that word. Why did they use the word immobilised for a condition that doesn't actually make all movement impossible? In 5e they use the word paralysed but the heart and lungs keep working and so the character is actually not paralysed in the literal sense.Because it is defined. And the definition includes the possibility of spontaneous recovery via the will to live. Hence the character is not, literally, in all cases, dying. And we can't know which until the saving throw and any other healing processes have played out.I apply the rules exactly as they are written. You are the one who is layering something else over the top - an assumption about finality of fictional content which is not stated anywhere, and is contradicted by the rules for rolling 20+ on a death save plus the rules for Inspiring Word and how those intersect with the "dying" rules.Again, I ask which of us seems to have better interpreted the rules: me, who ends up with a completely coherent if sometimes gonzo fiction? or you, who ends up with what you admit is nonsense of "wounds being shouted closed" or "wound spontaneously healing when a 20+ is rolled"?Is 5e supposed to be this "lighter and less constrained system"? It's rules are identical for present purposes to the 4e ones. It uses identical terminology of "death saving throws" - why do you think a character has to make death saving throws in the fiction of 5e? The only difference is that 5e does not call this condition dying, instead using the longer phrase being reduced to zero hp without having been killed. That is not lighter. It's actually wordier!No. There is the rule that I already quoted, which says that Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can’t willingly end your move in its space. That is identical to the 4e rule. And no one in 4e thinks that a creature is literally a cube - as the Rules Compendium says (p 200), "A creature's space . . . represents the three-dimensional space that the creature needs to take part in an encounter, allowing it to turn around, attack, fall prone and so on. Despite the cubic shape of its space, a creature is not actually a cube (unless it's a gelatinous cube).You are conjuring up differences that don't exist.In 4e I could have applied a penalty to hit against the dragon - either -2 or -5, these being the two relevant ones. Of course I might also apply a bonus for attacking from above. In the end I did neither. This is entirely within the sphere of GM adjudication in 4e, no differently from 5e.Phasing does not negate grappling. It doesn't even let you end your turn in another creature's space. (MM glossary; RC p 208.)As I posted in the actual play report, Ygorl was teleporting him through the chaos, inflicting damage as a result. That was an improvised action on Ygorl's part. I can't remember now whether that was an alternative to teleporting away, or whether the PCs had taken some other action to ensure that the grappler remained anchored to Ygorl. (My actual play posts reports that "they came up with a plan to grapple him instead, which would immobilise him, forcing him to double-teleport at 6". It doesn't mention that particular aspect of the plan, and I don't remember it more than 6 years later.)Even here you are wrong. The example given is of pushing an ogre into a brazier. Which is neither damage nor a bonus, but forced movement. The first time I adjudicated other condition infliction using the page 42 guidelines was when the 2nd level paladin spoke a prayer to the Raven Queen to help defeat a wight. The check was a success and the benefit gained was combat advantage.No it doesn't. The comparison is made to sneak attack damage in order to help assure the reader that the improvised damage is balanced.I'm reminded of conversations 10 or so years ago where people complained about the fact that fire keyword effects don't set things on fire; I pointed out that the rules obviously contemplate that they do (DMG, p 66, suggesting that "a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerability 5 to fire because any spark is likely to destroy it"); and they then retorted that that was an obscure and irrelevant rule, and the game really did suck for the reasons they were saying.You are insisting your interpretation of the game, as fiction-free or else laden with absurd fiction, and unable to handle improvisation, is correct. I am pointing out the rules of the game, which include page 42, and which I used to run a very satisfactory fiction-first game, and you are insisting that I got it wrong, and that the true interpretation is the one that sucks. It's a strange interpretive principle.I don't think I am using a technical and precise environment in your sense.If you want to know what I enjoyed about 4e D&D, then you can follow the links in the actual play reports I've linked to in this thread.</blockquote>

Verification