Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="thedungeondelver" data-source="post: 5813200" data-attributes="member: 34865">Okay I'm going to have to put my viking hat (wizard hat, actually, in my case) on for a minute and ask you youngsters about this.&nbsp; This is...this is kind of part and parcel, it's par for the course.&nbsp; Sometimes magic, even heavenly magic, is capricious.If it is in game terms a matter of life and death, just saying &quot;I'm spending my action this round bandaging [CHARACTER]'s wounds.&quot; means they're not bleeding out any more.&nbsp; They're stable, but unconscious.&nbsp; As far as &quot;rolling a 1&quot; is concerned I mean if we extrapolate that across the board we can say &quot;...spent an entire round attacking, only to roll a 1 on the damage/to-hit die.&quot; &quot;...spent an entire round casting a spell, only to roll really really low on the damage dice and the monsters rolled their saves.&quot; &quot;...spent an entire adventure only to roll low on a saving throw and die.&quot;I mean, I hate to get curmudgeonly but I am bum-fuzzled at all this frankly overthinking that goes on about the cleric.&nbsp; I said this in another thread: they're decent fighters, they have (...sigh...) buff spells, they have offensive magic, they can protect against undead, they can help (or just substitute) in finding traps, they can do it all in armor...I just don't get it.&nbsp; So you rolled a 1.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; That character better watch his ass in the next combat round, or maybe the cleric steps up and takes over because...y'know, flail and shield or mace and shield?Again, if it sounds like I'm edition-warring here, I'm not.&nbsp; I just...as of late the sudden discussion of fixing something that isn't broken (clerics) is just baffling to me.&nbsp; It kind of reminds me of some usenet discussion about the then-upcoming 3e and how some folks were hoping it &quot;fixed&quot; the ranger.I don't know, maybe I'm just out of touch.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="thedungeondelver, post: 5813200, member: 34865"] [FONT=Century Gothic][/FONT] [FONT=Century Gothic]Okay I'm going to have to put my viking hat (wizard hat, actually, in my case) on for a minute and ask you youngsters about this. This is...this is kind of part and parcel, it's par for the course. Sometimes magic, even heavenly magic, is capricious. If it is in game terms a matter of life and death, just saying "I'm spending my action this round bandaging [CHARACTER]'s wounds." means they're not bleeding out any more. They're stable, but unconscious. As far as "rolling a 1" is concerned I mean if we extrapolate that across the board we can say "...spent an entire round attacking, only to roll a 1 on the damage/to-hit die." "...spent an entire round casting a spell, only to roll really really low on the damage dice and the monsters rolled their saves." "...spent an entire adventure only to roll low on a saving throw and die." I mean, I hate to get curmudgeonly but I am [I]bum-fuzzled[/I] at all this frankly overthinking that goes on about the cleric. I said this in another thread: they're decent fighters, they have (...sigh...) buff spells, they have offensive magic, they can protect against undead, they can help (or just substitute) in finding traps, they can do it all in armor...I just don't get it. So you rolled a 1. So what? That character better watch his ass in the next combat round, or [I]maybe[/I] the cleric steps up and takes over because...y'know, flail and shield or mace and shield? Again, if it sounds like I'm edition-warring here, I'm not. I just...as of late the sudden discussion of fixing something that isn't broken (clerics) is just baffling to me. It kind of reminds me of some usenet discussion about the then-upcoming 3e and how some folks were hoping it "fixed" the ranger. I don't know, maybe I'm just out of touch. [/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Verification