Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6763149" data-attributes="member: 6799649">Wait, are you telling me that when the spell description says, 'the spell does 10d6+40 damage' that you can do whatever amount you like, whatever the roll?If you roll and get 80 points, are you saying that this is not a rule; that you can do less or more just by 'wanting to'? Are you saying that I'm 'making up new rules' when I quote '10d6+40'? That I 'haven't got an argument from the actual rules text' when I print the rules text which says '10d6+40' and I claim that this is how much damage the rules say is done?I'm saying that the rules tell you how much damage is done, and you cannot change that without another rule which says you can.This is a rules discussion. Although anyone can point to 'rule 0' to say that DMs can change anything they want, this is of no value when discussing what the rules are.I've admitted that the wording is ambiguous. Maxperson and others have claimed that it isn't. My point is that when you think both interpretations through, one stands up and the other falls down.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arial Black, post: 6763149, member: 6799649"] Wait, are you telling me that when the spell description says, 'the spell does 10d6+40 damage' that you can do whatever amount you like, whatever the roll? If you roll and get 80 points, are you saying that this is not a rule; that you can do less or more just by 'wanting to'? Are you saying that I'm 'making up new rules' when I quote '10d6+40'? That I 'haven't got an argument from the actual rules text' when I print the rules text which says '10d6+40' and I claim that this is how much damage the rules say is done? I'm saying that the rules tell you how much damage is done, and you cannot change that without another rule which says you can. This is a rules discussion. Although anyone can point to 'rule 0' to say that DMs can change anything they want, this is of no value when discussing what the rules are. I've admitted that the wording is ambiguous. Maxperson and others have claimed that it isn't. My point is that when you think both interpretations through, one stands up and the other falls down. [/QUOTE]

Verification