Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 4481570" data-attributes="member: 11300">I thought that was what you were implying, not a heap of minor wounds and effort expended in reducing mortal blows to flesh wounds.True. I was just inserting a qualification to make what I thought you were saying correct - that they would carry on as before provided that they saved against massive damage (if applicable). Not true. I think if you go from the positives down to about -7 to -9, the DM can start going to town with their gory/vivid descriptions without worrying too much about whether the rules are going to contradict the description. In such situations, death is probable without healing of a divine nature.Fair enough, although remove deafness/blindness would work equally as well as Regeneration - a capricious priest might suggest only the latter but any forthright cleric who knows their salt will know the 2nd level spell would serve equally. And again, you know how every so often in the papers you see someone who's suffered a nailgun accident with a nail through the eye socket that misses every major piece of artery, organ and brain [there was one here in Sydney about 4 years ago from memory - and a fence javelin through the underside of the jaw exiting through the eye socket before that], well take my bolt example and apply the same circumstances. Cure minor wounds would obviously assist - at least in terms of stabilizing. I wouldn't feel too bad though if the DM used such description and then said that the group would have to cough up a remove blindness/deafness spell on the morrow. I think that would be within the DM's license to do as such.So yeah, I think 3E (at least how my group plays and interprets it) gives the DM a little more freedom in this regard to go to town with the guts on the floor - if such is your cup of tea.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification