Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6212562" data-attributes="member: 95493">What makes you think the psionic attack is headache?Why wouldn't the psionic attack cause HP damage? If it hurts as much as taking, let's say a brick to the head, why wouldn't it cause (roughtly) as much damage as taking a brick to the head.As far as "why isn't running up and down stairs"? I would immediately say that it shouldn't be because it isn't fun. But ignoring that, 3e would model that as non-lethal damage - exerting yourself to the point of causing strain.When it hits..... a sword swing is cutting into your skin, muscle and bone, causing damage... a psoinic attack is cutting into your .. memories? I was never much good at psioncs.. but is presumably harming you in some sense. In any cause it is harming your brain in some way that your mind makes it real. It takes real time to heal from.When it misses.... a sword ... does nothing. It doesn't cut into anything... a psionic attack does nothing. It doesn't harm those memories.This ability however says.... a sword ... does nothing, yet somehow tires you out... a psionic attack... still does nothing, even if it somehow tires you out (resisting the effect).Now, if that is all true, why would a mental attack which actually harms your brain (weakens, tires, whatever) be modeled the same way as an physical attack that totally "wiffs"? That is to say why would the fighter NOT hitting you hurt MORE than a psionic attack that misses or even as much as one that hits??Never said there was. I think you think I did. But nope.I did say that SOME part of all attacks that damage are physical. Some part of them, any part (even a scratch), actually connects with something. That is why psionic attacks works, because it hurts the brain/mind. That is why magical fire hurts, because it burns your flesh. I however have NO premise that it is a literal 1 to 1 or else fighters should NEVER be able to survive falling out of the sky.But my version, which as far as I can tell is in line with HP going back to Gygax's explanations which you seem to value, leaves no room for a TOTAL miss causing damage to "fate" HP only. It leaves no room for fiat. The player doesn't live because he fiats away the attack. He lives because he has enough health (with other factors added in accounting to extra HP) that allows him to survive in the fight. He doesn't get to play the token, it is part of his sheet - just like someone who plays monopoly isn't playing a fiat token when he asks for his rent from the rival player landing on his space.Is the fighter's damage on a miss a magical effect (by current description)? No.Are the only comparable effects that grant damage on a "miss"* magic? Yes.Does magic seem to be the defining aspect of why it can do so? Yes.Doesn't really strike me as a cop out when it IS the explanation. Magic missile doesn't miss because it is magic that is designed to not miss. If the fighter ability was magic too, explicitly labeled as such, then it would make sense but then we would have new issues since the fighter shouldn't be using magic for his attacks. But it would at least explain what is happening in ways that the current explanation does not.I'm guessing it works if only because it would be too powerful if the spell forced the targets to be prone (the only way I can see to ensure only half of you gets burned - like two-face dark knight style). Either that or the game can't allow for everyone on masse to move out of the range of the effect? NOT having it save would make it HUGELY over powered in either case. So I think overall it hits you were you are standing, and you don't move because the game can't allow for that. I'm not sure honestly. If you want to argue that fireball should be an all or nothing damage state, go ahead I'm all for that conversation - but I doubt that is your intention either. So perhaps I have "skimmed" past what you were saying, again.I don't your fascination with the wording of "Cure Crit" as if it were somehow significant. From the SRD:[sblock]Cure Critical WoundsConjuration (Healing)Level:     Brd 4, Clr 4, Drd 5, Healing 4This spell functions like cure light wounds, except that it cures 4d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +20). [/sblock]So, cure Light:[sblock]Cure Light WoundsConjuration (Healing)Level:     Brd 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Healing 1, Pal 1, Rgr 2Components:     V, SCasting Time:     1 standard actionRange:     TouchTarget:     Creature touchedDuration:     InstantaneousSaving Throw:     Will half (harmless); see textSpell Resistance:     Yes (harmless); see textWhen laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage. [/sblock]No where in those descriptions does it mention the severity of the wounds. Indeed nowhere in the SRD do I find a description of what constitutes a "critical wound." No, instead it is probable to assume that critical is meant as a measure of intensity. It is meant to be greater than serious and serious greater than moderate and moderate greater than light. But at no point in those descriptions of the cure X spells is there a mention of what the wound looks like. Only in the title of the spell - nothing in the effect or description. So I'm a little confused.Just like how Greater abilities are bigger/better than Improved, or where Lesser > Least. It is a tool to delineate powerfulness not meaning or effect.But to answer the greater point I think you were trying to make - if the PCs don't know what condition or how many HP the princess has? They should probably use cure critical wounds. That is a metagame information and indeed there is no in-character reason NOT to use the spell. Out of character they might ask to be given the information, but that out of character to answer in character questions is not established in the rules. I believe in such cases they would need to succeed on a Heal check.Also, because it can seem to cure up to critical wounds, whatever those may be, then it can certainly handle the scratches, light, or minor wounds as well. It isn't an either-or.I just don't get your fascination with the word critical somehow informing how the ability works. Now if there WAS some concept of a critical wound, possibly tied to a critical hit?, then I could understand that this would come into play - but that is not a mechanic that already exists.*Actually NO for actual miss, but I'm going to treat it as everyone else (especially on your side seems to use it where it can't not hit).Also, are we accepting that wiff means to miss? I wasn't really familiar with the term before this thread.</blockquote>

Verification