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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6214319" data-attributes="member: 95493">And I promptly ignored it. For a reason. I don't like narrating for everyone what a specific hit looks like. But the rules seem to already tell me that a hit that does 1 pt out of 100 is a relatively minor scratch.One that does 15 of 50 is a much larger hit.But I have no explanation of what they are besides hits. If the sword is being swung and connects and deals damage it is connecting with something. Some part of the target is taking damage. If the sword completely misses (for EVERYONE else except this specific ability) then it does NOT do damage and does not harm some part of the creature. That is the best I can tell you.As far as proportionate healing? Yeah, probably does make more sense in 4e. Using a base level spell, let's call it cure light, to heal 1/4 of the targets HP does make more sense on the face of it. Working your way up to cure serious healing 4/4th of their HP. (Or however all of that would shake out.) That makes perfect sense. But so does it healing a specific amount.However, at no point do the spells actually say what they heal. Just that they heal X amount of damage. Just like the sword swing deals Y amount of damage. It is up to the players/DM to narrate what is actually happening. Maybe the sword swing cuts deep into the target's left arm about an inch deep. Maybe the healing spell heals such a mark first. Doesn't really matter because death spirals aren't a thing (in 3e). As long as they are getting dealt damage and subsequently healed the specifics of each does not matter.With that said, it would and does matter if the healing spell hits. In 3e if the person getting healed has spell resistance (which the cleric fails) or makes his saving throw then he doesn't get healed. In 3e if the fighter swings and fails to hit the targets AC he doesn't do damage either. However in 3e terms NEITHER does healing/damage on a miss. The cleric doesn't heal their WIS in HP on a miss, and WIS + dice on a hit. They also need to succeed in a melee touch attack for what it's worth.Also, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] , I realize you wrote me a lovely reply but I honestly don't know what you were trying to prove or say in it. I read it over three times and had nothing to say except thinking "I told him I don't know about psionics," which seemed to be at the crux of your argument. I suggest we drop it, I'm going to, but if there is something important that I missed please let me know.Did I give gamist responses? That's new. I don't think in that way, don't know the terms or use them. That's cool to know though. I just gave the reason I saw that it was the way it was. I don't think that IN GAME they're very good reasons at all. I think that fireball should have a blastwave and/or knock targets prone to take half and all that - but I can't think of non-game breaking ways to do that while keeping all other existing 3e rules. I don't have such a problem stripping this particular rule out of 5e, maybe that's where some confusion lies.Well as I have said, they kind of are. I've given the english definition of the word. The definition that I am most familar with, and even the definition that seems to apply throughout almost all of 5e (with the exception of this ability). Even the other ability that is similar doesn't allow the rogue to hit on a miss. It allows him to turn a miss into a hit, the result becomes a 20. Which means that if thy roll a 1 it isn't a 1 or a crit fail or a miss or anything, as long as he uses his ability, it becomes a 20 which means it changes things entirely. It is a small change but it helps immensely. Kind of like how I've said that if the warlord's healing in 4e were temporary HP instead that it would make things much easier for us. Small change but helpful.Well no, he doesn't "know" which spell to use. Any knowledge he gets for free is metagame knowledge. Anytime his character wants to get the information in game they need a heal check. But beyond this I think you may have missed my point.Tell me, using the SRD if possible, what the definition of a light wound is, also medium, serious, and critical wounds, if possible. I don't know what they are. I can guess and I can describe them in game but those specific terms 'critical wounds' are not used in any sense that I can recall EXCEPT in the spell's title. It isn't used in the effect of the spell, except when noting another spell. It is like how Major Image is different from Silent Image, except as noted. Critical is an order of the spell, not a description of what is happening.As such, it only makes for the cleric (with in game or metagame knowledge) to use the appropriate spell for the job. He has limited resources with which to heal people and doesn't want to blow a cure critical when a cure light will work. The wounds the person has may be of any visible description but those do not translate into the effects. There is no effect for "critical wound," so a spell that cures critical wounds cannot be referring to them.Can you respond to this part please?Oh, I don't think it is alone in nonsense or inconsistencies in the game. If you look back to my first few posts on this thread you'll see that I know that there ARE some already - especially with HP and AC.No, the problem I have is that this specific one (damage on a miss) doesn't have to be inconsistent or nonsensical. It really doesn't. There are other mechanics that can be used that are more consistent to achieve the feeling of 'relentlessness' that pemerton describes. And certainly more accurate ways to portray what Rodney described.And worse, as I've long been saying, the issue is that they aren't trying to make it better. They are creating an ability that goes right into the hole, the open sore that is inconsistencies in HP and AC and tries to drive a wedge that has clearly been divisive since it was first introduced 1-2 years ago? The defense you seem to be giving is that it is no more inconsistent than other things. My objection is that it doesn't have to be inconsistent at all, and that 'no more inconsistent' isn't a defense.Would it be acceptable to say, 'there is no more horse meat in our burgers than anyone elses,' when, 'there is NO horse meat in our burgers,' is a realistic option? I don't think so. I don't think it is acceptable to want any level of horse meat in a product that is supposed to be entirely cow. Some people may say that it'll lose its flavour if it loses the horse meat, but as long as the product is trying to be 100% cow, I don't really care what those people have to say. They certainly won't change my mind by saying, 'come on, it already has some horse meat in it, why not a little bit more.'Fair enough, I think I'll just avoid using it in the future. For some reason when I used it I couldn't think of a better word at the time.</blockquote>

Verification