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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5600360" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Thanks <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And slaying arrows can be hit point damage, it just seemed to be presented as "dragon failed his Fort save and died." And, if the slaying arrow deals "1,000,000 damage to the creature that fails it's Fort save" then I'd also say that it's effectively bypasses the hit point mechanic. If it just magnifies damage or otherwise increases it, then it's well within the limits of hit point mechanics.Though, since we're talking about D&D, I don't believe that this version of slaying arrows have been historically used. Though I am fuzzy on this, so I could very well be wrong.Not necessarily. You could say "it grazes your arm through the armor, but it's a superficial cut" if it only deals 1 damage. Nothing wrong with either.Okay, let's look at that! If the arrow is carrying an additional negative effect based on injury, people that subscribe to this type of description will generally have the arrow "graze" or "wound" the victim, rather than bounce harmlessly away, no matter if the arrow is carrying a disease, poison, contingent curse, or anything else similar in nature.So, if the character is struck by the arrow, takes 1 damage, fails his Fort save against the disease, then people might generally describe it as a superficial wound for now.Only if the players get to describe the hits in ways that will negate secondary effects. If they know they failed a Fort save, then they'd have to play along with that knowledge.For my group, I wouldn't want anyone besides the GM describing the wound (or lack thereof), but just because some groups allow players some narrative authorship doesn't mean that there's necessarily problems. The players must cooperate within the shared narrative for the game to work. This does not apply solely to hit points.That's true to some extent, yes. "Roll a Fort save" is very different from "Roll a save vs. poison" or even "Roll a save vs. Type X poison."While I think that the narrative style of play might have some hiccups to me or my group, others embrace the style and their enjoyment can potentially skyrocket. To this end, sharing information may not be a bad thing to their group. Or they might have other solutions not spoken of yet in this thread.At any rate, and as always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification