Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 4008430" data-attributes="member: 9789">That's a good point and an interesting argument.&nbsp; To paraphrase, you're saying that because the monster's rule allows exceptions and the spell's rule does not, the spell's rule trumps the monster's rule.&nbsp; That's a good thought, but I don't think I can agree.&nbsp; I've seen too many cases in which a set rule does not mention exceptions but actually has an exception - usually because of additional materials, but still:&nbsp; just because a rule doesn't mention exceptions does not mean it cannot have any.&nbsp; And by that logic, the exception to the spell is just as valid as the exception to the monster.So far, the only reading that I can make that seems to be decisive is to interpret each rule very strictly, and apply them both simultaneously.&nbsp; In this case, a vampire automatically turns into gaseous form once it reaches zero HP and no more damage can be done to it, but since the spell reduced it to zero damage it is also turned to dust.&nbsp; Under a very strict reading, since &quot;entirely disintegrated&quot; is technically not &quot;damage,&quot; the gaseous form does not protect against it, and the spell's ability still procs (er, is activated).This is, again, being very literal - and is in no way definitive.&nbsp; But it at least gives another possible solution that doesn't rely on subjectivity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="evilbob, post: 4008430, member: 9789"] That's a good point and an interesting argument. To paraphrase, you're saying that because the monster's rule allows exceptions and the spell's rule does not, the spell's rule trumps the monster's rule. That's a good thought, but I don't think I can agree. I've seen too many cases in which a set rule does not mention exceptions but actually has an exception - usually because of additional materials, but still: just because a rule doesn't mention exceptions does not mean it cannot have any. And by that logic, the exception to the spell is just as valid as the exception to the monster. So far, the only reading that I can make that seems to be decisive is to interpret each rule very strictly, and apply them both simultaneously. In this case, a vampire automatically turns into gaseous form once it reaches zero HP and no more damage can be done to it, but since the spell reduced it to zero damage it is also turned to dust. Under a very strict reading, since "entirely disintegrated" is technically not "damage," the gaseous form does not protect against it, and the spell's ability still procs (er, is activated). This is, again, being very literal - and is in no way definitive. But it at least gives another possible solution that doesn't rely on subjectivity. [/QUOTE]

Verification