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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PrecociousApprentice" data-source="post: 4347636" data-attributes="member: 61449">Not that custserve ever gets any credit here, and not that I really like the ruling that they gave for illusions, at least from a game design consistency point of view, but that ruling could enlighten us a little here. They basically said that when an example contradicts a rule, especially a specific rule, then the example should be ignored. The ruling meant that the illusion powers don't get the psychic keyword, despite doing psychic damage. While this is a contradiction to the example on page 55 of the PHB that discusses poison damage and poison keywords going together, the illusion powers are not wrong. This is because the illusions are examples of specific rules, and the rule about damage and keywords always going together is both an example, and meant to be more general than the specifics of the illusion powers. This type of ruling can be extrapolated here to mean that the example of the falchion and the reference to damage die is an example, and a general all at the same time. The vorpal weapon gives a specific that contradicts this by using dice not as [w], but as little plastic polyhedrons with numbers. This seems especially important when the example is for a defined game concept that is not even used in the example (weapon damage die=[w]). It is not spelled out explicitly like this, but the precedent of the illusion powers can still shed some light on this subject. While the wording is the same in the example as in the vorpal weapon description, they are not necessarily defined game terms, they are just expressions. A game term would be defined and then used in an example. Weapon damage die is defined as [w]. Damage die is not a defined term, and hence was a sloppy addition (or more accurately a sloppy omission of 'weapon') to the example. Better editing would have caught this.Sorry Hyp, I think that your example, which is the only thing refuting the contrarian point, falls into the precedent of this custserve ruling, and thus is refuted.The inclusion of "any" in the vorpal weapon description I think adds to this. "The damage die" would make this a little murkier, but I think "any" implies that there will be more than one, and you address them all with this ability.</blockquote>

Verification