New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 224

Thread: extra + 0?

  1. - Top - End - #61
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    No, it’s not. I imagine the majority of DMs would agree that the attack is halted on Counterspell, however, it doesn’t change the point: there is no “magical piercing” damage type.

    Fireball doesn’t do “magical fire” damage: it does fire damage.

    Take the Ochre Jelly. It is immune to Slashing damage. If you were correct that “magical slashing” was a damage types, then the ochre jelly would not be immune to it, because it doesn’t say it’s immune to “magical slashing” but rather, just slashing.

    Compare that to the OP’s situation or many other monsters with immunities that can be overcome when the damage is dealt by a magic weapon. Why the difference in wording if “Magic slashing” is a damage type?

    Because it’s not: which is also why it’s not listed on the list of damage types.
    If youre only going to accept the RAW as valid when you think it supports your point, i see no reason to be having this conversation with you.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    If youre only going to accept the RAW as valid when you think it supports your point, i see no reason to be having this conversation with you.
    Well spoken!

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    The thread creator did not ask for RAW, so the designers opinion (probably RAI) on the matter feels like a good answer to their question.
    If you are invoking the OP, then I will answer this.
    JC changes his mind on RAW and RAI regularly.
    Additionally, he has a habit of not answering questions directly.

    So, JC's opinion is equal to the individual posters in this forum.
    Last edited by NaughtyTiger; 2020-08-08 at 12:46 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    If you are invoking the OP, then I will answer this.
    JC changes his mind on RAW and RAI regularly.
    Additionally, he has a habit of not answering questions directly.

    So, JC's opinion is equal to the individual posters in this forum.

    That said, I don't see how the tweets you referenced (about shoving) indicate whether you (or JC) would rule 0, 3, or 8.
    He states that the damage of the hunters mark is considered magical for purpose of overcoming immunities. If it would dependent on the weapon being magical to deal any damage, he would have said that. If it requires that the weapon is magical, it is pointless to say that the spells damage is magical since that won't matter. The only reason for saying it the way he did, would be that the spells damage happens even if the creature is immune to the weapons damage. So based on what he wrote, his intentions on your question would be that it deals 3 damage. The weapons damage is nulled but the spell deals 3.

    Edit: started writing this before I say you edited your post. :)
    Last edited by Fnissalot; 2020-08-08 at 12:52 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    Well spoken!
    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    If youre only going to accept the RAW as valid when you think it supports your point, i see no reason to be having this conversation with you.
    I’m not sure what your point is. I state when I’m citing RAW, and other times I state how I would rule something. I’ve done both on this thread.

    If we’re arguing the RAW, I don’t care about RAI, because that’s not what we’re discussing.

    The RAW on BB/GFB is, if it’s Counterspelled, it has no effect. Allowing the Cast a Spell Action to make a Weapon Attack after the spell is Countered, is an effect of the spell. That very much seems to be against the RAW.

    If that’s not what you’re referring to, please explain.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    I’m not sure what your point is. I state when I’m citing RAW, and other times I state how I would rule something. I’ve done both on this thread.

    If we’re arguing the RAW, I don’t care about RAI, because that’s not what we’re discussing.

    The RAW on BB/GFB is, if it’s Counterspelled, it has no effect. Allowing the Cast a Spell Action to make a Weapon Attack after the spell is Countered, is an effect of the spell. That very much seems to be against the RAW.

    If that’s not what you’re referring to, please explain.
    Its the specific text of the spells. As part of the action of casting the spell (not the spell effect) you must make a melee weapon attack against the target.

    As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.
    This is not part of the spell effect, but the action of casting the spell, which is completed whether the spell has an effect or not.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    He states that the damage of the hunters mark is considered magical for purpose of overcoming immunities. If it would dependent on the weapon being magical to deal any damage, he would have said that. If it requires that the weapon is magical, it is pointless to say that the spells damage is magical since that won't matter. The only reason for saying it the way he did, would be that the spells damage happens even if the creature is immune to the weapons damage. So based on what he wrote, his intentions on your question would be that it deals 3 damage. The weapons damage is nulled but the spell deals 3.

    Edit: started writing this before I say you edited your post. :)
    A couple things...
    I edited because I realized you tweeted 4 JC posts, not just the one about "hits"

    The JC post you are referencing now, I already quoted, and about half the posters came to the opposite conclusion that you and I did.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Its the specific text of the spells. As part of the action of casting the spell (not the spell effect) you must make a melee weapon attack against the target.



    This is not part of the spell effect, but the action of casting the spell, which is completed whether the spell has an effect or not.
    You take the Cast a Spell Action. What happens after that depends on the effects of the spell selected. Taking the CaS Action does not, in and of itself, grant attacks: that only occurs when the spell calls for it.

    I wouldn’t expect to make a Melee Spell Attack after Vampiric Touch is Countered, or any other spell that grants attacks of some sort.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    You take the Cast a Spell Action. What happens after that depends on the effects of the spell selected. Taking the CaS Action does not, in and of itself, grant attacks: that only occurs when the spell calls for it.

    I wouldn’t expect to make a Melee Spell Attack after Vampiric Touch is Countered, or any other spell that grants attacks of some sort.
    I continue with quoting sage advice. Opposite to what I thought, the attack is countered as well is the intention with the wording. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/22...-melee-attack/

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    I continue with quoting sage advice. Opposite to what I thought, the attack is countered as well is the intention with the wording. https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/22...-melee-attack/
    Just to clarify, that “Sage Advice” is not the official SA, and has no bearing on 5e rules. I understand using JC’s tweets as RAI, I just wanted to make sure the difference between that site and the official SA was understood. (Edit: I appreciate you posting the link even though it went against your argument.)

    Aside from that, I stand by the original point of this side discussion: Being an effect of a spell does not in and of itself make an attack’s damage magical. If that was the case, spells like Holy Weapon wouldn’t have clauses like “If the weapon isn’t already a magic weapon, it becomes one for the duration.”
    Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-08 at 01:49 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    You take the Cast a Spell Action. What happens after that depends on the effects of the spell selected. Taking the CaS Action does not, in and of itself, grant attacks: that only occurs when the spell calls for it.

    I wouldn’t expect to make a Melee Spell Attack after Vampiric Touch is Countered, or any other spell that grants attacks of some sort.
    Specific trumps general. In this case, the cantrips require you to make the attack as part of the action of casting the spell, not as its effect. You still take the action whether or not the spell is countered. In Vampiric Touch, all of the results are part of the effects of the spell.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Specific trumps general. In this case, the cantrips require you to make the attack as part of the action of casting the spell, not as its effect. You still take the action whether or not the spell is countered. In Vampiric Touch, all of the results are part of the effects of the spell.
    The Action to cast the spell is the same either way, and all elements of the casting, including effects, are involved in that action: the Cast a Spell Action.
    Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-08 at 05:39 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Titan in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    The Action to cast the spell is the same either way, and all components of the casting are involved in that action: the Cast a Spell Action.
    Counterspell doesnt cancel the action though, it just blocks the effects of the spell. Making a melee attack is not an effect of the spell.
    “Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    Just to clarify, that “Sage Advice” is not the official SA, and has no bearing on 5e rules. I understand using JC’s tweets as RAI, I just wanted to make sure the difference between that site and the official SA was understood. (Edit: I appreciate you posting the link even though it went against your argument.)

    Aside from that, I stand by the original point of this side discussion: Being an effect of a spell does not in and of itself make an attack’s damage magical. If that was the case, spells like Holy Weapon wouldn’t have clauses like “If the weapon isn’t already a magic weapon, it becomes one for the duration.”
    Quote from official sage advice compendium:
    "Does a grapple or a shove trigger the Tempest cleric’s
    Wrath of the Storm or a Battle Master’s Riposte? The
    answer to both questions is no. The grappling and shoving
    options (PH, 195) don’t result in a hit or a miss."

    And
    "Does the extra damage from hex only apply if there is an
    attack roll? The extra damage in the hex spell requires an
    attack that hits."

    It does not say that it needs to deal damage, but it does not directly answer the question of immunity.

    Edit: official sage advice don't mention anything about counter spelling booming blade.
    Last edited by Fnissalot; 2020-08-08 at 02:58 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    stoutstien's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Maine
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Hunters mark is an anomaly in terms of having no listed damage type so it's really needs updated wording.
    what is the point of living if you can't deadlift?

    All credit to the amazing avatar goes to thoroughlyS

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltest View Post
    Counterspell doesnt cancel the action though, it just blocks the effects of the spell. Making a melee attack is not an effect of the spell.
    Correct in that the Action is still used, however that doesn’t change that the attack is part of the spell. I understand you believe the attack to be outside the spell effect, but that’s just not correct. Here’s the wording of the BB:

    “As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.”

    The “action used to cast this spell” is the Cast a Spell Action. All this is saying is as part of casting this spell, a melee Weapon Attack is involved. Just like how a blast of fire is part of the action of casting Fireball. The fact that an effect of a spell is part of the action used to cast a spell, isn’t anything unique: it’s what happens with any instantaneous spell: the effect occurs as part of the action of casting.

    Fireball: the flaming ball of fire is part of the action used to cast the spell. The action isn’t complete until you resolve the fireball saves and damage.

    Note: non-instantaneous spell effects, like Bless, have effects that occurs outside the Action used to cast the spell. This shows what the alternative is, but both are still effects of the spell.

    You can keep repeating yourself for however many posts you’d like but it’s not going to change anything.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fnissalot View Post
    Quote from official sage advice compendium:
    "Does a grapple or a shove trigger the Tempest cleric’s
    Wrath of the Storm or a Battle Master’s Riposte? The
    answer to both questions is no. The grappling and shoving
    options (PH, 195) don’t result in a hit or a miss."

    And
    "Does the extra damage from hex only apply if there is an
    attack roll? The extra damage in the hex spell requires an
    attack that hits."

    It does not say that it needs to deal damage, but it does not directly answer the question of immunity.

    Edit: official sage advice don't mention anything about counter spelling booming blade.
    Again, Official SA is not RAW.

    Thanks to Magic Missile, we know a hit is not a game term meaning the result of a successful Attack Roll. Hit is being used as it’s common English meaning, and yes, in that sense, a shield bash shove can hit an enemy.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Keltest, Rsp,

    Are you debating whether the melee attack (+ base weapon damage) still occurs if Booming Blade is counterspelled?
    If so, which of you is saying the melee attack (+ base weapon damage) does occur? (i am wrapped around the axle on this sub plot)
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    Keltest, Rsp,

    Are you debating whether the melee attack (+ base weapon damage) still occurs if Booming Blade is counterspelled?
    If so, which of you is saying the melee attack (+ base weapon damage) does occur? (i am wrapped around the axle on this sub plot)
    Keltest is stating that the melee attack occurs even on a Counterspell.

    Though I’m not sure why that isn’t obvious by the previous posts.
    Last edited by RSP; 2020-08-08 at 08:04 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    Though I’m not sure why that isn’t obvious by the previous posts.
    does it matter?
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    Just, please don't. Insisting on that technicality improves nothing.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by NaughtyTiger View Post
    does it matter?
    Just curious why it wasn’t clear in the posts; or if something I had posted made it seem I was arguing the opposite position.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyutaru View Post
    In this way, the damage is NOT from the spell and NOT magical. The spell deals no damage at all, it merely makes creatures more susceptible to your weapon attacks, kind of like lowering their resistance to bow attacks. Sadly immunity is not resistance and renders something completely unable to even be affected by bow attacks for whatever reason. Allowing them to suddenly affect it because of a spell that made them extra vulnerable to bow attacks is not logical.

    So yeah, I'd go with 0 damage and all of it is piercing. The shot does not do 1d6+3+1d6, it does 2d6+3 nonmagical piercing.
    I've always assumed it's non-magical unless the attack is magical too. I'd say 0 as well.

    But now that I've read this thread, I don't think there's a solid RAW, or based on developer comments linked RAI, reason for me to continue assuming that.

    But I still don't think it's a *good* way for the spell to work. I'd rather it just increase the weapon damage and remain the same type and magicalness as the base attack. Same with sneak attack.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by stoutstien View Post
    Hunters mark is an anomaly in terms of having no listed damage type so it's really needs updated wording.
    Yes, the wording of Hunter's Mark is anomalous, so there are "interesting" RAW arguments that could be made there.

    However, reading the Damage Types section, I believe it is strongly implied that the DM should assign a damage type from the standard list, if there ever is an ambiguity to resolve.

    Specifically:
    The Damage Types follow, with examples to help a GM assign a damage type to a new Effect.
    Given the context and various other examples, I think it is obvious that assigning the spell the same damage type as the weapon is the best choice here (albeit I recognize that it is not the only logically supportable choice).

    However, that falls short of absolutely resolving whether this is extra die of damage is imbued with "magical".

    IMO the answer is no, it is not magical, any more than wearing a Girdle of Giant Strength makes a portion of your melee damage magic.
    So the result is "2d6+3 (non-magical) piercing = 0 net damage for this creature".

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    Again, Official SA is not RAW.

    Thanks to Magic Missile, we know a hit is not a game term meaning the result of a successful Attack Roll. Hit is being used as it’s common English meaning, and yes, in that sense, a shield bash shove can hit an enemy.
    Sorry I got you started again :S.

    Why do you care for a spells effect to determine what is a game term? Magic missile is not an attack nor related to how attacks works, but you have one point there, magic missile should probably be rewriten without using the word hit.

    If you read the rules chapter on combat, the word hit is only used mean that an attack has successfully beaten the AC of the target, i.e. a successful attack roll. I don't understand how you can just ignore this sentence from the rules about attacking when you determine what a game term is: "When you make an Attack, your Attack roll determines whether the Attack hits or misses." If it was not a game term, spells like hunters mark would specify that "when you deal damage with an attack" or similar instead of "when you hit with an attack" since it is using the rules to clarify the conditions for the effect of the spell taking place. Hunter's mark uses the word as a game term, not as just a common english word free for your interpretation.

    If you care about specifics over generals, the whole of step 2 and 3 relates to attack rolls and would then be replaced by the shove's contested skill check. By your definition, the shove with a shield would do a d4+ str mod or with your body 1+ str mod since it is an attack and you argue that it hits and the rules for attacks dealing damage states "On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular Attack has rules that specify otherwise" while the rules for shoving removes the attack roll but does not specify that the shove does not deal damage. I would love to as an attack, shove for 1+1d6+strength and cause prone with hunter's mark and a fist at your table. Edit(nothing states that I use my body to shove, I could shove with a greatsword then and deal 3d6 + strength while using hunters mark and still pushing enemies prone. Twice every turn at level 5)

    I won't waste more of my weekend arguing this.
    Last edited by Fnissalot; 2020-08-09 at 12:09 AM.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    I've always assumed it's non-magical unless the attack is magical too. I'd say 0 as well.

    But now that I've read this thread, I don't think there's a solid RAW, or based on developer comments linked RAI, reason for me to continue assuming that.

    But I still don't think it's a *good* way for the spell to work. I'd rather it just increase the weapon damage and remain the same type and magicalness as the base attack. Same with sneak attack.
    I agree and for me the assumptions don't matter. Because honestly RAW, RAI, it's my table and I'll do it the way makes sense to me, not the way 58% of the popular poll voted or the way the designers wanted. They already messed up lots of other areas that both RAW and RAI are just broken and we've had to do some house ruling to fix their mistakes. Regardless of how the spell actually works with intent or lawyer reading I'll go by the logic I used in my comment to determine how it works to me. Just sharing that logic with others in case they find it more agreeable than the literal/intended interpretation itself.

    If you'd rather it work a certain way then make it work that way!
    Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Maelynn View Post
    So here's my order:

    1 attacker: roll to decide if you hit
    2 attacker: add totals of damage
    3 target: subtract resistance/immunity where applicable
    4 target: take remaining damage
    This is the correct order of instructions according to the PHB for resistances and vulnerabilities "Resistance and then vulnerability are applied after all other modifiers to damage." (I just realized that the PHB never actually defines how immunity works. That is a big oversight. So there is no RAW on rules related to immunity. I will assume it happens when resistances happens.)

    So with a shortbow and hunters mark:
    1 roll to hit
    2 roll both the bow's damage (d6s+dex mod) and the spell's damage (d6) (a net would generate no damage here and would not trigger hunter's mark)
    3 the bow is not magical, that part of the damage is removed, the spells damage is magical so that is not reduced.
    4 it takes damage based on only the hunters mark.

    If you would do the following order instead, nothing like hunters mark, paladins smite or the smite spells, hex, flame arrows, or clerics divine strike would deal damage to creatures immune to piercing etc from non-magical weapons unless your weapon is magical.
    1 roll to hit
    2 check if not immune to weapon damage
    3 roll damage
    4 apply resistances etc
    5 target takes damage

    In the rules for injury poisons, they specify that the target must take damage from the coated weapon to be affected. If hunters mark would require the target to take damage, it would be specified as well. There is a big difference between that the weapon must be able to deal damage and that the target has taken damage.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Yunru's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2019

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rsp29a View Post
    RAW Hex requires a hit. Smashing a shield into someone with enough force to knock them over or back 5’ is hitting them.

    I’m not “cherry picking” anything.
    Ummm... Yes, you very much are cherry picking. You're cherry picking the narrative resolution of "they failed an opposed check and now this happened" to include "I made forceful contact with them."

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yunru View Post
    Ummm... Yes, you very much are cherry picking. You're cherry picking the narrative resolution of "they failed an opposed check and now this happened" to include "I made forceful contact with them."
    First, I’ve already stated I heavily tend towards the narrative in my personal rulings, so leaning that way on my rulings is no surprise.

    For this though, how do you shove someone to the ground (or 5’ back) with a shield without making forceful contact? (Also, it’s probably better to put it in the actors reference: the Shield Master BA Shove-er succeeded on their opposed check.)

    Isn’t this also what the RAW tells us should happen? Roll a die (or dice), if the resolution of someone’s actions are in doubt, and then describe that result narratively?

    Where did I not go with that argument that makes this a “cherry picking?”

    If you’re going to accuse me of such things, please explain your accusation.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Land of Cleves
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    But I can shove someone to the ground without hitting them. Even by the colloquial definition of "hit", all I need to hit is their armor, not them. And we already know that hitting someone's armor doesn't trigger Hunter's Mark.
    Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
    As You Like It, III:ii:328

    Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
    Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Troll in the Playground
     
    ProsecutorGodot's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: extra + 0?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
    But I can shove someone to the ground without hitting them. Even by the colloquial definition of "hit", all I need to hit is their armor, not them. And we already know that hitting someone's armor doesn't trigger Hunter's Mark.
    Sure, if you target the armor, but if your target is a creature anything you do is against them.

    I think you'd have a tough time arguing that you haven't harmed somebody when you hit their clothes and it coincidentally happened to harm them as well.

    It's literally "stop touching me" "nuh uh, I'm touching your shirt not you" levels of pedantry.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •