Class and Level Geekery VIII (spoilers ahoy!)

[Myou]

Trust the guy who's played for thirty years. The spell can't reduce your HP below 1, save or no save.

The amount of time you've played doesn't mean anything.

The spell says that it can kill you if you fail your save. That's what it says. It's not very well worded, and that may not have been the intent, but the inability to kill is attached to the successful will save, not the entire spell. RAW is that it can kill.

[SavageWombat]

The amount of time you've played doesn't mean anything.

The spell says that it can kill you if you fail your save. That's what it says. It's not very well worded, and that may not have been the intent, but the inability to kill is attached to the successful will save, not the entire spell. RAW is that it can kill.

Yes, actually it does, because I've read numerous threads and discussions such as this one where it is made quite clear that the intent of the spell is, regardless of save, to reduce the targets HP but not kill them outright.

It could be better phrased, yes, but the pronoun "it" in the description refers back to the Harm spell itself, and is not dependant on the saving throw in any way.

[Myou]

Yes, actually it does, because I've read numerous threads and discussions such as this one where it is made quite clear that the intent of the spell is, regardless of save, to reduce the targets HP but not kill them outright.

It could be better phrased, yes, but the pronoun "it" in the description refers back to the Harm spell itself, and is not dependant on the saving throw in any way.

I couldn't care less if you think you're Gygax himself, it wouldn't change the rules of English.

Again, intent is not what I am talking about, the spell, as written, can kill. This isn't debatable or uncertain, it's how English works. The clause preventing killing applies only to a successful save.

The pronoun isn't the issue, the issue is that the clause is predicated on the situation established earlier in the sentence. That being a failed save.

If [successful save] then [harm] cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

[SavageWombat]

I couldn't care less if you think you're Gygax himself, it wouldn't change the rules of English.

Again, intent is not what I am talking about, the spell, as written, can kill. This isn't debatable or uncertain, it's how English works. The clause preventing killing applies only to a successful save.

The pronoun isn't the issue, the issue is that the clause is predicated on the situation established earlier in the sentence. That being a failed save.

If [successful save] then [harm] cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

From the official FAQ for D&D 3.5 comes the Harm spell:

The harm spell deals 10 points of damage per caster
level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level) and cannot
take a target’s hit points to less than 1. If the target
creature makes a successful saving throw, the damage is
reduced by half, but the spell still cannot reduce the target’s
hit points to less than 1.

The clearer, more explicit phrasing demonstrates the intent of the game writers. As I said, it's not a matter of whether you agree with the grammar, it's the stated intent of the spell.

[Myou]

From the official FAQ for D&D 3.5 comes the Harm spell:

The harm spell deals 10 points of damage per caster
level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level) and cannot
take a target’s hit points to less than 1. If the target
creature makes a successful saving throw, the damage is
reduced by half, but the spell still cannot reduce the target’s
hit points to less than 1.

The clearer, more explicit phrasing demonstrates the intent of the game writers. As I said, it's not a matter of whether you agree with the grammar, it's the stated intent of the spell.

How many times do I have to say this? The spell description as given in the SRD says harm can kill on a failed save. Those are the rules as written for Harm in the core rulebooks. This FAQ quote (never mind that the FAQ is not a reliable source) is changing the rules as written. If you play by the revised rules the FAQ puts forth then yes, Harm can't kill, but that isn't what I've been saying, I've been saying that the spell text says it can.

[Douglas]

The spell text can be interpreted either way on this subject. English is ambiguous like that sometimes.

[SavageWombat]

How many times do I have to say this? The spell description as given in the SRD says harm can kill on a failed save. Those are the rules as written for Harm in the core rulebooks. This FAQ quote (never mind that the FAQ is not a reliable source) is changing the rules as written. If you play by the revised rules the FAQ puts forth then yes, Harm can't kill, but that isn't what I've been saying, I've been saying that the spell text says it can.

No, it's saying that you take a certain amount of damage, and you can reduce this with a saving throw, but you cannot take damage that will take you below 1.

I can see how you might be confused, but you are being willfully argumentative.

[Myou]

The spell text can be interpreted either way on this subject. English is ambiguous like that sometimes.

In this case it is not. The clause is predicated on a successful save. This isn't an issue of interpretation, it's fact. The intent may differ, my point is simply that the text does not reflect that.

No, it's saying that you take a certain amount of damage, and you can reduce this with a saving throw, but you cannot take damage that will take you below 1.

I can see how you might be confused, but you are being willfully argumentative.

No, I am not being 'willfully argumentative', I am endeavoring to be patient and explain why the rules of language mean that you are provably wrong, despite your provocations and arrogant declarations of D&D based expertise. The confusion is yours, not mine.

You need to look up how clauses like this work - the spell does not say what you think it says.

Since you apparently don't understand the rules of English, yet are certain that you do, this argument is futile. Think what you will, since there is nothing I can do at this point other than refer you to English books.

[SavageWombat]

In this case it is not. The clause is predicated on a successful save. This isn't an issue of interpretation, it's fact. The intent may differ, my point is simply that the text does not reflect that.



No, I am not being 'willfully argumentative', I am endeavoring to be patient and explain why the rules of language mean that you are provably wrong, despite your provocations and arrogant declarations of D&D based expertise. The confusion is yours, not mine.

You need to look up how clauses like this work - the spell does not say what you think it says.

Since you apparently don't understand the rules of English, yet are certain that you do, this argument is futile. Think what you will, since there is nothing I can do at this point other than refer you to English books.

Rules Lawyering does not mean that you are not incorrect. I have provided you with an official source clarifying the design intent of the rule; therefore it is a correct interpretation. RAW is vague, and RAI is clearly demonstrated.

[Thunderbuckets]

Question about the Thog-whacking-Haley moment. Does it occur anywhere else in the comic that The Giant spreads a single combat round over multiple panels? (and if so, where?)

If you want a melee attack scenario, Durkon's number game is an entire comic presented as LESS than one combat round (since we just get Durkon's turn.)

[Math_Mage]

Re: Harm, the spell wording in the SRD is unambiguous in only giving the "can't reduce below 1" clause to a successful save; however, the FAQ is a clear statement that the above was a mistake. So it is as previously stated: Harm cannot reduce a creature's hit points below 1 in any situation.

Question about the Thog-whacking-Haley moment. Does it occur anywhere else in the comic that The Giant spreads a single combat round over multiple panels? (and if so, where?)

Multiple places in this strip--I'm thinking in particular of the point where Roy makes a full unarmed attack over three panels. I assume you mean a single action, not a single turn combat round, as combat rounds are routinely spread over many panels, and even turns are frequently spread over multiple panels (for example, practically any time a quickened spell is used). There aren't that many examples of a single action being spread over many panels, but I think Thog's door attack and Roy's full punch attack are both good solid examples.

[Kalmegil]

I am endeavoring to be patient and explain why the rules of language mean that you are provably wrong,

Harm as written in the SRD is absolutely ambiguous. The problem is the word "it": "If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1."

If "it" means "the casting of the spell harm," then the spell cannot kill on a successful save. If "it" means "the casting of the spell harm which has been successfully saved against," then it means the spell cannot kill on a successful save, but can kill otherwise.

Another way to look at it is to consider whether it's a compound sentence, the first have of which is an if-then statement and the second half of which is a simple clause, or if it's an if-then statement with a compound "then" portion. The punctuation and wording is ambiguous as to these two meanings.

This kind of question comes up all the time in law, especially contract law and statutory construction. It's not as simple as following "the rules of language." Careless compounding of sentences has led to lengthy litigation, and courts do not always use the construction you've asserted is provably correct.

There is a specialized set of rules, and whole classes and books dedicated to this subject. Look up "Canons of Construction" for examples. I'm not saying those rules should be used here. I'm saying that ambiguity of language is far greater than is generally assumed, and the existence of such a complex area of law is evidence of such ambiguity.

[Gilphon]

This all kind of strikes me as kind of off-topic, though, since it's been agreed that the fact that Nale survived Harm tells us nothing.

But: It is my view that number of panels does not actually a collation to number of rounds strong enough for us base anything off of it.

[ti'esar]

This all kind of strikes me as kind of off-topic, though, since it's been agreed that the fact that Nale survived Harm tells us nothing.

But: It is my view that number of panels does not actually a collation to number of rounds strong enough for us base anything off of it.

So, is that support for Thog being 11+ or not?

[Gilphon]

It is support for that, yes.

[Douglas]

But: It is my view that number of panels does not actually a collation to number of rounds strong enough for us base anything off of it.

I disagree, but only partially. The 1 round* = 1 panel convention is used often enough that it should be assumed to be in effect whenever it is reasonable to do so. It is broken often enough that the bar for deciding it is not in effect should be pretty low, however.

* Or, more precisely, 1 character's actions for 1 round

One character delivering a series of several attacks in one panel should be assumed to be precisely one rounds' worth of attacks for that character unless we have reason to believe otherwise, for example. For the Thog door-smashing scene, though, we do have substantial reason to believe the three separate panels are not three separate rounds - if they were, it would be absurd that no one else did anything at all in those three rounds.

Or, in other words, yes that scene is evidence for Thog being level 11+, but other evidence (such as Belkar being 16+) that relies on the 1 panel = 1 round rule should not be automatically tossed out.

[Math_Mage]

Harm as written in the SRD is absolutely ambiguous. The problem is the word "it": "If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1."

If "it" means "the casting of the spell harm," then the spell cannot kill on a successful save. If "it" means "the casting of the spell harm which has been successfully saved against," then it means the spell cannot kill on a successful save, but can kill otherwise.

I feel this is a poor interpretation of the sentence structure. The issue is not the word 'it'; rather, the issue is whether the clause beginning with 'but' is subordinate to the clause beginning with 'if'. This is the point of ambiguity. For example, I can create a sentence with the same clauses that would obviously be interpreted with the 'but' clause independent of the 'if' clause: "If Joe dies, the creature is yours, but it hasn't technically committed murder yet."

Technically, there is possible ambiguity. As a matter of common interpretation, there is no ambiguity. If the FAQ revision takes precedence, it doesn't matter. And since Nale made his save, the failed-save case is still more irrelevant.

[ti'esar]

I disagree, but only partially. The 1 round* = 1 panel convention is used often enough that it should be assumed to be in effect whenever it is reasonable to do so. It is broken often enough that the bar for deciding it is not in effect should be pretty low, however.

* Or, more precisely, 1 character's actions for 1 round

One character delivering a series of several attacks in one panel should be assumed to be precisely one rounds' worth of attacks for that character unless we have reason to believe otherwise, for example. For the Thog door-smashing scene, though, we do have substantial reason to believe the three separate panels are not three separate rounds - if they were, it would be absurd that no one else did anything at all in those three rounds.

Or, in other words, yes that scene is evidence for Thog being level 11+, but other evidence (such as Belkar being 16+) that relies on the 1 panel = 1 round rule should not be automatically tossed out.

Fair enough.

[Flame of Anor]

Would everyone please stop arguing about the semantics of the Harm spell? It would be annoying enough if there were a point to it, but there isn't even any stat in the thread that depends on it! So, please, just stop!


Also, I agree with douglas' analysis of the round-to-panel rule.

[Kurald Galain]

Electric Orb, maybe? Or perhaps the interrupted Meteor Swarm.

Plus most quickened spells - the one that comes to mind is Malack's Harm/Moderate Wounds combo.

If you want a melee attack scenario, Durkon's number game is an entire comic presented as LESS than one combat round (since we just get Durkon's turn.)

Multiple places in this strip--I'm thinking in particular of the point where Roy makes a full unarmed attack over three panels.

And I did some searching myself for an action spread over multiple panels, and found the arrow here. Overall, it's good to have evidence that this happens more often in the comic, rather than being a justification for only a singular event.

Okay, you've convinced me that Thog does indeed make three attacks in one round, pegging his level at 11+.

[RMS Oceanic]

Indeed. I shall update Thog's level.

My suspicion is that we won't be able to have a solid rule about how much time pasts per panel, and it will just be something we need to cover in a case-by-case basis.

[Gift Jeraff]

I hate quoting myself to get attention, but no one seems to have addressed it:

Zz'dtri should have an unspecified scrying spell on his character block. (Link to this strip if you want to avoid people debating how we don't know if that's Z for sure.)

[SavageWombat]

Zz'dtri should have an unspecified scrying spell on his character block. (Link to this strip if you want to avoid people debating how we don't know if that's Z for sure.)

Are you sure it's unspecified? I'm not sure there are a lot of spells that could produce that specific result - creating a magical sensor at that extreme range. I think it's pretty clearly just Scrying, isn't it?

[Gift Jeraff]

I thought it could be Arcane Eye, but then I reread the text and it doesn't fit. So yeah, I guess the more accurate listing would be "Scrying or Greater Scrying."

[Kurald Galain]

I thought it could be Arcane Eye, but then I reread the text and it doesn't fit. So yeah, I guess the more accurate listing would be "Scrying or Greater Scrying."

I concur. Also, I think it's Scrying, because Greater Scrying would last thirteen hours, whereas the sensor in that comic doesn't seem to follow the Order as they leave.

[Kalmegil]

I feel this is a poor interpretation of the sentence structure. The issue is not the word 'it'; rather, the issue is whether the clause beginning with 'but' is subordinate to the clause beginning with 'if'. This is the point of ambiguity. For example, I can create a sentence with the same clauses that would obviously be interpreted with the 'but' clause independent of the 'if' clause: "If Joe dies, the creature is yours, but it hasn't technically committed murder yet."

It was one of two interpretive methods I offered - the other being the one you just described.

Technically, there is possible ambiguity. As a matter of common interpretation, there is no ambiguity.

It's not just a possibility. It is ambiguous. It's a common problem in legal construction, and resolving it usually requires an examination of other evidence - either other parts of the same text or external evidence of the parties' intent.

But the foundational premise of all those cases is that the construct at issue is ambiguous.

[RMS Oceanic]

I'll mark the spell as Scrying, as it's the lower level spell.

[Flame of Anor]

The link for Tarquin's dagger is missing a bracket.

[zimmerwald1915]

wrt: Haley's special rogue abilities. A level 15 human rogue has seven feats, and Haley is listed with eight. Should this not mean that she spent one of her special rogue abilities on learning one of those feats? Should this not also mean that she has only one special rogue ability unaccounted-for?

EDIT: also, the table should be titled "In which comics do the characters demonstrate that they have levelled-up".

[Flame of Anor]

wrt: Haley's special rogue abilities. A level 15 human rogue has seven feats, and Haley is listed with eight. Should this not mean that she spent one of her special rogue abilities on learning one of those feats? Should this not also mean that she has only one special rogue ability unaccounted-for?

Speaking of that, why isn't she listed with Ranged Pin from that time she nailed Roy's crotch to the side of the chasm?

And are there any ACFs that could maybe explain some of her feats?