11-30-2020, 05:28 AM | #11 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: A subtle question of Magic and Death
I'm in the "treat it like a success" camp. (Even though I admire Rupert's twisted logic :))
GMs could invent a third state of being if they like, but it hardly seems worthwhile for such an edge case. It's not like magic items don't routinely change a roll by a point or two. In this case, it's just another way to describe a conditional +2 to HT checks. The author could have spelled out exactly what "prevents a Mortal Wound" means in terms of the mechanism that assigns Mortal Wounds. But that would become a little narrow once the second method for acquiring Mortal Wounds showed up somewhere else in the rules or in a later book. If you repeat rules and fragments of rules everywhere they might be needed, not only does the rulebook become longer, it becomes an editorial impossibly to track down all the cross-mentions and fix them. (Compare with the debate as to whether SM applies to melee attacks, since the summary table on B547 happens to omit that one.) Last edited by Anaraxes; 11-30-2020 at 05:35 AM. |
11-30-2020, 05:01 PM | #12 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A subtle question of Magic and Death
Quote:
If something says "instead X" but you have "immune to X" it basically means "instead nothing happens". |
|
11-30-2020, 07:07 PM | #13 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: A subtle question of Magic and Death
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|