Cloudkill and 6 hd? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cloudkill and 6 hd? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Robert Craven
03-13-07, 03:37 AM Cloudkill says:
A living creature with 4 to 6 HD is slain unless it succeeds on a Fortitude save [..]
A living creature with 6 or more HD takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud.

What happens to creatures with exactly 6 hd? They fall in both categories.
Bopple
03-13-07, 04:02 AM Actually, that's not the whole part.
A living creature with 4 to 6 HD is slain unless it succeeds on a Fortitude save (in which case it takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud).
A living creature with 6 or more HD takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud (a successful Fortitude save halves this damage).

Anyway, I think 6HD belongs to the former.
runestar
03-13-07, 06:55 AM I guess a literal reading would indicate that they have to make 2 fort saves. Failure of the first means they die, if they pass the first one but fail the 2nd one, they take 1d4 con damage each round. If they pass both fort saves, then they only take 1/2 damage.

But I am with bopple that only creatures with 7HD or more are immune to the death effect.:)
3DJutsu
03-13-07, 07:47 AM It just means that people with 6HD are 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' so to speak.
Robert Craven
03-13-07, 04:20 PM It just means that people with 6HD are 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' so to speak.

:D Nasty spell.
Witch
03-13-07, 04:22 PM "4 to 6" generally means the interval [4,6[, which doesn't include 6.
cwslyclgh
03-13-07, 04:22 PM I treat 6 HD as the part of the lower range in my games (moving the higher ranger to 7+ HD)
Nephlite
03-13-07, 05:05 PM Cloudkill says:

What happens to creatures with exactly 6 hd? They fall in both categories.

Third category: 6 HD are immune. Makes sixth level special.
tarkin
03-13-07, 05:36 PM six or more clearly includes six HD.

four to 6 does not clearly include 6HD.

I would rule that 6 HD count as the 2nd category,
Jam_Warrior
03-13-07, 05:54 PM "4 to 6" generally means the interval [4,6[, which doesn't include 6.

Utter nonsense. Anyway, if that were true why wouldn't they just put 5 :P
Witch
03-13-07, 06:16 PM Because then there'd be the interval [4,5[, which wouldn't include 5.

You see, if they would want the second number included, they'd say "4 up to and including 6". They didn't.
cwslyclgh
03-13-07, 06:29 PM You see, if they would want the second number included, they'd say "4 up to and including 6". They didn't.
not realy, people commonly say things like "three to six" and mean it to be inclusive of all of the numbers... for example it is perfectly correct to say that a magic missile from a 1st level caster deals "two to five" points of damage.
Witch
03-13-07, 06:32 PM not realy, people commonly say things like "three to six" and mean it to be inclusive of all of the numbers... for example it is perfectly correct to say that a magic missile from a 1st level caster deals "two to five" points of damage.
Yeah, they often do, but if they say

"Five to six gets this, while six and more gets this" you know that the first one doesn't include six, by context.
cwslyclgh
03-13-07, 06:34 PM I think you are working very hard to defend what was in all likleyhood a typo that ahs never been corrected.
Robert Craven
03-13-07, 06:34 PM "4 to 6" generally means the interval [4,6[, which doesn't include 6.

Interesting. Generally "4 to 6" means [4,5,6].

Example programming languages (Pascal)
for i = 4 to 6 do write(i);
> 456

Why should you put "6" into the phrase, if it is not included? Why is 6 exluded but 4 included? In your definition, is there is difference between "4 to 6" and "4-6".

On a quick search, I have not found another spell that is worded like Cloudkill. But I found several that use lik "50-100" and "101-150" (Power Word Blind).

Sorry, but that does not make sense. Although I tend towards your interpretation anyway.
Witch
03-13-07, 06:51 PM Why should you put "6" into the phrase, if it is not included? Why is 6 exluded but 4 included? In your definition, is there is difference between "4 to 6" and "4-6".
Perhaps I see it this way because in my native language, it's far more common to do it as I believe it happened here.
Robert Craven
03-13-07, 07:06 PM In my native language (German) "4 bis 6" usually means (4,5,6).

And I always thought French would be the same.
Witch
03-13-07, 07:07 PM Hey, I don't speak French. I speak Dutch ;)
Willie the Duck
03-13-07, 09:06 PM Interesting. Generally "4 to 6" means [4,5,6].

Example programming languages (Pascal)
for i = 4 to 6 do write(i);
> 456

Why should you put "6" into the phrase, if it is not included? Why is 6 exluded but 4 included? In your definition, is there is difference between "4 to 6" and "4-6".

On a quick search, I have not found another spell that is worded like Cloudkill. But I found several that use lik "50-100" and "101-150" (Power Word Blind).

Sorry, but that does not make sense. Although I tend towards your interpretation anyway.

I don't think "generally" is a word I would use here. You're right, programmers would likely use that mentality, while mathematicians would not. Good editing principles would suggest that fair common English usage, one would be expected to make a clear distinction. As such, I suggest that this is in fact an example of poor editing. However, since the later specifically does state six and above, I would deem the former to be 4-6, non inclusive at 6, baring a FAQ clarification.
Mark_Constantino
03-14-07, 03:46 AM http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Spells-SorcererWizard.pdf

It states here that 6+ HD creatures only make the save for half CON damage.
Robert Craven
03-14-07, 04:09 AM Hey, I don't speak French. I speak Dutch ;)
Oops, sorry. Dutch is so different from German?

http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules...ererWizard.pdf

It states here that 6+ HD creatures only make the save for half CON damage.
I know. But that is just the interpretation of the creators of that index. The official SRD still uses the wording I quoted in my original posting.

I don't think "generally" is a word I would use here. You're right, programmers would likely use that mentality, while mathematicians would not.
Mathematicians would not write "4 to 6". They would put it in an exact form like 4<=x<6 or x∈{4,5}

However, since the later specifically does state six and above, I would deem the former to be 4-6, non inclusive at 6, baring a FAQ clarification
That would be my "ruling" as well.
Willie the Duck
03-14-07, 10:45 PM Mathematicians would not write "4 to 6". They would put it in an exact form like 4<=x<6 or x∈{4,5}

That was the point I was trying to make, yes.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Robert Craven 03-13-07, 03:37 AM	Cloudkill says: A living creature with 4 to 6 HD is slain unless it succeeds on a Fortitude save [..] A living creature with 6 or more HD takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud. What happens to creatures with exactly 6 hd? They fall in both categories.
Bopple 03-13-07, 04:02 AM	Actually, that's not the whole part. A living creature with 4 to 6 HD is slain unless it succeeds on a Fortitude save (in which case it takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud). A living creature with 6 or more HD takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud (a successful Fortitude save halves this damage). Anyway, I think 6HD belongs to the former.
runestar 03-13-07, 06:55 AM	I guess a literal reading would indicate that they have to make 2 fort saves. Failure of the first means they die, if they pass the first one but fail the 2nd one, they take 1d4 con damage each round. If they pass both fort saves, then they only take 1/2 damage. But I am with bopple that only creatures with 7HD or more are immune to the death effect.:)
3DJutsu 03-13-07, 07:47 AM	It just means that people with 6HD are 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' so to speak.
Robert Craven 03-13-07, 04:20 PM	It just means that people with 6HD are 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' so to speak. :D Nasty spell.
Witch 03-13-07, 04:22 PM	"4 to 6" generally means the interval [4,6[, which doesn't include 6.
cwslyclgh 03-13-07, 04:22 PM	I treat 6 HD as the part of the lower range in my games (moving the higher ranger to 7+ HD)
Nephlite 03-13-07, 05:05 PM	Cloudkill says: What happens to creatures with exactly 6 hd? They fall in both categories. Third category: 6 HD are immune. Makes sixth level special.
tarkin 03-13-07, 05:36 PM	six or more clearly includes six HD. four to 6 does not clearly include 6HD. I would rule that 6 HD count as the 2nd category,
Jam_Warrior 03-13-07, 05:54 PM	"4 to 6" generally means the interval [4,6[, which doesn't include 6. Utter nonsense. Anyway, if that were true why wouldn't they just put 5 :P
Witch 03-13-07, 06:16 PM	Because then there'd be the interval [4,5[, which wouldn't include 5. You see, if they would want the second number included, they'd say "4 up to and including 6". They didn't.
cwslyclgh 03-13-07, 06:29 PM	You see, if they would want the second number included, they'd say "4 up to and including 6". They didn't. not realy, people commonly say things like "three to six" and mean it to be inclusive of all of the numbers... for example it is perfectly correct to say that a magic missile from a 1st level caster deals "two to five" points of damage.
Witch 03-13-07, 06:32 PM	not realy, people commonly say things like "three to six" and mean it to be inclusive of all of the numbers... for example it is perfectly correct to say that a magic missile from a 1st level caster deals "two to five" points of damage. Yeah, they often do, but if they say "Five to six gets this, while six and more gets this" you know that the first one doesn't include six, by context.
cwslyclgh 03-13-07, 06:34 PM	I think you are working very hard to defend what was in all likleyhood a typo that ahs never been corrected.
Robert Craven 03-13-07, 06:34 PM	"4 to 6" generally means the interval [4,6[, which doesn't include 6. Interesting. Generally "4 to 6" means [4,5,6]. Example programming languages (Pascal) for i = 4 to 6 do write(i); > 456 Why should you put "6" into the phrase, if it is not included? Why is 6 exluded but 4 included? In your definition, is there is difference between "4 to 6" and "4-6". On a quick search, I have not found another spell that is worded like Cloudkill. But I found several that use lik "50-100" and "101-150" (Power Word Blind). Sorry, but that does not make sense. Although I tend towards your interpretation anyway.
Witch 03-13-07, 06:51 PM	Why should you put "6" into the phrase, if it is not included? Why is 6 exluded but 4 included? In your definition, is there is difference between "4 to 6" and "4-6". Perhaps I see it this way because in my native language, it's far more common to do it as I believe it happened here.
Robert Craven 03-13-07, 07:06 PM	In my native language (German) "4 bis 6" usually means (4,5,6). And I always thought French would be the same.
Witch 03-13-07, 07:07 PM	Hey, I don't speak French. I speak Dutch ;)
Willie the Duck 03-13-07, 09:06 PM	Interesting. Generally "4 to 6" means [4,5,6]. Example programming languages (Pascal) for i = 4 to 6 do write(i); > 456 Why should you put "6" into the phrase, if it is not included? Why is 6 exluded but 4 included? In your definition, is there is difference between "4 to 6" and "4-6". On a quick search, I have not found another spell that is worded like Cloudkill. But I found several that use lik "50-100" and "101-150" (Power Word Blind). Sorry, but that does not make sense. Although I tend towards your interpretation anyway. I don't think "generally" is a word I would use here. You're right, programmers would likely use that mentality, while mathematicians would not. Good editing principles would suggest that fair common English usage, one would be expected to make a clear distinction. As such, I suggest that this is in fact an example of poor editing. However, since the later specifically does state six and above, I would deem the former to be 4-6, non inclusive at 6, baring a FAQ clarification.
Mark_Constantino 03-14-07, 03:46 AM	http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Spells-SorcererWizard.pdf It states here that 6+ HD creatures only make the save for half CON damage.
Robert Craven 03-14-07, 04:09 AM	Hey, I don't speak French. I speak Dutch ;) Oops, sorry. Dutch is so different from German? http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules...ererWizard.pdf It states here that 6+ HD creatures only make the save for half CON damage. I know. But that is just the interpretation of the creators of that index. The official SRD still uses the wording I quoted in my original posting. I don't think "generally" is a word I would use here. You're right, programmers would likely use that mentality, while mathematicians would not. Mathematicians would not write "4 to 6". They would put it in an exact form like 4<=x<6 or x∈{4,5} However, since the later specifically does state six and above, I would deem the former to be 4-6, non inclusive at 6, baring a FAQ clarification That would be my "ruling" as well.
Willie the Duck 03-14-07, 10:45 PM	Mathematicians would not write "4 to 6". They would put it in an exact form like 4<=x<6 or x∈{4,5} That was the point I was trying to make, yes.