If the troll is reduced to 0 hit points by an attack that does not deal acid or fire damage, it rises on its next turn (as a move action) with 10 hit points.
look in DM help and house rules, I remember there was a "dealing with wirling blades" or something to the like that dealt with a broken combo.
Step 1 - say something like "your abuse of the rules as written to make things harder for us takes away the fun of us being creative, so please don't do that"
Step 2 - leave the game if he pulls another stunt like that.
Remember Kids: he isn't your DM if you don't play, and he isn't a DM at all if no one plays.
Optional Step 3a - DM a game.
Optional Step 3b - Find a new DM.
Bring up your issues or leave the game. Just getting revenge is childish and will just lead to cyclical repercussions.
/agree
This is not something you can "win". A player cannot by definition use the rules against the DM, because the rules, by definition, are determined by the DM. The rules in the Player's Handbook are simply suggestions for a common starting point.
At the core, this is an out of character issue. As such it cannot be dealt with using in-character or metagaming means. From the sound of it, your DM is new. Asking out of the game for a justification isn't out of line, but bogging down the game arguing about it is. As long as a DM's ad hoc ruling doesn't result in a PC death, let it slide so the game can continue and deal with it after the session.
Incidentally, invite him to give his side here or in the DM Advice forum.
The last 10 hit points are actual physical damage. If you do this damage to a troll with a sword, it'll regenerate. If you do it with fire and acid, it won't.
...
The last 10 hit points are actual physical damage. If you do this damage to a troll with a sword, it'll regenerate. If you do it with fire and acid, it won't.
I think you're missing the point. We were burning its body while it got up from 0 hp/prone/unconscious.
I think you're missing the point. We were burning its body while it got up from 0 hp/prone/unconscious.
It could be argued that such damage, from a light source such as a torch, does not constitute an attack of enough magnitude to meaningfully damage a troll. There are plenty of volatile, flammable things that are harder to set on fire than you'd think. iirc, ashing a cigarette in gasoline usually won't ignite it, for instance.
So, a torch might just annoy a troll while a sword-o'-magic-flame might ignite it.
just wait till you are high enough level to pull it off, and exploit it.
"Well, the basic broken build is a combination of imperiling strike (a good level 7 Rogue encounter power), Blade Cascade, and the Deadly Tirckster's 21st level feature that lets you re roll d20s."
remember, served cold, by waiting long enough you go from childish to
.It could be argued that such damage, from a light source such as a torch, does not constitute an attack of enough magnitude to meaningfully damage a troll. There are plenty of volatile, flammable things that are harder to set on fire than you'd think. iirc, ashing a cigarette in gasoline usually won't ignite it, for instance.
So, a torch might just annoy a troll while a sword-o'-magic-flame might ignite it.
I would have the torch deal 1d4 with half of that being fire. On page 219 of the PHB it has damage for improvised weapons.
also what they could do is pour some oil on their weapon and use the torch to light the weapon on fire. Then the weapon does extra fire damage for a while.
It could be argued that such damage, from a light source such as a torch, does not constitute an attack of enough magnitude to meaningfully damage a troll. There are plenty of volatile, flammable things that are harder to set on fire than you'd think. iirc, ashing a cigarette in gasoline usually won't ignite it, for instance.
So, a torch might just annoy a troll while a sword-o'-magic-flame might ignite it.
By that point, it was already accepted/established that the torches would deal fire damage, and that would prevent regeneration. Also, there was a point of keeping it on fire after it was downed.
That aside, if it weren't the case, we'd have absolutely note hope in the encounter, as we had absolutely no reusable fire attacks.
He shouldn't of sent a troll in to begin with.
why not? if they have a mage, Warlock, cleric, or Dragonborn with the appropriate breath ability they shouldn't have too much of a problem with the troll's ability anyway
I think you're missing the point. We were burning its body while it got up from 0 hp/prone/unconscious.
The description of the fight was a little vague... did the hit points of damage come from a sword, or did they come from fire?
The description of the fight was a little vague... did the hit points of damage come from a sword, or did they come from fire?
Doesn't really matter - if it's down and you hit it with a torch, you still reduce it to below 0 hp, hence you prevent regeneration.
Unless you try to read it absolutely literally, but then, you would have to drop it to exactly 0 hp with your fire/acid attack, which is - frankly - stupid.
Cheers, LT.
In my last session, we fought trolls. Trolls have an ability called Troll Healing.
While fighting the troll, half the party was using torches, the other half was using their regular powers. When we slew the troll, the wizard made a VERY clear point of spreading the fire from his torch over the body before the troll's turn, to make sure it doesn't get up.
It got up.
Because the attack that took him to 0 wasn't fire, and despite the fact that were burning his (extremely flammable troll) corpse for the explicit reason of keeping it dead.
Generally, I make a habit and a point of sticking with "Rules as Intended," but this has flipped me and I want RAW revenge. I want to shove the RAW down the DMs throat for self-gratification and getting him to realize that RAW is not good. This revenge may take any RAW form. If I have to build my character a certain way, fine.
We just hit lvl 6. I'm a halfling rogue. I've got backstabber, nimble blade, and pact initiate.
Help me BREAK the DM.
You will likely get more than enough posts about RAW revenge, but honestly, if common sense didn't win this battle for you, and the DM still had the Troll get up after your party BBQ'ed it to make sure he wouldn't, I think you have bigger problems to deal with. My 2 cents.
Doesn't really matter - if it's down and you hit it with a torch, you still reduce it to below 0 hp, hence you prevent regeneration.
Unless you try to read it absolutely literally, but then, you would have to drop it to exactly 0 hp with your fire/acid attack, which is - frankly - stupid.
Cheers, LT.
Well, you're left with a choice then: either houserule the interpretation of "lowered to 0" to mean "lowered to 0 or lower", or remove the limitation on knocking it out with non-fire/acid damage. Given the number of circumstances in the game in which they discuss 0 hp and lower and the relatively few concerning immunities and regeneration, I'm more comfortable with the first interpretation.
Like others have stated -- talk to your DM about your misgivings. No sense in quietly plotting against him.
Doesn't really matter - if it's down and you hit it with a torch, you still reduce it to below 0 hp, hence you prevent regeneration.
Unless you try to read it absolutely literally, but then, you would have to drop it to exactly 0 hp with your fire/acid attack, which is - frankly - stupid.
Cheers, LT.
That's exactly what happened. The troll was taken to 0 (or lower) with a non-fire attack, but we dealt fire damage after it was at 0. The DM decided to read it literally-ish, and have it get back up.
To those of you who say to take it up with the DM instead of childishly plotting against him:
I did bring it up, very clearly. My bad, I argued it right there. That aside, I was clear.
Finding a new DM/game is a wee bit out of the question. I'm not seeking to break RAW out of pure hatred and vengance as much as a fun, rubbing it in his face sort of way. We're all good friends.
That's exactly what happened. The troll was taken to 0 (or lower) with a non-fire attack, but we dealt fire damage after it was at 0. The DM decided to read it literally-ish, and have it get back up.
To those of you who say to take it up with the DM instead of childishly plotting against him:
I did bring it up, very clearly. My bad, I argued it right there. That aside, I was clear.
Finding a new DM/game is a wee bit out of the question. I'm not seeking to break RAW out of pure hatred and vengance as much as a fun, rubbing it in his face sort of way. We're all good friends.
And that is why 4ed sucks, because it was made for bad DMs. It was made so that every aspect of the game will have formula, will have crunch, because some new, or just plain poor DMs couldn't act without come sort of mold.
off the sheep go, baa, baa, baa, thump.
the most important rule, when I DMed, was the rule of cool.
RAW is important, but sometimes it takes someone who isn't busy running the game to remind the DM that common sense should be paramount.
Generally, I make a habit and a point of sticking with "Rules as Intended," but this has flipped me and I want RAW revenge. I want to shove the RAW down the DMs throat for self-gratification and getting him to realize that RAW is not good...Help me BREAK the DM.
I think you could use a Perspective Check. You're playing a game! Chill out, calm down, and talk to your DM like a rational, calm person. Would you flip out this bad if the Banker shorted you a five during a game of Monopoly? Relax.
I think you could use a Perspective Check. You're playing a game! Chill out, calm down, and talk to your DM like a rational, calm person. Would you flip out this bad if the Banker shorted you a five during a game of Monopoly? Relax.
I don't think you picked up on my all too subtle satire. D&D is not JUST a game. If you die in-game, you die in real life!
Either way, it's not about flipping out over a game. For cryin' out loud... it's a game. I'm upset at the decision/person and the lack of or disregard of common sense. Thus, I want to exploit that lack of common sense on my side of things, to prove a point to the DM.
A flamebreath weapon would have been alright. Now as a DM I probably would have made it got up but also have it on fire (on the body part the character placed it) so it would be doing damage each round. Its the cinematic version of the bad gut getting up for the final bit.
Then again my players would have soaked the troll in oil as they were fighting him and then set it on fire.
Arguably you would not be able to do enough damage in the brief few seconds from putting the torch to the prone body and the creature getting up (i.e the next turn for the troll). I think what your DM was trying to do was say that the damage the character was doing was not enough in that short period of time to enough damage (i.e to catch fire). I admit it is a very greyish area. Basically what you guys are saying is a troll can be downed by any weapon and as long as a character places fire on the body for a brief couple of seconds it will die.
A flamebreath weapon would have been alright. Now as a DM I probably would have made it got up but also have it on fire (on the body part the character placed it) so it would be doing damage each round. Its the cinematic version of the bad gut getting up for the final bit.
Then again my players would have soaked the troll in oil as they were fighting him and then set it on fire.
My emphasis, SOP for trolls.
In any event I probably would have ruled it as your DM did: The torch is an improvised weapon therefore does 1d4 damage, it can be fire damage against fire vunerable monsters(like say...... trolls) if lit. The troll's last 10 hp can only be removed via fire or acid damage. If you can do that 10 hp of fire damage while it's out it's dead. Since you only do 1d4 with a torch it gets back up with 10-d4 HPs.
I don't understand the anger unless you were doing 10 or more fire damage to it while it was out.
Also to the people suggesting the blade cascade combo (which required a rogue/ranger multiclass): BLADE CASCADE HAS BEEN ERRATAED, it was capped at 5 hits.
Assuming a troll has 5 hp left, has ongoing 5 fire damage, has been hit with fire since the trolls last turn, and current initiative puts him right after a fighter.
Example 1:
[INDENT]The fighter hits with a non-fire/acid attack and deals 5 damage the troll drops to 0.
On the trolls turn, he gets up and takes 5 fire damage.[/INDENT]
Example 2:
[INDENT]The fighter misses.
On the trolls turn, it takes 5 fire damage and drops to 0. He doesn't ever get up again.[/INDENT]
I argue that example 1 is ridiculous! Sure, it works according to RAW. But it's well known that RAW can be pretty retarded and illogical. If a troll dropped to 0 hp, with a non-fire/acid attack, he should not revive if he takes fire or acid damage before his next turn. By RAW, we could have incinerated the troll's body to ashes, and it would have gotten up.
He made a call, a single call, and it may not have been the best call but it was not in of itself harsh enough to be plotting revenge bacause of a single 10 hp troll.
More importantly, he was following the RAW, not some railroading DM who ignores the RAW. As regards to the mechanics of those rules:
The troll gets up on his next turn with 10 hps of health. It can't stand up with 0 hp, which means it has already regained those 10 hp Beforeit's next turn when it stands up.
It is perfectly fair for the DM to abjucate that the Troll has Some or all of those HPs before it's turn, which means any attack upon the troll must do enough damage to bring the troll down to 0hp again in order to prevent it from standing up.
Even if the DM decided the Troll had regened 5 hp and would regen 5 more before it's next turn, the wizard may not have done sufficent damage with a simple torch of 1d4 fire damage to stop the troll from standing up again.
For example, suppose the DM decided the troll had regained 5 of his hps during this round and would regain the remaining 5 before his next turn. The wizard does 2 points of fire damage to the troll, leaving it with 3 hp remaining, The next round the wizard does another 1 point of fire damage, (assuming the wizard has initiative over the troll) the troll then stands with a remaining 7hp.
Another case in point is what order was the initiative. It is one thing to declare that you are going to burn the Troll with your torch, it is another to actually have an action to do so.
Example, the initiative order is, Troll, Wizard and then Cleric. The troll takes a swing, followed by the wizard's action and then finally the Cleric pummels the Troll down with an ordinary non-fire weapon.
The Wizard then anounces that he is going to use a torch to burn the Troll, however he has already taken all his actions for that round of combat, so he Cannot take an additional, Free action to attack the troll.
During the next round the Troll has initiative and so stands up, the Wizard`s turn hasn`t come up yet and so he still hasn`t been able to attack the troll with a torch yet.
So the question is then, did you actually have time and the actions to burn the body before the Troll could regen and stand up again. That the troll was brought to 0 to me suggests everyone had expended their actions for that Round and unless they had initiative over the troll and could do 10 points of fire damage before it`s turn, then it was going to stand up. Don`t get mad at the DM because the RAW doesn`t give the PCs extra free actions whenever they want.
Before you blaze away too harshly at the DM. Think upon this.
He made a call, a single call, and it may not have been the best call but it was not in of itself harsh enough to be plotting revenge bacause of a single 10 hp troll.
More importantly, he was following the RAW, not some railroading DM who ignores the RAW. As regards to the mechanics of those rules:
My point is that RAW is not necessarily a good thing. I'm not going to wreck the whole campaign, as far as I can tell, with a RAW optimized rogue. Other than "optimization" I'm not going to go out of my way to railroad the campaign, as we are all there to have fun.
I'm within my rights as a player to power game if I want.
The troll gets up on his next turn with 10 hps of health. It can't stand up with 0 hp, which means it has already regained those 10 hp Beforeit's next turn when it stands up.
It is perfectly fair for the DM to abjucate that the Troll has Some or all of those HPs before it's turn, which means any attack upon the troll must do enough damage to bring the troll down to 0hp again in order to prevent it from standing up.
Even if the DM decided the Troll had regened 5 hp and would regen 5 more before it's next turn, the wizard may not have done sufficent damage with a simple torch of 1d4 fire damage to stop the troll from standing up again.
For example, suppose the DM decided the troll had regained 5 of his hps during this round and would regain the remaining 5 before his next turn. The wizard does 2 points of fire damage to the troll, leaving it with 3 hp remaining, The next round the wizard does another 1 point of fire damage, (assuming the wizard has initiative over the troll) the troll then stands with a remaining 7hp.
If you wanted to really stretch it, sure. But the MM is not really leaving that much up for interpretation by RAW. It says they rise as a move action with 10 hp. It says nothing about splitting the 10 hp into regeneration across an immediate and move action.
Additionally, and this is something you'd have to be there to experience, the DM was stressing that he was just going by exactly what the book said. aka, RAW
Another case in point is what order was the initiative. It is one thing to declare that you are going to burn the Troll with your torch, it is another to actually have an action to do so.
Example, the initiative order is, Troll, Wizard and then Cleric. The troll takes a swing, followed by the wizard's action and then finally the Cleric pummels the Troll down with an ordinary non-fire weapon.
The Wizard then anounces that he is going to use a torch to burn the Troll, however he has already taken all his actions for that round of combat, so he Cannot take an additional, Free action to attack the troll.
During the next round the Troll has initiative and so stands up, the Wizard`s turn hasn`t come up yet and so he still hasn`t been able to attack the troll with a torch yet.
So the question is then, did you actually have time and the actions to burn the body before the Troll could regen and stand up again. That the troll was brought to 0 to me suggests everyone had expended their actions for that Round and unless they had initiative over the troll and could do 10 points of fire damage before it`s turn, then it was going to stand up. Don`t get mad at the DM because the RAW doesn`t give the PCs extra free actions whenever they want.
Yes, we had the actions and initiative. That's not the issue at all here. Beside that, if we were making up actions out of nowhere, it would make more sense to call us out on that than let it go. Additionally, that was not the last troll, nor were we out of combat pending that troll's demise. We were very much still using initiative.
now, just by logic, think what will a stick the sice of a match will do to the troll?
you need real fire damage, oil, alchemist fire, a wizard casting a fire spell afte another...
and... well in the real world if you put oil on your sword and light it you destroy the temple of the sword thus rendering it useles, it will either break or bend when you use it with enough strenght and will loose edge
besides, I dont think that would give you more that 1 point of fire damage even in the game
now i fyou use tar... you could get some 2 ongoing damage (not that the weapon would survive if mundane)
blah blah blah blah blah I'm not going to answer your question. I'm just going to say stuff that doesn't matter.
We've been playing with a tailored campaign, not to a status quot. The facts of the matter are that torches WERE effective at keeping the troll's regeneration at bay.
You still have to hit them with the torch, and as it is an improvised weapon, that's not quite as easy as hitting with a sword.
If you wanted to really stretch it, sure. But the MM is not really leaving that much up for interpretation by RAW. It says they rise as a move action with 10 hp. It says nothing about splitting the 10 hp into regeneration across an immediate and move action.
But that would clearly contradict the RAW, because a creature at zero hps cannot rise as a move action, therefore the troll must have the 10 hps before it makes a move action and rises, which means that between the time when it falls at 0hp and the time that it rises it has gained 10 hps.
And according to Raw and the initiative order, if the Troll was brought to zero and the very next turn was the Trolls, then the troll would stand and be at 10 hps, which means that according to RAW the Troll regens those hps pretty darn fast, meaning RAW that more then 10 damage must be done to stop that Troll from standing his next turn.
As the RAW don't say when or how, it is open for the DM to interpret as he sees fit. As the RAW also don't say anything about fire damage done after the Troll is dropped to zero either, the DM has to make a call either way
Additionally, and this is something you'd have to be there to experience, the DM was stressing that he was just going by exactly what the book said. aka, RAW
Then this has less to do with RAW and more to do with the DM not knowing what to do under these circumstances and therefore sticking to the RAW. In this case I beleive the DM made the right call then, if he is unsure as to the effects of poking a troll with a torch vs the regen effect then he should stick to the RAW rather then trivialize an encounter based upon a dubious action.
.
In this case I beleive it was the correct choice, as a single attack by the wizard (regardless of the initiative order the wizard would only have one turn at most to attack with the torch) would likely not have done enough damage to prevent the troll from regenerating and standing the next round.
Yes, we had the actions and initiative. That's not the issue at all here. Beside that, if we were making up actions out of nowhere, it would make more sense to call us out on that than let it go. Additionally, that was not the last troll, nor were we out of combat pending that troll's demise. We were very much still using initiative.
The point was not to call you out, but to illustrate that there may have been no time for the wizard to make such an attack, or else if as described the DM has decided the troll starts regening as soon as it hit's 0 hps then the wizard's attack might not be enough damage and the DM rules that according to RAW the Troll would still stand his next turn. To avoid a lengthy arguement and discusion rather then continue to play the DM just flat out says "I am using the RAW"
Either way the DM has to make calls on rules and continue to play. Sometimes rather then spend lengthy time looking up rules, examples and debating the merits of one chjoice over the next the DM just makes the most simple choice as a matter of expedeince and to get the game going.
Is a single attack from a torch going to stop the Troll from standing? The DM ponders this, realizes he doesn't know, but it doesn't sound like it would be enough, decides it is best to stick with RAW and goes with it.
It may not have been the best choice, I personally would have subtracted the fire damage done by any attacks with the torch and had the Troll rise with less the 10 hps, but I do not think your DM made a bad call here to stick with the RAW, and I don't think it needs to be avenged in any way, or that he needs to be taught a lesson.
I think... I believe... I think... I believe...
Say what you want to say. WE know that's what you think/believe, because you're the one writing it. Welcome to 10th grade writing.
But that would clearly contradict the RAW, because a creature at zero hps cannot rise as a move action, therefore the troll must have the 10 hps before it makes a move action and rises, which means that between the time when it falls at 0hp and the time that it rises it has gained 10 hps.
And according to Raw and the initiative order, if the Troll was brought to zero and the very next turn was the Trolls, then the troll would stand and be at 10 hps, which means that according to RAW the Troll regens those hps pretty darn fast, meaning RAW that more then 10 damage must be done to stop that Troll from standing his next turn.
As the RAW don't say when or how, it is open for the DM to interpret as he sees fit. As the RAW also don't say anything about fire damage done after the Troll is dropped to zero either, the DM has to make a call either way
Specific beats general. It's one of the most basic rules. The specific says that the troll gets up with 10 HP. That clearly beats the general of creatures with 0 HP being dead. Even though a troll's regeneration is "pretty darn fast," it holds no bearing on this issue.
By the stupid RAW, if the troll doesn't hit exactly 0, the ability doesn't go off anyway.
Then this has less to do with RAW and more to do with the DM not knowing what to do under these circumstances and therefore sticking to the RAW. In this case I beleive the DM made the right call then, if he is unsure as to the effects of poking a troll with a torch vs the regen effect then he should stick to the RAW rather then trivialize an encounter based upon a dubious action.
.
In this case I beleive it was the correct choice, as a single attack by the wizard (regardless of the initiative order the wizard would only have one turn at most to attack with the torch) would likely not have done enough damage to prevent the troll from regenerating and standing the next round.
The point was not to call you out, but to illustrate that there may have been no time for the wizard to make such an attack, or else if as described the DM has decided the troll starts regening as soon as it hit's 0 hps then the wizard's attack might not be enough damage and the DM rules that according to RAW the Troll would still stand his next turn. To avoid a lengthy arguement and discusion rather then continue to play the DM just flat out says "I am using the RAW"
Either way the DM has to make calls on rules and continue to play. Sometimes rather then spend lengthy time looking up rules, examples and debating the merits of one chjoice over the next the DM just makes the most simple choice as a matter of expedeince and to get the game going.
There is no way to do not enough damage to prevent troll regeneration, assuming it's at least 1. The fact that RAW doesn't say anything about fire damage done after the troll is at 0 or fewer is the precise reason why this thread exists.
The DMs choice was not a matter of expedience. The DMs choice was to fudge the encounter because he didn't like us taking out the troll when we did.
Is a single attack from a torch going to stop the Troll from standing? The DM ponders this, realizes he doesn't know, but it doesn't sound like it would be enough, decides it is best to stick with RAW and goes with it.
It may not have been the best choice, I personally would have subtracted the fire damage done by any attacks with the torch and had the Troll rise with less the 10 hps, but I do not think your DM made a bad call here to stick with the RAW, and I don't think it needs to be avenged in any way, or that he needs to be taught a lesson.
I just have a couple more things to add.
First, this whole thing is really an issue of selective use of RAW. By RAW, the ability trigger when the troll is taken to 0 HP with non fire or acid damage. I generally consider, when playing D&D, that there is an written agreement that the DM will be fair, and the players will be in turn. By choosing to "interpret" part of the ability as 0 damage or fewer and not using common sense to part count further damage once it's triggered, that agreement is essentially broken. I thus feel wronged. (even ever so slightly wronged)
Lastly, I'll state that page 268 details what happens at the start of a creatures turn. Ongoing damage is the first thing that happens, followed by regeneration. Therefore, to any arguments related to regeneration vs. ongoing damage, ongoing damage occurs first.
Edit: we determined since the hill the cave was in was quite low, that the cave went down and the oil would run down a bit deeper into the lair. We were right.
I forgot to add, we had another session today where we went back to finish off the troll's lair. We poured 50 pounds :P of oil under the door into the troll's lair and exploded the crap out of it with a fireball spell. Trolls and ogres came running out of their all bloodied up and on fire. Naturally I used positioning strike to push one back inside.
Edit: we determined since the hill the cave was in was quite low, that the cave went down and the oil would run down a bit deeper into the lair. We were right.
LOL - Freaking Awesome!!
http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
I forgot to add, we had another session today where we went back to finish off the troll's lair. We poured 50 pounds :P of oil under the door into the troll's lair and exploded the crap out of it with a fireball spell. Trolls and ogres came running out of [there] all bloodied up and on fire. Naturally I used positioning strike to push one back inside.
Edit: we determined since the hill the cave was in was quite low, that the cave went down and the oil would run down a bit deeper into the lair. We were right.
YOU SEE? Id agree with your DM... you tried one troll with torches, it was hard (trolls are supoused to be mean) you prepared yourself, purchased tons of oil, you lit the damn trolls up and voila! troll BBQ
now, if your DM had considered that your positioning strike didnt count as fire, it happened to eat the last damage and the trolls would stand up (burning, swamped in oil) NOW I would be mad at him and you'd have your right to ask for revenge
1. the 4E books are rather badly edited as they contain many confusing and/or contradicting rules
2. That because of the highly abstract combat system of 4E common sense doesn't really help you much as it doesn't apply to a lot of things in 4E.
Anyhow, by the rules....
PHB pg. 268
The Start of Your Turn
Ongoing damage is applied at this time. Doesn't state if the bolded conditions are in order or what not, but it doesn't matter in this case. In the group I play in...we go in order of Ongoing Damage, Regen, Other Effects, End Effects, then No Action. You also cannot take any actions at the start of your turn, hence "No Action". Any actions includes...Move Actions.
PHB pg. 269
Actions on Your Turn
Your Actions...during your turn, includes Move Action.
MM pg. 254
Troll Healing
It rises on its next turn (as a move action) with 10 hit points.
Okay fine, makes no real difference, but SERIOUSLY, additional fire damage is dealt to the troll right before it's "action phase", before it gets to use "Troll Healing". C'mon, the beast is BURNING....alive!
Again, by the rules, the Troll takes ONGOING damage BEFORE being to effect Troll Healing.
...so either the troll rises with 10HP regardless of the fact that it's on fire.
Or
...the five ongoing fire damage reduced it further below 0HP and it shall not rise.
Or
...as someone already stated, by the strictest RAW, unless an attack reduces the troll to EXACTLY 0HP Troll Healing has not effect, but if it did, after taking another 5 ongoing fire damage at the start of turn, it would rise from the dead with troll healing during its action turn.
Seriously, some DMs needs to leave the rules be and use common sense and let the characters just be heroes and rewarded for their tactical flexibility. Let em' do that amazingly stupid stunt and get away with it for the pure thrill of dramatic effect.
My two cents...
Fox
Touching a torch to a body for less than 6 seconds does very little to no serious harm. Yeah its causes pain and burns some skin, but common-frelling-sense says its not enough to kill anything, let alone a prevent a 10 foot tall, 5 foot wide killing machine of warty muscled flesh getting back up and stopping a somewhat magical mutant healing factor.
Damnation! >,<
Touching a torch to a body for less than 6 seconds does very little to no serious harm. Yeah its causes pain and burns some skin, but common-frelling-sense says its not enough to kill anything, let alone a prevent a 10 foot tall, 5 foot wide killing machine of warty muscled flesh getting back up and stopping a somewhat magical mutant healing factor.
That's the problem (as I see it) you try too much to make stuff in D&D to make sense. Do not underestimate the power of a flaming torch. Just because WotC did not add any combat info for it does not mean it can not be an effective weapon in combat.
That's the problem (as I see it) you try too much to make stuff in D&D to make sense. Do not underestimate the power of a flaming torch. Just because WotC did not add any combat info for it does not mean it can not be an effective weapon in combat.
But really, the caveat is in the "effective" part of your statement.
Take, for example, the idea of a small child and a match. Let us say the child falls unconsious (sleeping or otherwise). In a fit of psychotic rage, a man holds a lit candle of average size to the child's arm for 6 seconds (a liberal estimate considering each round has 3 actions that all fall within that 6-second window). Does this kill the child? Of course not, that's just silly. It causes burns, tears, and probably a child abuse charge, but it sure as the sun shines does not kill the kid!
Now imagine a "10-foot-tall 5 foot wide killing machine" who also happens to be MAGICAL. A torch to him is about the same as a candle to a small child (we'll assume a 3 year old, approximately 2 feet tall and less than 1 foot wide, maybe less). So, would what is essentially the equivalent of a candle to the troll kill him after a few seconds? Probably not. Edit: And I hope no one mentions magical torches, because everburning torches generate no heat.
Yeah, it's a fantasy game, but even the most fantastic of situations needs some basis in logic. Otherwise it's just plain foolishness.
That's the problem (as I see it) you try too much to make stuff in D&D to make sense. Do not underestimate the power of a flaming torch. Just because WotC did not add any combat info for it does not mean it can not be an effective weapon in combat.
I'm not underestimating hte power of a torch. I've tried setting a body (in my case a deer that I hit with a truck) on fire with just open flame. It took nearly 5 minutes for the fire to actually catch on the animal. And that one had fur. If it were slimy calloused skin, it would have taken even longer.
You are overestimating the usefulness of small amount of unaided open fire.
Now, it's a move action to regenerate with this ability, so at this point he can either crawl away (and get shanked) or stand up. Either way he's on fire (by your GM's own allowance) and misses the turn. He's not going to be good for much except a very appropriate and dramatic thrashing about and collapsing death, while your relatively inexperienced characters furiously hack at him and have a scary story to tell the barmaid.
Now, your DM is a boner because he just pulled rank and didn't help you have fun. There were ways to handle that situation that probably would have felt much less like RAW DMing. Is he young? Is he new to the whole DMing thing? Maybe he'd enjoy hearing advice on how to handle a similar situation next time. Unless he's a boner, in which case I suggest you say "F' this boner", and bail.
I think this thread illustrates nicely that:
1. the 4E books are rather badly edited as they contain many confusing and/or contradicting rules
2. That because of the highly abstract combat system of 4E common sense doesn't really help you much as it doesn't apply to a lot of things in 4E.
--coughs--
1. The books have a small issue not taken into account, it happens in all editions, this itself is not a reason to say a 4th edition book is poorly edited. (the reason to say THAT would be the stealth rules.)
2. That highly abstract combat system was in 3rd edition to, hp is only an abstraction of health.
(defends 4th edition from off topic criticism)
--coughs--
For an on topic point, while it was probably wasn't a good ruling, its to small an issue to really worry over, as long as the DM is normally fine.
Make the DM mad by trying to do everything that would be possible in real life but is impossible in the game. .
Like.. what?
As others have said oil pots first and torch second should have been standard for troll lair fighting.
troll is stuck in a 5 damage a turn fire.
trolls turn takes 5 fire damage, troll kills self.
next round troll revives, takes 5 damage, troll kills self.
next round troll revives, takes 5 fire damage, troll kills self.
so a troll can indefinitely stay in a fire taking 5 fire damage indefinitely by killing itself, but if it doesn't kill itself, its survives.
so a troll can stay alive on fire, by killing itself?
sounds to me like trolls should ready actions to kill themselves when they are low on hp so they cant ever take fire/acid as their last points of damage so never die!!! after about 3 hours of killing themselves the adventurers will get bored and then killing a troll comes down to constantly burning the darn thing until it goes unconscious from exhaustion, which probably could take days.
and for all you 4E haters that are about to jump on this to say zomg 4E sucks, just hush, thanks.
1. I'm surprised this thread came back.
2. Stop saying that the torch shouldn't have done fire damage/enough fire damage. At that point in the fight, it was CLEARLY ESTABLISHED that the torch did sufficient fire damage to hinder the troll's healing regeneration. Additionally, if you get to use real-world examples, I should get to use examples in D&D literature. Troll flesh is as flammable as a candle wick.
3. This is not just an issue of 4e. It's an issue of RAW vs RAI, and those issues have always and will most likely always exist/ed.
Hate to say it but I agree the troll should have came back on his turn. The ability triggers during the trolls next turn so any damage done to him while he is on the ground is beside the point. Now then if the troll was that hurt and saw everyone wielding torches getting ready to kill him he should be taking his standard action to run the frak away. That too is raw and he was not playing the trolls correctly to begin with because they should be running once bloodied and the pc's are wielding fire or acid. Now if he can't save from the reacurring fire damage before his next turn or so the troll is dead anyway.
As others have said oil pots first and torch second should have been standard for troll lair fighting.
Only by retarded half-RAW should he have gotten up, as he wasn't taken to exactly 0. Again, OIL was not in the book. When we asked about it, the DM said we got enough oil for our lanterns. The errata came out by next session.
That said, I don't see how the Troll was allowed to rise up since the torch fire damage on the troll would have prevented the regeneration and the party should have been smart enough to find a way to use fire to turn the troll into a crispy treat. Something like making a bonfireto toss the troll into while one of the party members keeps it from regeneration would work well.