One of my monsters targeted a PC with a trip attack and got a critical success. There was a PC Champion adjacent to the targeted PC, who activated Glimpse of Redemption.
I ruled that the Champion could not activate Glimpse of Redemption because I felt it was against the spirit of the rules. Why should the monster be punished for a damaging effect that only occurs on a critical success? A trip attack with a normal success doesn't deal damage at all.
One could argue that it was the ground dealing the damage, not the monster. I don't like to use that argument, but you see my point.
This seems like a niche case, but I'm asking for feedback on this ruling because I wasn't considering its system-wide implications at the time. I'm sure there are damaging effects that occur on critical successes to which Glimpse of Redemption can apply.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure how it wouldn't apply. The monster took an action that directly harmed the pc, the Trigger for glimpse of redemption is "An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you." so it should apply. Not sure where the "spirit of the rules" are detailed.
Monster took action, action damaged pc, other pc activates Glimpse of Redemption.
Not sure how it wouldn't apply. The monster took an action that directly harmed the pc, the Trigger for glimpse of redemption is "An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you." so it should apply. Not sure where the "spirit of the rules" are detailed.
Monster took action, action damaged pc, other pc activates Glimpse of Redemption.
I suppose my hang-ups were as follows:
- What I meant by "spirit of the rules" is that it didn't make sense to me that getting a critical success would end up making an action "worse;" as in, they proc'd a reaction they wouldn't otherwise proc on a normal success. But I realize now that's a false equivalence.
- I wasn't sure whether the user of the trip attack caused the damage, or the target from taking a big spill. But I suppose that's unnecessary semantics.
I'm used to running systems that require a lot more interpretation, so I was certainly looking for things that aren't there. It's refreshing to not have to worry about "filling in the blanks," so to speak.
Thank you for responding!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind, the monster can choose to deal no damage instead of taking the penalty.
Keep in mind, the monster can choose to deal no damage instead of taking the penalty.
This is true! Which is extremely important in this case, since the original intent of the attack is not to cause damage. Thanks for pointing that out!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah that was my first thought as a middle ground ruling: just give the monster the choice to downgrade to a normal trip.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind, the monster can choose to deal no damage instead of taking the penalty.This is true! Which is extremely important in this case, since the original intent of the attack is not to cause damage. Thanks for pointing that out!
So your monster can be happy that it was a Redeemer standing there. It can just chose to not deal damage and still have tripped the PC. If it was a Paladin standing there it would have get smacked for rolling a critical trip success. :)
Also yes, "the ground did the damage" is useless semantics. The monster threw the PC so hard to the ground that they took damage. It's like saying "My sword did the damage, not me".