Basic Fantasy RPG Core Rules 4th Edition

[LibraryLass]

I did look for what I considered close paraphrases, though I think a final pass through after proofing may be a good safety measure, Belt & Braces (not sure if that saying's a thing in the US? means redundancy if it isn't)

We call them suspenders rather than braces, but as long as you know that much the metaphor translates

[artikid]

Let's try:
"For example, a flesh golem struck by a lightning bolt which deals 16 points of damage instead heals 4 points hit points.""
(If the ratio is 1 to 4)

[Boggo]

Let's try:
"For example, a flesh golem struck by a lightning bolt which deals 16 points of damage instead heals 4 points hit points.""
(If the ratio is 1 to 5)

Does it need to be a ratio though? I mean the intention is to restrict lightning bolt use against them (I still think making it all electricity based attacks would be more logical) so it's always going to be an edge case so why not just go simple and say 1 point of damage done to a flesh golem by an electrical attack actually heals the automaton 1 point of damage, completely different to the SRD, but same meta effect (lightning bad idea)

[Traveller]

Can't be 1:1 because of Entropy

[Vindeishi]

Here's how I did my proofing:

1 - Verbatim text - easy to identify
2 - Very closely paraphrased text; as in would it still be considered a direct quote in an academic paper, even if the wording was slightly different; also identified.

The example given above is complicated; I'm pretty sure that I would have flagged it as paraphrased (number 2 above), but since it's a mechanic, it wasn't always clear.

I don't know if everyone was flagging paraphrases?

My approach was similar.

[Solomoriah]

The ratio is 3:1 rounded down. The SRD's choice of 11 is because dividing it by 3 results in 3.66... which rounded down is 3. They were making a point, and I agreed that we should make that point.

I didn't quote the entire passage, just the last sentence; if you look at your Core Rules you'll see that this is just the example that follows the explanation.

Here's what I'm thinking:

So for example a flesh golem hit by a lightning bolt spell which does 14 points of damage would instead receive 4 points of healing.

The main issue is that the statement is obvious. There are not a lot of ways to say it, and this is perhaps about the most natural. The good thing is that such very clear statements using common words are hard to claim a copyright on.

[Boggo]

Fair enough I was just thinking simplify it as much as possible and a 1:1 is pretty simple!

Though do you want to keep it restricted to lightning bolts? the Frankenstein angle would suggest things like Shocking Grasp, Desert Dragon Breath and Lightning Elemental just about anything should also have the effect, gives you the advantage of moving further from the SRD

[Solomoriah]

Um... Boggo, please read the flesh golem text. As I said above, this is just the example at the end of the explanation of the monster.

[Dimirag]

The 3.5 SRD says: "For example, a flesh golem hit by a lightning bolt heals 3 points of damage if the attack would have dealt 11 points of damage."

For example, a flesh golem hit by a lightning bolt heals 3 points of damage if the attack would have dealt 11 points of damage

For example, hitting a flesh golem with 13 points of damage via a lightning spell will heal it by 4 points of damage.

[chiisu81]

My take: For example, inflicting 13 points of damage on a flesh golem via a lightning spell will heal it by 4 HP instead.