There's no mathematical difference between damage on a failed roll vs AC by an attacker and damage on a successful roll vs a save DC set by the attacker.
So plenty.
Most, but not all, and there have always been save:neg AEs.Arent most save for half damage spells AoE? To me that's a big difference
At that point, on a mere melee atrack, it's just grinding DPR.I was just thinking that automatically doing damage every attack wasn't balanced against the other melee characters who don't have that ability.
Is this sarcasm?Only spells are so easy as to be reliable. With no chance of utter ridiculous failure.
Probably, lol.Is this sarcasm?
EDIT: heck, in 1e fighters eventually had auto-hit and bonus damage.
There's an extremely strident opposition to it, sure.I think abstractly hitting an abstract pool of theoretical numbers leaves plenty of room for DoaM with weapon attacks and maneuvers. It's one of those things that seems to be unpopular, however.