Search results

HP is common sense? Using a mechanic that can represent: Physical, Luck or other mystical durability and your saying that someone who misses physically cant damage the other three? maybe it was a miss because that character used up some of his luck or mystical defenses dodging the fury of the...

I was actually thinking more relevantly: How To play Document pg. 12: "Your hit points represent a combination of several factors. They include your physical durability and overall health, your speed and agility to avoid harm. They also account for luck, divine favor and other mystic factors...

Citation?

It's even simpler than that. didnt anybody read the reaper feat description??? "Your aggressive attack style makes all of your attacks close calls.? What is so hard about that to believe?

I wouldnt call 3 damage wrecking. I wouldsay that all you would need is an army of 1st level apprentice wizards and you'd do better btw.

I think i'd be less opposed to alternate abilities that you could take instead, rather then "Lets replace it completely from the game". but now that i've got it in my head, i think of a slayer as always doing damage he is that ferocious in his attacks.

The same can be said for all of the "It's magic!" excuses, some of us find it silly and a cheap cop out. Either way, im more for inclusiveness, its a single feat from a theme that the book even points out in order to play more old school to leave themes out. I dont see why you have to ruin...

the superman example doesnt work at all either, even dr/- 3 would negate the slayer's ability

actually to use the baseball metaphor, this damage on a miss is more like 4 balls. You still can get on base without swinging :P

Your right, i was confusing the issue, either way though, we started in 4e or 3e most of us so it doesnt really bother us that much i guess.

I started in 4e so in all honesty, things like fighter options beyong i hit it, or trip/sunder it is d&d to me. With that said, nope it doesnt really seem to bother me or my group. Most of us either started in 3e or 4e so we dont have the issue of having newer ideas not being d&d.

And no offense but should d&d next's core start with such ridged traditionalism? Should kobolds have 3hp because by the gods thats what they used to have? No knock on your preferances, just wondering about the default of the game.

I can understand that... i think. But rather the slayer's issue being the auto damage, perhaps its just the fact that the adventure doesnt present any meaningful choices. I mean if the game only included magic immune enemies the wizard wouldnt have any meaningful choices... or at least any...

Furthermore, how did the wizard feel about MM being at will and un missable for even more damage than the slayer miss? Talk about meaningless choices...

Ah, im glad your table is the arbitrary metric of broken and no broken. JK... More seriously, like i said perhaps the issue is the encounter? With only kobolds to swing at sure all you can do is kill a kobold or kill a kobold. But toss in some kind a big baddie then its do little damage on a...

Im not sure how this would have been better for your player. Without auto damage it would have been either kill a kobold or miss. I dont see how that is worse than always kill a kobold. Perhaps the issue lies with the encounter not presenting enemies worth hitting, or the player not going for...

Apparently the slayer is.

I believe it's just str mod damage, so it's even less then minimum damage

All of this can be possible without being built by the same rules. You dont need monsters to have feats for this to be possible, you can jsut give it the trait of being able to do so. All requiring monster to e built the same way as PCs does is severely limit the kind of NPCs or Monsters that...

I think the fix is to not have monsters and npcs built with the same rules. They don't need feats.