Search results

Actually, GWF is basically an area attack, just a smaller area. The GWF knows they may not hit an "exposed" or "vital" area but they're swinging at the target's area hard enough that even if they don't hit a joint/crease that armor isn't going to absorb the whole blow. It doesn't require a...

No, and that's actually a bit upsetting when I think about it. Musician, radio personality, club DJ, entertainer, even a restuarant waiter for a couple of stints and noone ever openly wondered? Heck, I used to go to the gay clubs with some of the gals who danced the pole fantastic at a...

Yeah the Paizo/Wiz-Kids plastics are terrible. The plastic is extremely brittle and designed poorly to stand up to use so I stopped buying them. Damage out-of-the-box was ridiculous, never mind table and shoebox durability. The metal Reapers were, as one would expect, Reaper quality.

It's also worth noting that the Paizo-licensed minis are pretty much garbage materially and much more expensive than the WotC ones. It makes for a weird comparison. It's too bad, because I like a lot of them aesthetically.

...and the enemy will get another round of attacks because it takes three hits vs. two to take it down. .

Except Mearls has the data and hasn't ditched it. He gave the PC answer but his data says it's testing well and he's going to let that weigh more than 5 people spamming a couple of internet message boards with threads. The total respondants to this poll are what, .2% of the number of DDI...

You mean the WotC site where one of the "guys" who keeps bringing it up has at least 6 different IDs he rotates through and is also on this site? Face facts, the entire number of people who even answered this poll is fewer than the number of people playing LFR at any one time slot last year at...

Epic logic fail 101. I see two threads on the first page about this subject, both started by you. A vocal minority does not constitute a majority. Heck, everyone on this site put together is a small minority.

The partial success doesn't necessarily need to be just "getting on base" though. A sacrifice bunt/fly/hit & run, fielder's choice, etc. would also be positive outcomes of making contact with the ball without being credited with a hit. The fielder is just an easier analogy for armor/shield/parry...

Ugh! If I never see "Touch AC" again it will be too soon.

Yep. An analogy from another board I'll borrow is that a hit in D&D is akin to a hit in baseball. It has nothing to do with contact being made it has everything to do with an exposed area being exploited. GWF is akin to hitting a line drive that a fielder (re: armor, parry, etc.) doesn't field...

Yep, and after everything written about it how anybody fails to understand this defies logic.

Yet all the evidence written in books by the designers says you're misinterpreting them. That's not to say you can't houserule/mod the game for HP to be "meat", far from it, but claiming they are "meat" by default is rather silly when everything written says they're not "meat points"...

Double post

Yeah, there are people I care about what they think and yeah, I've been surprised, more often for the positive.

Ditch the basil and sub sliced avocado for a "Southern" twist.

So you're upset there are game elements that help point out your misunderstanding of Hit Points?

Yeah, Toughness sure looked good at first level, then by fifth you were thinking "Why the heck did I take that?!?!?!?!"

But again, why say it's testing well if it's not? Just drop it and move on like any number of other elements we've seen so far.

It's one of three available build features in a playtest, not the final release of the game. If it didn't test well, why say it is and "keep" it? That makes no sense. We've seen lots of things included in one version and not in others. Why is this one so much different? Hint: it's not.