Search results

No, it's failing to simulate the chance of him doing no damage that round. Unlike everyone else using a weapon, he's always doing damage. What is it exactly about a two handed weapon that removes that possibility anyway? I really want to know because I'm a simulationist player.

Does the fighter roll a d8 when he misses to determine which direction his great sword swing went?

Let me ask you again but in another way. At what point does the GWF never do damage?

First of all, you are not even reading the rules correctly. ... You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is...

When does GWF actually miss? You can roll 1000 times and he will do damage 1000 times. After you finish rolling let me know if "missing" was removed from the game for him.

Even if you go back to the rule books from all pre-4e editions and find another rule that fits your argument, all you're going to do is convince people that the rule you found is flawed and needs to be corrected.

Exactly.

The problem with this mechanic is that it removes one of the most important mechanics in the game. It completely removes the mechanic that simulates an actual miss! Yes, one particular style of fighter is ALWAYS making contact with his foe. Even when he is intoxicated he can't ever make a...

Explain to me how is it acceptable in the simulation camp?

Yes, there are several problems with it. In fact, the DM is actually called to be the arbitrator a little more often because of it. The resolution method for how this DoaM mechanic interacts with Cover, Invisibility, Blur, Intoxication, Disadvantage, Blindness, and a few other conditions is...

How are you drawing that conclusion?

IMO, this mechanic is junk and must go. It's not just an issue with GWF ether. Even Melf's Acid arrow has damage on a miss (unlike previous editions). It's just a stupid mechanic. If the game had touch AC or contact AC I might be able to accept a modified version of it, but as it...

I think the scaling mechanic should be unique to each spell. Chromatic Orb is a great example of how a spell can scale with level.

In D&D Next the DC for a fireball is 8+ Int+ Prof. vs DEX + Prof. Caster level doesn't alter the prof bonus all that much (about 1/3 your level) and if the target has a prof in dex saves it will be negated.

Charm person is actually one of the only spells in the 2e PHB that doesn't scale with level. It scales with INT. It seems 2e already had this figured out. IMO, there is a lot of hidden wisdom in that system that has been forgotten.

The Abjurer, Enchanter, Diviner, etc won't get to use the slot scaling mechanic unless they become closet Evokers.

After looking at my 2e PHB I noticed that all except 2 of the 40+ first level spells scale with level. The problem with D&D Next is that the game is only scaling damage. That approach won't work well for spell casters who want to focus on non-damaging based spells. Everything should scale...