Search results

And if we were talking about English, I would agree you have a point. But we're talking about D&D. In D&D "hit" and "miss" have entirely different connotations and definitions--a hit is something that removes your hit points. A miss is something that doesn't. We probably agree with each other...

I hadn't noticed that, but I'll agree. This was a big reason for me quitting 4e--many of the class options most interesting to me were designed to work best with axes...and if I can't use a sword, I won't play that class.

redacted.

You know, I don't really like damage on a miss all that much, at least how it's written currently. The two things I want that would make me like it--no killing blows on a miss, and no damage on a natural 1, also make the rule more complicated, to the point that I just don't think it's worth...

Exactly, and also, like I've said before, some "misses" hurt.

Why should "miss" be any more a direct reflection of reality than "hit" is?

It seems to me that they need to get rid of damage on a miss, because those who like it don't like it as much as those who hate it hate it. So get rid of it. For those who don't like it, would it be more palatable if they followed my suggestion that miss damage could not cause a killing blow...

OK, I misread the title...I thought it was asking what would be a deal breaker for me. As my deal breakers below indicate, 5e hasn't done it (though you can probably see why I don't like Pathfinder...at all). The deal breaker for me 1. Characters that are one trick ponies. 2. Implied...

I figure Hasbro will continue to producesomething called Dungeons & Dragons whether or not it makes money for the same reason Marvel & DC continue to print comic books even though those lose money. They are good license curators for things that make money in other mediums. But now I'm going to...

This here is something that's been bugging me, especially back in 4e, when the notional superiority of 2d4 & 2d6 on the damage progression track messed up the damage progression of heavy blades. 2d12 may have slightly higher average damage, because it's impossible to roll a 1 on the die. but...

Which is why I think, if they allow for things like damage on a miss, they should have you still do 0 damage when you roll a natural 1. I'm not really concerned if damage on a miss makes it into the final product. My contribution was to note, based on my personal experience, that it's a...

As I would define it in the fiction...a "hit" that doesn't kill me is one where I should, by all rights, be dead. That otherwise decapitating blow was stopped by my gorget, my helm stopped the curshed skull, or maybe I took a wound, a cut, or a bruise, or a minor broken bone, that could have...

I don't think it eliminates the fantasy dex character for a couple reasons. First, because damage on a miss seems to be a player thing...and I don't think a player ability negating an NPC's schtick is too bad a thing (The goblin may think he's agile, but he's never had to dodge an attack from...

As I've explained before...I have experience with swordplay and damage on a "miss" makes complete sense to me. Some people are such brutal fighters that even when you successfully block their attack, with your blade or your buckler for instance, the strength they bring to bear shocks your arm...

I'm curious too, because I'm about as politically incorrect as it's possible to be and I love D&D Next.

None of those characters was stronger than Conan.

By bring the rule back, I mean...include strength limitations in future games. When I played AD&D I never enforced that rule, not that it ever came up, since nobody ever had a female character who rolled a strength score high enough for the limit to matter

The Adventurer--the guy who sees the hole in the ground and heads right for it. It's kind of the "no character" character, when the player just wants to get on with the adventurer. He's the one who goes to the inn looking for adventurer hooks, and is halfway out the door before the DM has...

Yeah, but I'm not advocating retroactively changing AD&D, this was directed at any advocates of bringing the rule back. They seem kind of thin on the ground, but I'm sure there are some.

Thank you. BTW, most of the high flown rhetoric from me yesterday, that seemed so confusing, was me trying to tiptoe around saying exactly what you just said in that post there. I find people appointing themselves fun police deeply creepy as well. The unfortunate difference is, I have met...