Search results

Yes it does damage, on a miss. It doesn't turn the miss into a hit, because that's not what the game says it does. Also, if you're going to go into the "hit" point argument, be aware you're also claiming that nearly half the spell list can't do damage since they can't "hit".

Nowhere in the playtest does it do this. If it says otherwise, point to where.

I always get confused when people try to use the dictionary definition of words when it comes to D&D, when a lot of things in D&D have long since abandoned their traditional definition(Paladins, Druids, barbarians, etc)

To be fair though, "more balanced than it's 3.x incarnation" isn't really saying a whole lot.

I'm assuming he doesn't use the technique on a solid hit because it's something he has in case he doesn't land a solid hit, and using it during a time it's not needed is just a waste of energy for minimal gain, assuming the technique isn't just "swing hard enough and accurately enough so that...

I don't follow. You're wondering why a character, who has a technique he practiced in the off chance his attack isn't as effective as he hopes, doesn't use said technique when his attack goes exactly like he wanted?

Trust me, you making contradictory arguments kills your point far better than I can. I snark because you pretty much shred your own arguments to pieces and leave nothing left for me. Ok. Yet you see no problem telling others their objectively wrong for disagreeing with you. And that HP...

...which is exactly the point I've been making all along.

Last I checked, cutting open a body to use for autopsy was a coroner's job. And my point is that what the "limit" is for a body varies.

And it's not necessarily true in some in-game D&D societies. I'm not sure why this is difficult.

Heck, a long time ago, cutting open a body was something considered illegal and completely horrific. And it's something that happens a lot in our society for autopsies.

Again, it's disrespectful to the dead from the viewpoint of our modern society and in our world, which wouldn't always be true in game settings.

FTFY That wouldn't necessarily be true in a D&D setting.

Because he's injured? I can't tell if this is a trick question or not. Which also supports DoaM being completely fine because the results of what DoaM causes(fatigue, chip damage, etc) are well-known to the character. Until it suddenly isn't.

When I want the Cleric to heal me, my character doesn't go "Hey Cleric, I only have X Hit Points left, heal me!" He goes "Ow, that got me right in the kidney. Hey Bob, I need some magic!"

And this is where I completely stop taking you seriously. How do people know their exact HP in your world? Do they have the number on the wristwatches or something that they can check to see when they need to fall over dead? In your world it makes sense that a Fighter knows he can fall off a...

Like hit points and levels? Mechanics you've, in the past, insisted aren't dissociated at all?

Pathfinder isn't free of it's own DS mechanics, like Rogues only being able to take advantage of weaknesses for extra damage or only Barbarians being able to get angry(not counting the ones it took from D&D like hit points and levels). Except the definition of hit points mesh very well with...

The same thing can be said about why only the Rogue knows how to backstab people/hit weak points and why only the Barbarian can get angry in combat. The other classes either don't have or didn't take that option, so they don't get the mechanic.

So aside from one anecdote, you have no real proof. Then again, it would make 4e exactly the same as every other edition who lost chunks of their fanbase.