Search results

I'm not done with 5e at all, but I pretty much agree with the problems Tovec raises. I've mainly decided not to keep arguing them over and over, because others are doing a better job of responding succinctly than I was and my grammar mistakes were driving me crazy. Also, it's turned into a...

Perhaps. At least it makes you wait til 5th level. [edit: addition] I wouldn't have as much of a problem if the fighter miss damage was explained as him growing in skill until he was a badass. If you give him a "miss on less than 5" mechanic he may as well never miss with bounded accuracy and...

That's one issue I have. Another one can be easily described with the same example. An unlimited use ability in that situation (GWF miss dmg) negates a limited use ability (the spell). Other than reaping strike, the large majority of damage on a miss powers in 4e are restricted to limited use...

And it never will protect him. The wizard may think his powerful spell can protect him, but the player playing him will be well aware that the spell is always useless in that situation, which creates a disconnect than can be a bit jarring. Especially if you're a player who favors an immersive...

I can see how it is confusing. I don't necessarily agree that a hit must always count as a collision, but if we're picking "sides" my arguments will usually please those in that camp more. For me it's simpler if a"hit" means "to do damage." If there were some fluff that made sense with a...

I agree here mostly, except with "miss =such that you do not roll damage + modifiers but may deploy any effects that apply on a miss" then the fiction makes sense" It only makes sense if the rider that applies on a miss can makes sense against that opponent. An ability that penetrates AC to do...

Originally Posted by bogmad post #247 [edited for clarity] And if a "miss" has no numerical effect in terms of hit points then we can have it both ways. I can describe a low [or wild] miss how I want and you can describe it completely differently. When you add damage on a miss is when it...

I won't argue it's negates WoTC's feedback, but right now the poll here has most people disagreeing with damage on a miss, so it's not an open and shut situation of just a few whiners. You're not the only one trying for a compromise. Mine just didn't involve a damage on every miss because that...

Nope. What I'm against is adding something that ticks so many people off just because a vocal group demands it. Want to add an advanced option or houserules to rewire THAC0 back in? Good luck with that, but don't demand I use it. Because having that option as a default in core negates how...

No, we just have very different ideas of what "unification" means. So far I'm getting a lot of the game I want. You can't please everyone, of course. As is well evident.

Sure, and so is THAC0, but no on is arguing that it be re-inserted to the game, but there are other 2e influences that are making it back. No one is arguing nothing from 4e be included -[RECORD SCRATCH]ok well that's a bold face lie, I take that back, some are arguing just that, BUT many of us...

I don't know; I'm sure these auto damage mechanics work just fine with 13th Age, but while it may be a game very similar to D&D, and specifically 4e, it's not D&D, and I don't think it's mechanics work for where 5e design idealogy is moving

And if a "miss" has no numerical effect in terms of hit points then we can have it both ways. I can describe a low miss how I want and you can describe it completely differently. When you add damage on a miss is when it dictates a greater or lesser effect. Personally, I find effects having a...

I'm not looking for a system to go the extra mile in terms of simulating touch AC, etc. I'm just looking for one with a certain minimal threshold for simulation. It doesn't need to be precise, but it does need to leave open the idea that sometimes you might "touch" something and sometimes you...

Also, a "near miss" of 5 or less, can better display a fighters progression in ability. A first level fighter with GWF isn't an unstoppable juggernaut though he might get some extra minor blows in. But by the time he's high level and his attack bonus has increased significantly he is...

I won't say exactly what I want because that's pretty broad, but I think folks can get a basic sense by reading my posts. However, I can tell you what I don't want as far as auto damage on a miss goes though. I don't want it. It just takes too much work to justify. Damage on a near miss...

But I don't want a single narrative voice. I want options that I can come up with on the fly, with variability according to the context of the situation and/or die roll.

... I just told you I don't want to EVERY TIME.

Except I can't narrate as I please. YOU can narrate however you want if a miss doesn't have any numerical impact -and I can pretend that a miss on a 1 is worse than on a 12 with no repurcussions. But with auto damage I always have to either narrate an impact of some sort or - if not the reason...

To me, the die in a d20 attack roll is another tool that I can used to help tell a story. I don't need everything spelled out as to just what my defender is doing to not get hit. If he has a high dex bonus I might narrate more often that he dodges and flits around the battlefield, but it isn't...