Search results

You can't design anywhere near an entire game by consultation and the 70% mark. It's inevitable that you will get individual things that get to the 70% mark, but when put together make both worse or are downright incompatible. There's a reason that Design by Committee is a well known bad way...

Wouldn't the financial success be better if it sold super well for more than 5 years?

Not really. If it were, you would do damage even if you miss. The attack as a general rule can either hit or miss. If you hit, you then move on to damage dealing. An attack itself deals no damage. Hits do. The rules lump it together kinda sorta, but it's separate rolls. Once for the...

Unless you are arguing that I can walk into a store and any weapon I buy can do radiant damage if I choose, the spell is breaking the natural laws of physics simply by empowering the sword with that energy(used or not). And if the caster is 5th level or higher, the radiant energy emerges...

You need to read better. I said the SWING OF the weapon(the attack) does no damage. I never said the impact of the weapon(the hit) does no damage. Just that the attack doesn't.

Which just adds more evidence that it isn't the spell that is doing it. It's you. If it were the spell, your stat wouldn't matter. The bonus from Bless is a good example of a spell that is providing the bonus.

You, too? Do you understand how ridiculous it sounds for you to make that counter argument? Attack =/= hit. Attack=attack. Hit=hit. You only do damage if you hit. The attack determines IF you hit or miss.

I suggest you read the combat rules, because attacks don't do damage. Hits do. If the attack hits, you can do radiant damage. The attack can miss, so it cannot be the attack that does the damage, or it couldn't miss. It would be like fireball. LOL No. You can change it to radiant. It's a...

No it doesn't. The hit does the damage. The attack does no damage at all. It's just a mundane swing of the dagger. Again, no. The damage might, if the caster chooses not to do mundane weapon damage only, but the swing of the weapon(the attack) does no damage at all. It's just a swing of...

By the way @Paul Farquhar, in D&D force is defined differently in any case. "Force--------------------Pure magical energy" Unless you're suggesting that the natural physical law is pure magical energy, you're barking up the wrong tree with this one.

The same with your ability to give bad examples.

So again, the actual dagger attack does not. It's just a dagger swing. The rest of it does, but that doesn't make the dagger swing anything other than a dagger swing.

No. They've never done it, so I've never had to rule on it. They have no idea other than it's subpar compared to the boots.

Show me what is physically creating the force. You can't, because it's being generated out of nothingness in defiance of the laws of physics. Force also often has physicality in D&D. Force generated through spells is not using the laws of physics to do it.

That completely gets my argument wrong. The acrobatics are not part of the spell. That is correct. The guidance itself is supernatural in origin and obeys no physical laws. Just like the modification of the attack from True Strike is supernatural and obeys no physical laws. So yes, Guidance...

Not in the way the spell uses it.

The attack does not. The attack is just a swing of a dagger.

:rolleyes:

I'm sure it was. With a player base as large as D&D has, every single rule will have 20+ different versions of feedback, some contradictory. My point is that maintaining backwards compatibility meant that they couldn't fix a lot of things, because they could only really make minor changes.

The bolded is not. I agree. The attack, though, is just someone swinging a sword. I will also note that there is zero actual guidance being done in the spell. Like not even a smidge. No advantage to the attack. No bonuses to hit. Nothing. You get to use your magical stat, but that's not...