Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evileeyore" data-source="post: 6320880" data-attributes="member: 1768">1 - I seriously doubt "Fighters not being able to miss" will ever, ever be a "default".  An option for a narrow or even single 'style' of Fighters?  Sure, I can see that happening.2 - Why not?  Why can't a player make a Fighter who can't ever miss?  Why must it be "pile on munchkin levels of cheese" just so they can make "The Guy Who Always At Least Mildly Wounds"?  Why not have that an option for those of us laboring under cursed dice?I'm pretty sure it'll just be anchovies on one slice, out of like 20-30 pizzas *...If you can't handle that, maybe now is the time to recognize it.* Just like it was in 4e.Oh rainbows!And here I was on an "Orc and Pie" versus "Intense RPers" versus "Beer and Pretzels" play style discussion.  No problem, I can swtich gears without grinding...The only thing D&D has ever been good at simulating is D&D.You wants for simulationist?  Try GURPS (and even that's loosened up with 4e).As far as I'm concerned DoaM is no more or less "simulationist" than Hit Points.  They are both game mechanisms for narrowly interpreting broad possibilities.Note, I don't ever refer to these as play styles.  I call them game styles, as in "We're going to play FATE" - "What's FATE like?" - "Oh it's a narrativist game where blah, blah, blah...".But if you want to identify your self as a "simulationist"... like, that's all you man.</blockquote>