NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9224774" data-attributes="member: 7026594">Right.  We accept that a spellcaster can never fumble their verbal component purely due to the antiquity of the assumption.  Despite the fact that such things happen in the source literature.  The idea that a fighter can ever be in a position that an attack they make will automatically do something (except perhaps against an incapacitated foe, depending on the edition) is more novel only from a rules perspective.  But there's nothing inherently unrealistic about it, and it's definitely consistent with fantasy fiction.We see situations in fiction like this quite often, in books and on the screen- generally when one combatant is "on his last legs" (ie: last couple of HP).  When he "could be knocked over by a stiff breeze".  In those spots we as the audience know that if the opponent just bothers to attack, the victim will be unable to adequately defend himself and be cut down.  Alternatively, a situation where a warrior is in a tight spot and the opponent has set themselves up for a deadly blow.  Which is consistent with the relatively small number of cases in which 4E allows damage on a miss from a martial attack, which are generally A) High level powers/limited maneuvers representing a skilled fighter putting in special effort on an attack, or B) Reaping Strike, the Fighter At-Will, which only ever does single digits of damage, so either just barely impacts the enemy or finishes off one who is "on his last legs".  I liked Touch AC as a concept too, and one area where 5E strikes me wrong is how it makes touch attacks have to roll against full AC.  That being said, given how it lets casters use their PR and proficiency with it, the annoyance is mostly just aesthetic. Sure.  But some of that pushback is against things which the pusher accepts in other contexts apparently out of familiarity.  <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Sure.  Potentially.  I'm not thinking of a specific example but there may have been some.  Though thematically the Warlord is more about leading their allies, although some of their powers did have to do with goading enemies.Let's remember that they're not always successful.  CAGI needed to Hit against Will to draw the enemy.  Ie: your taunt/manipulation of the enemy had to succeed in order to move them.  (I acknowledge that the first version of it, which automatically drew them in, was a bigger issue).Most of the time they don't need to.  Any more than a character in any edition needs to move on the battlefield to make a Save against a Fireball.  We recognize that in the fiction they're probably diving for cover or ducking behind something (or someONE), but for battlemap purposes the mini doesn't move.  It's important to remember that the battlemap position is still something of an abstraction, though it's an easy trap to fall into of thinking it's absolutely accurate.This was a good post, but I'll nitpick that the five alignment system wasn't entirely novel or ahistorical.  It matches Holmes Basic closely which in turn lines up with Gary's expanded thoughts on alignment in OD&D from The Strategic Review #6 (Vol 2, issue 1), which also broke alignment down into Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral.  I really liked the 5 alignment system, though I can absolutely see how LE or CG could definitely be people's Gnome.  Heck, for some of the 90s CG probably would have been MY Gnome.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />I'm really curious about this too.  I suspect that cheap and shared access to the online character builder, while a great idea to build a base of monthly and annual subscribers, really impacted the book sales.</blockquote>

Verification