Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ninja-to" data-source="post: 4342492" data-attributes="member: 19551">Wow how much time was wasted on my example instead of the real problem that was posed? I guess I'll have to spell it out a bit more simply...Forget the example, my only point was this:Why does aiming for a secondary target give you an automatic chance to strike the first? Especially since it may be harder to aim for the primary target. This is what doesn't make sense to me. It's harder to hit the main NPC so I'll just aim for the minion is what I have a problem with. It could be that the NPC is low on HP's so all the players with cleave and auto damaging powers start aiming for minions instead of the NPC, with their main aim to take the NPC down. That's what doesn't make sense to me and that's what I don't like.No, I don't expect D&D to be believable and be scientific, but like any fantasy or science fiction it just needs to be 'believable'. 'Just because' doesn't cut it. 'Because it's easier this way' has an argument going for it, but when it start messes with basic common sense it gets harder to cover up. Remember that D&D is based on telling a story, at least for most players, and telling a believable story is important. Combat is still part of that overall story.Don't get distracted on anything above, we could start threads all over the place with that can of beans, just keep in mind my main point: Aiming at a weaker creature so you can hit the stronger seems silly to me and doesn't seem to fit.Yes, for the vast majority of combat situations, it won't make much difference. But in some odd situations, I can see this situation as problematic and even game breaking if overlooked.</blockquote>

Verification