Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgoroth" data-source="post: 6259297" data-attributes="member: 6674889">It's still a hack.Consider that Archery style gives +1 to hit. This gives +16 to hit for 1st level fighters.Consider that the best fighter, a level 20 fighter, has a +14 to hit maximum, and that's WITH a legendary epic weapon.The first level, apprentice fighter / gweefer with a broom handle gets +16 to hit. Why? Just because.Why use strength score instead of strength modifier? Just because. I'm not trying to sound snarky here, but his proposal here elaborates PRECISELY why GWF violates bounded accuracy, common sense, logic. If you replace it with a mechanically identical version (in terms of damage output), but one with a different narrative, you still nevertheless have issues such as why first level fighters are given a fighting style which gives them 95% accuracy on every single attack of their entire career.Yes, it's better than 100% success rate (or 0% miss rate) as the current version, but it's still quite terrible.I read this thread and it occurs to me that several people do not grok why D&D gives agency to the dice to determine, in a binary fashion, the outcomes of success / fail trials, which are inherently binary. To damage a foe with your sword, is it a necessary (but not sufficient) condition that it made a physical connection. Tiring someone out is not referred to as "damage", in casual use of that word, and so that means you are forced to use game jargon which doesn't mesh with the narrative.It's not that you need to think about how to interpret GWF, you have to use double-think to rationalize it, because it's clearly nonsense. And one cannot narrate nonsense in a consistent fashion without breaking something else, like ripples in the pond, the story will suffer and retconning will happen. To wit: the failure of an attack can lead to the target of that attack's death. The goal of the attack is to injure or kill the foe, so if it succeeds in that, it could not have been a failed attack. I think these discussions go around in circles because people cannot accept that they are clearly, black and white wrong on a very basic logical level. At that point, it is more productive to argue that 2+2 = 5, or whether anthropomorphic climate change exists with someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old and that The Flintstones, humans co-existing with dinosaurs, was historically accurate. It's an exercise in pure futility.</blockquote>

Verification