Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7639020" data-attributes="member: 29398">IMO the minimum 7 damage does not make for good play...Assuming the fighter hits with both swings in the round.  Ogres' AC is either 5 or 4, I forget which at the moment.  7th fighter with +1 to hit from strength, +1 to hit from spec, and +2 to hit from sword needs, I think, to roll 5 or better to hit AC 5 (6 or better to hit AC 4) so yes, she'll hit most of the time but not every time.By RAW, yes.  That said, I'd posit there's very few DMs left out there who use RAW values for 1e monster hit points for the big and-or tough ones - including ogres.I've seen it - and said it - many times, couched in terms of noting that a significant problem with 1e monster design is that many of them are glass cannons and need more hit points in order to be viable threats and-or worthwhile opponents; particularly post-UA with all the PC power creep that book introduced.You keep mistakenly saying I fail to understand the 4e combat mechanics.  I understand them well enough, but at the same time refuse to accept some of the premises they are built on, as they are wrong.I've bolded a few bits there.Little chance does not equal no chance; highly relevant in a game where resource management - hit points, spells, ammunition, item charges/uses maybe - is key.  If "they take a lot of time to take down" then a good DM owes it to her game to spend that time and do it; ditto for dealing with the "headache" of keeping track of lots of opponents.well, actually it is inconsistent; and you'll not change my mind on this.Additional attacks per round, and a better chance to hit, as level advances are both quite nice reflections of - in the fiction - a fighter's skill increasing as she learns her craft.  The foes are what the foes are regardless of what's attacking them, thus the fiction and setting remain consistent with themselves.As soon as you start having monster mechanics change themselves based solely on what those monsters are fighting fictional consistency goes out the window - UNLESS the same holds true for PCs, which we've already agreed is a bad idea.I don't, though 6 seconds is still a far cry from a minute (one is too short IMO, the other too long).</blockquote>

Verification