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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6206269" data-attributes="member: 2525">Roughly half the things I listed can be done to avoid taking his strength damage.  Things like mirror image, for example, or the pit he's standing on triggering if he steps on it to get next to me.  Here's another one: I ready an action to move my speed if the fighter stands next to me and tries to hit me.  Here's another one: I ready an action to cast a wall between us (illusionary one or a real one) if he steps next to me.  See, it's really not that hard to do something to avoid taking the damage.I gave you both.So you're insisting on talking about this scenario in a vacuum, we cannot talk about what happened just before the fighter arrived right next to someone? Doesn't sound like a very realistic scenario you're working with.  Apparently, only the fighter gets a turn, and he always wins initiative?You're aware what "cunning action" does, right? It's for this specific sort of situation.  And all rogues have it.  They move in, hit the fighter with a melee action, and move back out again, generally further than the fighter can reach with their own move action.  Hitting you with a melee weapon counts as engaging in melee, right? Making it so that the fighter can never hit you back in melee is avoiding the melee damage, right?  Now imagine if the rogue can fly...ouch!Much of what I said was not magic. You just chose to ignore the list and then pretend it was all some sort of magical hand-waive.  Again, poor form.It's your fault I picked on the blind aspect, BECAUSE YOU CHOSE TO INCLUDE IT.  If it didn't matter for your example, YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN IT FOR YOUR EXAMPLE.  What's so hard about that? You want to punt out of your example, fine, go ahead.  But stop complaining I took what you said at face value and responded to the most obvious flaw more than you would have preferred.  I can only work with what you give me - I cannot read your mind and see that you didn't really mean the full example you gave but only part of it.Cool.  Problem solved - he needs to make an attack roll to use the ability.  And to make the attack roll, he must be able to target.  And that targeting is nixed by a large variety of things.Cool.  Then you have no problem because he has to roll.You might consider the fact that words have meaning, and people are going to respond to what you say, not what you're thinking ;pThe result is identical with or without the ability to do damage on a miss, however.  Which is one reason your example is flawed.  If the ability has no impact on the results, why does it bother you, and why is it an "accurate" example?He gets killed IN YOUR EXAMPLE, not "eventually, some day, in the life of an adventurer".  He gets killed at roughly the same point in the example as he would without the ability, and he kills as many villagers in the example as he roughly would without the ability. The ability had essentially no impact.  Fighters will kill a couple villagers and then get killed by the villagers when they engage in a rampage on a village - with or without the ability.  Which makes the ability not very meaningful in your example.  It's not a good way to prove the ability is bad, if the results are the same.He kills ONE.  Which he would have done with or without the ability, as he's a trained fighter attacking unarmored drunken bar folks.  And they all then tackle him and beat him to a pulp, because with bounded accuracy they can all hit him without a whole lot of luck needed, and those many who do hit him all do damage to him without a whole lot of luck needed.The same exact result happens with, or without, the ability.  Your example doesn't get to break all the rules of the game.  The fighter gets one attack on his turn, and then 19 other people get one attack on their turn.And he gets an infinite number of turns and the villagers get zero turns? Your example only works if you get to pretend there are no other rules to the game.He's attacking a bunch of drunk villagers in a bar.  He kills one, and then they all kill him.  Same result as before.You really DO think nobody else gets a turn and the rogue gets to attack an infinite number of times?To hide, you need a turn to react to what's going on.  So are you giving the villagers a turn here, in which case they all tackle the wizard and kill him? Or do they not get a turn first, in which case THEY ALL DIE.  In fact, this is the only scenario where everyone really does all die - the other examples only one guy dies and then the fighter or rogue die.Well I am so glad you gave the villagers a turn finally, even if they only get a turn in your world if the character is a wizard.He does need to roll.  He needs to roll, and miss, to trigger the ability.  It takes his turn.  That's it.  The wizard needs to roll for some spells as well, but still does damage whether or not he hits or misses, also.OK, so this is where I hold you accountable.When you say something breaks the game, you don't get to do that unless it actually breaks games.Have you played with this ability and found it to break your game? If not, don't say it breaks games.  That level of accusation is reserved for things that actually result in people's games breaking, not theory.Except for tons of defenses I gave you, most of which you ignored.Except if one of the many defenses I mentioned is used, in which case most of the time the fighter fails to kill.  Is it really that hard to imagine "Gack, rampaging fighter! I ready an action to flee max speed if he steps next to me looking to hit me!"?</blockquote>

Verification