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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6206388" data-attributes="member: 95493">I'm going to have to cut for poignancy and space. If there is something relevant that I'm excluding feel free to bring it back up, as I'm sure you will even if it is not relevant.My bad, I didn't realize that English was unfair to use in a discussion about things. I'll try in Norwegian next time.A hit is something that succeeds and allows you to roll damage.A miss is something that does not.Now we enter a new category. Where the fighter has special snowflake status that allows him to "hit on a miss". Thereby inverting what miss means and allowing him to deal damage in a situation where others don't.What you are describing by the way, damage because it hits the armor (or whatever) and "hurts them" for fatigue, is not modeled well by this description. If it were it would not allow for a person to die on a miss. It also doesn't explain situations where a creature would otherwise be completely NOT STRUCK (was going to say missed, but you apparently dislike that word in the language which I am currently using). Also, what you are seeking to achieve would more accurately be modeled in the existing system of roll vs AC if heavier armor also gave a form of DR, and if all armor turned attacks into fatigue points - where only a small fraction of actual damage is considered real damage that actually bleeds and hurts you. Also, it interferes with how contact poison works.Now, at any time you would like to address these SEVERAL major mechanics in relation to the "snowflake" ability to hit on a miss - go right ahead.(And just so we're clear, I'm talking about he rule as it is right now, not the modified one you are trying to suggest. I have a modification too - don't hit on a miss but instead give some other benefit on a hit.)Cool. I didn't realize that I said each of those things so many times.......[sarcasm]That really turns me around on this conversation.[/sarcasm]I can understand why you think so. I'll go out on a limb and predict that Mistwell is going to say that I am supposed to have you read my mind for what is going to follow.With that said, I guess I'll answer each of these in turn.I understand that. What I am saying is that he doesn't need to roll - because no matter what the roll result is he kills the villager. If the fighter rolls a 20 he kills the villager. If he rolls a 1 he kills the villager. He doesn't need to roll. He still needs to "attack" but he doesn't need to roll.He doesn't need to roll damage. If the villager has 3 HP and the fighter can do 4-25k damage, he doesn't need to roll damage. This means that even if he could roll 0 on damage dice (which as far as I know - by itself - is impossible) he would kill the villager.Alright, this one is fair - except you again miss the point I am making. I'm not suggesting that the fighter can (or should be able to) snap his fingers and get this effect to occur. However, my issue is that he deals 3 damage to the villager based upon his strength. As such it doesn't matter what the weapon damage is dealing - at all. He may as well snap his fingers, or whistle, or dance around. So long as he "attacks" he automatically kills the villager because he is just so strong.Right, but when a 1 means he still does this - he doesn't need to roll. His zero effort means that as long as he gets to attack the villager - even while blindfolded - he kills that villager. Without any effort. He doesn't need to roll an attack. He doesn't need to roll damage. He could have disadvantage on his rolls. The villager could be wearing full plate. He could be the most dextrous guy in the world (really high AC). And still the fighter kills him with zero effort - not needing to roll, because on a 1 on every die he kills the guy. The rogue sure as hell doesn't do that. He still needs to sneak attack, or poison, or position, or whatever.See above for snapping.How does poison interact with a wound? I don't mean in this situation. I mean in general, contact poison on a blade hits a target. Is it a wound then? Does it get into the target's bloodstream and start to harm him (ignoring the fortitude/constitution save for the moment)? These are the kinds of situations where HP are certainly NOT an abstraction to me. I consider EVERY HIT to be meat. Always have. There are some, very few, situations where it might be something else but those are not the normal. At the very least, this ability screws around with how HP work. And how AC works. And how armor and DR work. I get that those things are "an abstraction". But my point and issue is that this goes "those things don't make sense, I know, let's make it worse" when they should instead of trying to make it better or at least not draw attention to the issue.Sure, maybe you do study the attack, somehow increasing the bonus to the attack roll next time. Maybe you don't. Maybe you just unload the clip. I don't see any reason why you should automatically get a bonus (to damage wasn't it? it's been a while ago in these responses and I forget the specifics) to hit the next time - just because you failed?? You failed, next time you may not. You failed, next time you may do something different. Not "you failed, therefore next time you are better." You may be, but failing shouldn't (by itself) be the thing that makes you better - learning from the failure should be.Sigh (again). Mirror image is still a spell isn't it? A pit? Where did you pull that out? Readying an action to move away. Casting an illusory wall (or real one).Okay, two of those are magic (right?) which I covered already as "magic". The next one requires literally moving out of the melee/five foot away range - which bypasses/ignores the question instead of ANSWERING IT. The last one is to use a triggered trap... somehow. None of these are things that can be done that actually address the issue of the ability. They are things to avoid being in the situation. They are also the same things that can be done to avoid ANY attack by anyone. They are nothing to avoid this specific ability, which essentially means that if you are in melee with the fighter you are dead.Now, let me look at the original examples you gave.Don't be in the melee range? Yeah, excellent solution to "being in the melee range and living".Flight? Okay, how are you getting that sans-magic?Pit traps, mirror image, and illusion spells (again - obviously, see above).No, you didn't give me things they can do. You said traps and magic. Magic being of course the answer to all problems, is not an answer to this one. And none of what you have given me helps the villager (including cunning action).Of the list given this time, two were magic, one was a pit trap, one ignored the situation entirely. That is hardly "much" non-magic.As apparently you are not reading anything not replied to you - go see the responses I gave to Kobold Stew's much better arguments against all this.No he doesn't! Again, see my responses to KS.Actually it does have impact. It has impact on how many he kills before he is put down. I say put down, because obviously you can't allow creatures that can do something like this to realistically live in-universe. But it does matter HOW he kills the villagers. It speaks to how balanced (for lack of a better word) an ability is.But beyond that, why not let the fighter have this on a larger scale. Give him an ability that says he "autokills" anyone he gets in melee with. He can choose not to of course, saving allies and prisoners, but anyone else he gets into melee with - on the fighter's turn they die - just fall over dead. The enemy may get a good swing or two in, especially if they pile up, but they're going to die as long as they are in melee. This works, by your logic, because the fighter was going to kill them anyway so no big deal. Right? Doesn't matter so long as the end result is the same?He is the only one who gets to do all of that without needing to succeed on a d20 roll. Going back to the 3e bits I gave before - even the wizard should be rolling a d20 to hit the square at the center of the room - the fighter doesn't need to. He always hits the square, he doesn't even have a 1 in 20 chance of not doing it.I gave the villagers a turn, as you describe it, because the wizard only has 1 fireball spell. The fighter can do what he is doing, killing anyone who gets into melee with him, ALL DAY LONG - as long as he still has HP.I don't know about all spells in 5e (or even most I daresay) but in 3e only reflex saves saved for half. Fortitude saves saved for zero (usually). Same went for will saves (save to negate). So, no wizards didn't do the same thing. Also, this ability for the fighter isn't a global (area of effect) ability. It doesn't hit all space in all squares. If it did I wouldn't have this objection (I'd likely have others but not this one). If he wants to have an area of effect type effect .... then it should affect an area. If he wants to have a poison type effect (requiring a fort/con save) then he should use poison. Fireballs and swords are not the same thing.You tried to address the "blindfolded, naked, without a weapon" parts, but didn't touch the 100/100 first round bits. As I said (and you ignored, funny that) a rogue fails to hit (assuming he has the best 'to hit' in the world) 1 in 20. The fighter fails to hit... NEVER. He fails to do damage... NEVER. He fails to kill the villager on the first round..... NEVER.Start addressing the "Nevers" if you please.</blockquote>

Verification