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: 6206746" data-attributes="member: 95493">I assumed you were understanding because you were using the literal meaning of what "must roll vs. AC" (haha, see Tovec you are wrong). Whereas I'm saying that the result of the roll is irrelevant. Roll, don't roll. Doesn't matter - you still do 3 damage to the villager and instantly kill him. You need to ATTACK. I said taht and agreed. Never said you didn't have to attack, but the roll is neither here nor there. Why bother using the d20 when you auto-kill the villager for being in melee. As already pointed out - Salamandyr thinks that you shouldn't be able to kill the villager on a 1 (a 1 in 20 chance is still 5% better than they have right now), or be able to kill them without hitting them. I agree but I take it a step further, you shouldn't be able to damage them AT ALL on a miss. You haven't talked against this except to say that I must be misunderstanding how the ability works, because you have to roll, to see if you miss.But as you obviously understand all I'm saying I guess I'll stop replying to you unless you have something new for me to comment on KS.I do have a question though, is the following true:Fighter rolls attack, HITS, rolls W+3 damageFighter rolls attack, MISSES, deals 3 damageIf it is not then that might change my mind (or at least I would have to correct my understanding of what is going on). If it is, we can both stop this back and forth about my blind snapping fighter.Okay, you missed where I said the wizard still has to roll to hit the square - but that is tangential to the point you are trying to make.If you are arguing that wizards should do NO damage if the target saves against their fireball? I can see that argument. Start a thread, give arguments in favour of it and we can go from there.-- It is not the same thing as saying save = attack, or fireball = melee swingBut, yeah, I could see that argument working. Makes sense on some level. I still would say they should take half because the fireball fills the square (an argument repeatedly brought up). So, unless there is a change to how it works, same goes for evasion, then I think I would side as it works right now - but it is a persuasive to say that if you save against a fireball you should take no damage.-- It does NOT however follow that because fireballs make you still take half damage, that ALL effects should cause you to take half damage, NOR that this specific one should cause you to take STR damage.It really isn't the elephant in the room. The mechanic we are talking about it. Or rather the elephant would be definitions of HP and armor (again I might add). If you want to start addressing HP and armor, the real elephants, we can - but those NEVER end.I know, strange isn't it."I shoot my arrow at him, he is 12k feet away, do I hit?""No, you miss.""Yay! I still deal DEX damage.""You can't even see him, he's hiding behind a boulder, in a building.""Doesn't matter, DEX damage."Sounds a lot like.."I swing my sword at him, he's wearing full plate and equipped with a shield, do I hit?""No, you miss.""Yay! I still deal STR damage.""You can't even see him, your blind and standing in an aura of silence.""Doesn't matter, STR damage."Yep. Same here, can't XP you anymore.Tactics =/= defense. None of the common defenses work, you take 3 damage. Best armor in the world (which in DnD rules means you should get hit less often)? 3 damage. A pixie buzzing around the fighter's face? 3 damage.He gave tactics, most of which were magic, to try and not be in the square the fighter was able to hit - that is not anywhere near the same as being in melee and NOT taking that 3 damage.</blockquote>

Verification