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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 6206755" data-attributes="member: 4892">But it's relevant because you are, admitedly, using a ridiculous example that will not come up in actual gameplay. You stated originally that a Fighter could destory a whole village of peasants blindfolded and there was nothing they could do to defend against it. Now you've shifted goalposts to say that getting away from the attacker is not defending yourself. A fully functional, non-blindfolded Fighter will not be able to do what you claimed.Now if you want to zoom in on your example to those first few villagers and say there's nothing they could do to stop the Fighter from killing* them? Yes, sure. And it models the reality of the situation pretty well. That's why they are 3-4 hp villagers. This won't happen to real threats.It seems like you're trying to turn something that is aesthetically displeasing to you and making it an in-game issue. At least others can just leave it at "I don't like partial success on a failure" or some variation of the same.*Nevermind the thought that the DM does not have to call 0 hit points dead. It is at his discretion to treat them just like a character dropped to zero hit points.Sounds nothing alike. The first is a creature you can't target. If you can't target them you can't even roll to see if you hit or miss.The second, depending on rules for targeting someone you cannot see or hear, still puts the target in the path of a Fighter swinging a really big weapon at him. If he can't target him because he can't see or hear him, then the same applies as above.Keep up the ridiculous examples. They really help your end of the discussion. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /></blockquote>

Verification