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: 6209204" data-attributes="member: 95493">CRAZY LONG POST AHEAD. Spoiled into pieces.[sblock=Kobold Stew][sblock]The Bold attempt to counter where I say you don't need a roll to hit.The Italics are for "you don't need a roll for damage".The Underline talk of counters to snapping.<s>Strikethrough</s> is for some strange rebuttal against "no effort" which I don't even understand.All of which I addressed in post 112. I'm using the same emphasis system:And as far as this last point, which does not observe the previous formatting, I did reply to it as well. But I suspect that it is the real crux of the issue here. Thus, why I am separating it.So, to quote from my last post: "I received no further responses from you." If you feel that I left things unaddressed - and I presumably did not feel this - I don't see how it is my responsibility to continually reopen and readdress things with which you are dissatisfied. Especially since I feel they are resolved. Oh, and if I still haven't "answered" these points - you have REALLY got to respond instead of taking a backseat and just assuming I will read your mind.[/sblock]I try not to break up someone's post like this - taking a line out of context but since you raise "interesting semantic distinction" I think I should reply to it before continuing.First, I have repeatedly given my justification for this interesting distinction. As I said in post 112 - the result of the roll is irrelevant. As I said in my previous post if the result of the roll is a 1 (the minimum you can roll on any die as far as I know.) and this ability still works without a hitch - then that is a problem. So, while it may be an interesting distinction, I have definitely described it over and over in this way. That is why my replies in 112 were phrased the way they were. At no point am I saying that an attack (and subsequent miss) are not necessary. I am saying the result of the d20 (what number comes up, and how that number plus bonuses equates to AC) is not necessary when you automatically kill the creature on a 3 and have weapon damage capable of dealing 3+W and you kill on a hit or a miss.Never questioned that he attacked. Nor did I question that he missed. I questioned that the missed attack should HURT, but never that he made an attack. In fact I would absolutely stipulate that the attack ("I attack") is necessary. Absolutely. This I all said back in 112. I believe I said as much earlier than 112, but I said words very similar to what I have just said AT LEAST since 112.What I am not interested in is repeating myself ad nauseam. I am not interested in that because I have limited energy at the moment. I am still recovering from surgery for the past few months and I'm still not back to my old self. I can read endless stuff but replying takes a lot of time and effort out of me. So, I don't have endless patience for when I feel people are ignoring all I say.Beyond that, I am sorry. I should not have suggested you quit the conversation. I personally hate when people do that, on either side of an issue. My aggravation at apparently not communicating myself well is starting to grind on my nerves and on this conversation - it is the last thing I do now because of how much apprehension I have discussing this.The reason I don't quit is because I still feel strongly that this mechanic makes no sense.Perhaps we are using verisimilitude in different ways. I don't see how that one word would suddenly change the context of all I have been saying. Please enlighten me.As far as "it is not broken because you don't have to take/use it," well we all know where those conversations go. All I am going to say is that that statement is false. 2+2 =/= 5, even if I don't use 2s or 5s (however that works). I would still have to encounter them and the math is still based around them, or in this case the system is still based with thinks like "damage on a miss is fine" when it shouldn't be. And worse yet, when they're working on 6e someone is going to look back to 5e when this gets through and say "see, it was in 5e - therefore it should be in 6e."But no. I have no interest in starting the conversation that extends from "it isn't broken because you don't have to take/use it." I'm quitting that one before it begins. If you reply to any part of this, I will not. You win.[/sblock][sblock=pemerton]It does turn them into hits when dealing damage and not dealing damage have been defined as hits and misses respectively.The rate we have been using are 3 and W+3, but that doesn't really matter.But yes there is a big difference. In fact, prior to this one ability, the AC itself makes most of that difference. Taking a death (if the fighter just got to whack you over and over) and turning it into a series of unsuccessful attacks. Now, with this ability, the fighter can now tire you out? and eventually kills you without ever solidly landing a single attack (what you say is a "hit").You seem to be misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying there IS a term for uncrittable. In fact I'm saying I'm surprised there isn't one.Pot? Hello, this is kettle? What's your deal in calling me black?But no, I wasn't being snarky or smart-assing you. I'm sure all those things have made it into the packet. I'm also sure there are some minor aspects that I assume made it but have not. I haven't read the packet straight through and I'm sure there are pieces I've missed. Even playing a few playtests never came up with uncrittable not being in the packet - it is relatively niche in and of itself. It is however another in a long list of things that this hit on a miss would affect. I considered it withdrawn as I SAID last post.Outraged? No.And yes terminology changes. As you can see by my references to how Damage Reduction that I was talking about, is now damage Resistance in 5e. I don't object, nor am I outraged that such a thing happens. I suggest you go back and look at those parts that you are quoting here - about 'uncrittible not being in the packet' - and see that I am surprised and that I am withdrawing my particular objection in such a case. As I said last time.Fair enough. Thus, withdrawn.Phantasmal killer is hurting your brain. Your brain is then making you think you are dying. It kills you by hurting your mind. It is doing HP damage and still must HIT to do it. As far as how that works? I suppose it is a closure of the physical realm type thing. It is possible to say that the phantasmal killer should do some other form of damage, or even outright kill the target, but yeah, the mind makes it real.If you want to discuss phantasmal killer in greater length, we can. I don't really want to but we can. It is magic and it obeys different rules but for right now (as I previously said), "your mind makes it real." How is debatable.What any of this has to do with a guy wielding a greatsword, I can't seem to figure out. So returning to "scratches" .. When the fighter is swinging his sword he has to HIT the buzzing immortal (was it some sort of pixie? I'm starting to forget the details Celebrim gave). If he does not, there is no reason why he should tire out the immortal faster than he himself tires out, swinging over and over without successfully hitting.And in either situation there is no reason why the flying immortal should be harmed from a miss, at all. Rodney's description doesn't make sense. The fighter isn't hitting the immortal, dealing a blow through the armor and causing it to tire out. Simply put, if the fighter misses this extremely small and hard to hit target, there is no reason for any part of his blow to go through the tiny immortal's armor and deal at least some damage - he isn't rolling over the target's AC. And if he does hit (does roll higher than AC) there is a decent chance he will kill it outright.Representing 3 hp loss per round (or per attack specifically) doesn't track and doesn't make sense in the situation provided. It is a little arbitrary how it was set up, but it works perfectly well barring DM intervention - yet it breaks what should be happening due to existing mechanics. Or rather how the mechanics would work in all situations in 5e as they are now, if this damage on a miss (for the one snowlfakey fighter) were not in the rules.The "not be poisoned" has more to do with the resolution of a fortitude/constitution save. This situation, dealing enough force through the armor, that Rodney provides should not "Still take damage from the weapon." (p. 23, Classes - that's right, I'm quoting the book too.) and should not therefore cause a poisoned weapon to cause anyone to roll a poison save. A glaring hole in the explanation of the ability.A venomous [snake] can be defeated by simple leather. It surely doesn't cause damage to translate through plate. Also, the snake has to HIT YOU.The immortal I was using was Celebrim's example.And yes, again we agree that they can be worn down through damage. To cause said damage you have to ATTACK, HIT, and DEAL DAMAGE. There is no reason that devils, demons, or earth elementals to be simply tired out by AVOIDING an attack. As Celebrim points out, the fighter should tire out much faster than the dude evading that attack.And elves have no special measures, as they are not immortal - are they?! *checks* No, they live "more than 700 years." (p. 3, Races) That is a relief. It is also the kind of thing I'm talking about though. It is niche and wouldn't have effected a playtest. It does matter though, just as uncrittable would.First let me say that I have no problems with NOT having a death spiral even though it is much more realistic to have one.Second, I can perfectly well understand you don't know how I model HP. I don't think I've ever really explained it. What I can tell you is that all hits from a weapon (wielded by anyone) I consider to be fleshy. 5 or 10 HP loss for someone with 50 or 100 is a relatively minor hit - a scratch. But it is a hit none the less. If it is a bludgeoning weapon then it is something causing a bruise - it'll be tender in the morning. It is also something that allows poison to get into a system. It is something that can be reduced through some sort of damage reduction typically.Third, yes it is not a serious injury (by itself, ignoring all other bonuses (which I'm assuming you are)).Fourth, and yes, Immortals can be worn down through a series of relatively minor hits. Although to be fair, I'm from 3e - when the devil is actually taking 5-10 damage he has probably reduced it already, so that is damage after the DR.Fifth, I don't see how you go from "yes, not a serious injury" and "yes, can be worn down" to say "whatever is being done on a hit is also being done on a miss." It just doesn't track. Your conclusion is not drawn from the premises.Sixth, the fighter's ability to be unrelenting is fine. He should have a greater stamina to be unrelenting. He should have some capability to deal extra damage perhaps, or ensure that a minimum is going to go straight through a target's DR (say STR as a convenient example). That does NOT mean that he should have an ability to be so unrelenting ... that he is able to supernatural hit and deal damage when he misses entirely.Seventh, "X amount of damage that does not kill one person could kill another" has been around since 1e. The answer has been the same since then. Celebrim brought up what that means and my answer is largely the same as his was. So for my money or at least my reasoning, some amount of damage (every time there is a hit, and after DR) is going to be physical. For the higher level characters it is not a killing blow to the chest and is largely luck, fate, or what not. But ostensibly the attack hits meat at least a little. So, some of it might be luck, making a blow that would kill someone else into a blow that barely scratches you. So 5 hp for one creature is not the same as 5 hp for another. That is why I can accept that 5 hp is going to kill the kobold but a high level fighter can fall off cliffs and live.Eighth, that does not translate to this ability at all. If the ability were 1/10th of the target's total HP per miss - it would still suck. Suck less for villagers but still suck and not make sense in the same ways it currently sucks and not makes sense.Ninth, I don't see where I make allusions to either shaved meat, or medical analogies, but alright.Tenth, you go and skip a step again. Again your conclusion isn't drawn from your premises. You say that because I can see that 5 hp for a kobold isn't the same as 5 hp for a high level fighter - that attacks and misses no longer mean anything. While there is an element of truth, I think the game designers should try to reduce the frequency of that, not increase it. But, even so, NO, I don't see those as the same thing. If the fighter did this by missing an attack by 5 or something it would still be dumb but it would make a LOT more sense than it currently does. As would any of the other proposed changes (more damage, minimum damage, and so on) that I have raised before. My objection sits firmly in it being damage on a MISS.Hopefully you now understand more my thoughts on HP. As far as my objection: There is no reason why MISSING endlessly should in anyway affect the immortal. Or at least why it should affect him any more than it does the fighter. So as Celebrim says, the fighter should be taking the STR damage per round. Or more likely, ALL creatures in a fight should be taking a base level "tiring" damage per round of combat. Him missing has should have no impact on the immortal creature.Ignoring this ability:A fighter deals 3 damage (or rather minimum 4, because W+3) to the target with 150 hp. He has to hit. The blow is relatively minor and the fight continues. Eventually, assuming the fighter hits often enough, he is able to kill the target.Now with the ability:A fighter deals 3 damage to the target with 150 hp. He doesn't have to hit. The blow is not actually a blow because it is a measure of the fighter managing to tire his target out. He only tires the target out in melee and only manages to tire him out by missing. Eventually the fighter may even kill his target, through missing. He kills him faster if he hits of course but then the "tiring him out" no longer applies. Also, regardless of how tiring the fight is the fighter retains all his HP on a miss from his opponent... somehow.Since it is the only explanation we have from Rodney, it is all I can base my replies to.But what you are saying here I already covered last post.So, yes, there is one explanation for armor. Another for liches. Another for immortals. One for high AC due to DEX. Another for high AC due to armor. And so on and so on and so on. Tell me, how often are there this many VERY different descriptions for the same basic effect for other abilities. Fire may or may not burn someone, but it doesn't burn one person, cause non-lethal for another, affect poison in a third, etc.I say that it brings up these extra things because the objections to what you say (tiring out) vs. what Rodney says (so fierce it goes through the armor) are VERY different in what should be happening mechanically in the rules if this ability did not exist. Yours is foiled if creatures are immune to being fatigued. Rodney's does not incorporate damage reduction (sorry, resistance). The basic description allows poison to work but neither of you seem to propose descriptions where it should. Do you start to see the problem?You replied with my "it works differently" with ... "it deals different amounts." [sarcasm] Wow. Yes you have won sir. [/sarcasm]Those are not the same. Yours is described as tiring targets out until they die of exhaustion. Rodney describes where DR should apply. Those are different things entirely. Not different NUMBERS.Is it consistent with any edition except 4e? That is all I need to know before I know how to formulate my response.What I can say before you answer that I said last time, if all sorts of 4e can do it.. why not let everyone in 5e do it? Why don't DEX attackers deal DEX damage on a miss. Let all fighters deal STR on a miss, all weapons all the time. You could even open it up to casters dealing INT (or applicable score) to misses.I didn't realize that all other characters were not trying to wear you down. I had no idea it was limited to a guy wielding a 2 handed weapon who was the only one who could do this, by missing."It is a class feature," is not an explanation for anything that is not magic. If it IS magic then I have a whole new can of worms to deal with. And I know that if it is magic you have no problems with that, because they did that in 4e too, but I still do and it goes against what I've seen of 5e as well.[/sblock]This.And as long as the rules are clear pemerton doesn't care if they make sense. Celebrim is too nice to say that, but I'm no longer so patient.</blockquote>

Verification