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: 6209706" data-attributes="member: 95493">Surgery took a long time. I'm recovering well but not quickly (at least by my own standards). But onto the real post!I'll attempt the same.Perhaps, hopefully I've been clearer since.I see in 105 how I said without an attack roll. I meant what I have said since, especially in 112. But I'm not going to repeat that all again. Yes he has to attack, yes he has to "roll" but he hits on a 1, he kills on a 1 on the damage dice.Then I see we have learned from each other I guess.It can be small but it doesn't mean it is unimportant. Every piece of the new edition can shine - what is the point of a playtest if not to work out these fiddly little bits before it sees final print? It may not have been a major sticking point but it is hardly uncontested. Even the sheerest interactions with this points seems to strain the explanation given (in the Q+A). The explanation for the ability is non-existent. And while we on these boards can come up with something to make it fit, it is not inherent to the ability that it is there. We already have to come up with explanations for what HP represent in general, and as I have been saying for a long time now - it would be nice if they didn't place a new mechanic right in the middle of that stupid, unanswerable HP vs. AC system. And then use that HP vs. AC vagueness alone to justify it.I've found a lot of times it depends on how much feedback and pushback they get to these ideas. So, I'm sure there will be some changes if there is enough of a storm over an issue. Ones that are left un-discussed are the ones that will remain more or less exactly the same in the final product - as it should be.The changes (I think it was Salamandyr) was proposing would be at minimum how they could reconcile this problem (can't final kill, no hits on a 1, and so on). There are other changes I think are necessary to make the fiction fit the ability itself. I've proposed a minimum damage figure (STR) when the damage is otherwise reduced (through DR or some such). Or that such a miss be non-lethal in certain circumstances. Others have suggested a "miss by X" figure as was in previous packets. All of these things HELP make the ability make more sense than it currently does.It is like the kind of feedback those of us who hate second winds/healing surges could have given before 4e was released. Or even about warlord's healing. It has been proposed NOW (that 5e is in the works) that some form of temporary HP could have been instituted to satisfy both groups. But at the moment, I don't know what a product would satisfy my growing disdain of the fighter does any damage on a miss but I'm sure there are places to start.</blockquote>

Verification