Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kobold Stew" data-source="post: 6211117" data-attributes="member: 23484">No one is disputing this. This assumes that there is no cost and no investment from the player and the character.  It ignores the character as a whole, and does not recognize that the ability is a design choice that has been made, eschewing other abilities that are at least comparable. The minimal damage guarantee comes at the expense of other, arguably cooler options that are available to every fighter, paladin, and ranger. And the degree of minimal success is the result of the character's strength score, which also represents character investment (and is dependent in some campaigns on the luck of a die roll). ...so I still stick with no to all four.We're not going to convince each other on this, clearly. To say "the target receives some minimally impactful blow" is a fiction you are imposing on the situation; it is not in the rules. To say "the target's pool of hit points, an abstract number that represents the ability to persist in physical and magical combat, are marginally reduced" is better (but could still be tightened, obviously). Nothing tells you what must happen. An attack remains a risky proposition, and my intuition is in no way violated.</blockquote>