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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6266435" data-attributes="member: 1210">This is a great thread. In general, there are a lot of cool ideas in here, from "attack on a miss" to the control aura to advantage on damage rolls. In general, I'm not really fond of damage on a miss, but I can take it or leave it. That said, I'd prefer it be out, or at least optional, for nonmagical weapon attacks. Simply speaking, it violates my sense of verisimilitude. (I know, I know- that word.)On the other hand, I have no issue with it for magical effects (i.e. I'm okay with save for half damage effects from magic). I think the whole point of magic is to break (or at least bend) the rules of reality; after all, you're evoking a bolt of lightning! HI wanted to just throw in my 2 coppers' worth on a couple of things: I feel that it's worth pointing out that the evasion ability, albeit without a name, comes originally from the monk in 1e, where it's quasi-magical/quasi-psionic in nature. With this origin, it's only natural that it goes a bit beyond normal martial abilities. In 3e, when it was expanded to other classes (and named), it kept this quasi-magical flavor. I have to dispute this. In 1e, a 1st level fighter facing a goblin (AC 7) would need a 13 to hit. With a 17 Strength, he'd need a 12. So that means that he misses more than he hits. And that was the status of things from the 1e days until the beginning of 3e; that's decades of time during which failure was common. And attack values didn't increase quickly; even a high level fighter, when facing high level threats, would miss fairly often. So I think failure can be accepted even if it's quite common. How about sprinkling some tactics on that fight?</blockquote>

Verification