NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James McMurray" data-source="post: 4743661" data-attributes="member: 743">True. I didn't think much about the suggestion, just tossed it out as an alternative to the original idea which would have left non-weapon users out in the cold.Isn't that what this thread is about? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes. The reason is that it's an attempt to fix one or more problems and fails at all of them.If it's trying to fix the grind problem, it's a horrible fix. The only time it will change the duration of a fight is when the monster has an effect that completely debilitates the target, has a low enough attack bonus that +4 actually changes things, and the party has none of the many abilities which get rid of conditions.If it's trying to fix the problem where monsters with powerful at-will conditions (such as stunning) make a fight boring, it fails because +4 to the defense is at best a 20% change, and sometimes will be less than that. If, as has been claimed, monsters hit on a 2 anyway, there's not that big of a difference between hitting on a 3-6 instead. If they actually hit on something worse than that, then the fights will be even swingier than they can already be, because whether or not the monster's bigger attacks hit comes down to luck.If it's trying to fix "the maths am bad" then it's a shot in the dark against an unknown target. "The math is bad" is notan actual problem. It's the effects of the math being bad that are or are not an issue, and while fixing the math might be the best solution, it might be that fixing the things the math enables is much better. It's a thread on a forum. Nothing I say can stop anyone from posting about what they want to post about.I can see how the idea of it is scary, but it raises two questions:1) Why is it scary? Is it just the idea of it, or are there actual negative effects of attacks hitting on a 2 that aren't themselves tied to another bad rule?2) If hitting on a 2 makes you wince, what's so great about hitting on a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 instead; and charging the PCs 3 feats to get that minor benefit?</blockquote>

Verification