Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6319377" data-attributes="member: 95493">I read the same post as you and gave my replies as you did.In the post where you say he "asked to be informed of DoaM from 4e" he said 4e  once and said he "didn't like 4e so we never had to deal with it." He then proceeded to ask about DoaM in general and specifically relating it to save for half.So, my comments that maybe espousing the virtues of 4e isn't the best solution when trying to sell 5e.. to a person who disliked 4e and said so, probably isn't the best idea. So while he XP'd you, I don't think MY comments were off-base in this regard. I'm honestly surprised he XP'd you in such a case. He has (since this reply) said that he liked ANY information on the subject, so I was likely being too critical after a slog of these replies, but I still think my comments stand.Even if you never encountered it as being an issue I posted how many others did. How they had problems with the reaper ability as one of the biggest ability problems of the game. Balance wasn't really addressed, as it isn't the issue being addressed now either. On the contrary, 4e is seen by many of its detractors as TOO balanced.The reason I'm asserting that is because that is how it works for every other martial based attack. No other martial attack that succeeds represents a LACK of wounding, just as no other martial attack that fails to succeed represents a GAIN of wound. So, yes I am ALWAYS saying that the game works that way - EXCEPT this one mechanic for this one class which goes completely counter to that assumed base. This is one ability that disagrees and is thus broken and incoherent based on how the rules work if it never existed. I've said that since day 1 and never been countered except by examples of splash and magic. Two examples I discount since they aren't martial attacks.The game contains a SINGLE damage on a miss mechanic, the one we are debating. Yes. You can't then use that single mechanic to say the game works a certain way. It is like if I had a problem with a class being able to fly (note only one class and only one ability) and you bring up the example that they have a fly spell. I would still say that the game doesn't work that way (excluding the fly spell) normally. That the fly spell is an aberration that shouldn't be in the game since it is the ONLY example and thus breaks how the game normally functions. And your reply to me is apparently "but it doesn't break the game, it is part of the game, look at the fly spell."With Damage on a Miss, you describe it as causing the kobold to trip and fall over and die. But a fighter who doesn't have this ability who, for example, specializes in trip and thus causes a kobold to trip NEVER has the same chance of death that this fighter with DoaM gets EVERY SINGLE ROUND. It is broken and nonsensical.I never said 4e or 13th age didn't make sense. They have such effects in relation to similar effects that do the same thing. As I understand it 13th age is built around that premise. 4e similarly is and always will be more gamist (too gamist for my preferences) and so it fits in better there. I previously said that I disliked these mechanics in 4e but it wasn't the final straw because it never had to be the final straw with 4e as the camel was broken by the load of bricks and the straw didn't make it any more dead.But this is a new game and excluding this singular ability the game gets better and remains more consistent and coherent. With this ability it becomes LESS of those traits. Why would I want it to be less when it could be more? Now, I can understand that YOUR playstyle preference doesn't care as you seem to refluff, or narrate, or basically completely alter the effect after the dice rolls. That is cool, I've often thought that it sounds like fun being in  your game and running a story like that. But the game generally speaking doesn't work the way you run your game. I can understand you wanting to make it work that way. I understand why you are participating in this conversation and why your position never seems to move. But that doesn't mean that your position is inherently correct or better - just more rigid and inflexible.NO IT IS NOT. FALSE CLAIM. PERIOD. FULL STOP. YOU ARE WRONG.The mage can fireball many opponents he meets. Many, maybe even most. But he cannot kill EVERY SINGLE ONE on the opening round of a fight with a single class ability 100% of the time. At the VERY LEAST there are limits on spells per day, concentration checks, saves, class features that already exist to counter his spells, and terrain/line of sight concerns. The fighter gets around ALL of these and more. That is not a proper comparison and can't be used. It is like comparing a baseball bat and a volkswagon in their ability to cause a baseball to move. One is far better at it and will cause the ball to move further and the other one is a BASEBALL BAT (and doesn't require gas, maintenance, a pricetag in the thousands of dollars, insurance, driver's license, etc.)! If you WANT to be able to kill hordes of monsters with a single spell then there is a class for that. Every class doesn't need that ability, especially a fighter who can now never miss.Now, if you show me an archer that does the exact same thing then that is more even. I'll add equally broken, but certainly more comparable. Magic =/= Mundane so giving this repeated false comparison isn't a valid one. Ever.First, I am saying that tone is difficult to understand on the internet, but didn't criticize Morrus on using sarcasm. I said if he used sarcasm that is fine. My issue is that he attacked the content of somebody's character. I didn't attack the content of your character, I attacked the content of your comments.Second, you DID say:So, I'll retract nothing.I added the sneeze part. It was related to the part directly before what you quoted and I made it clear in the context of the full paragraph that you are only saying the tripping and rock part. But you DID give tripping over and dying from this ability as valid. I'll admit it was sarcastic (that may not have been well conveyed) but I'll retract nothing and certainly not apologize. You refluffed and I refluffed your refluff. Since mechanically they are exactly the same it makes no difference - actually why I use the sneeze example. It just points out how silly the mechanic is.</blockquote>

Verification