Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6319395" data-attributes="member: 95493">We heard several months back from someone official at WotC. I want to say Mike Mearls in one of his articles. Either way, at last notice in the official rules this mechanic has been cut from the fighter in favour of something else. That is good. I'm not going to find you a link to the source because it isn't worth my time to do it. Heck, for all I know it has been changed back in the mean time. I haven't kept on top of these updates the closer we are getting to release. But it WAS announced way back when.The concern I and others have now is that it will show back up. And when it shows up in a core place like the fighter that it will show up in other places in future areas. Basically it is a tumor. A tumor that left unchecked keeps growing and infecting. And while at first it is a minor annoyance that is easily avoided, when it grows it becomes more obtrusive. So, prevention in this case means not seeing another flare up. Like birth control pills protect from pregnancy, so if you don't want a baby why would you stop the prevention? If we don't want DoaM we have to keep telling them we don't want it or else they'll put it back in.As promised, it is tomorrow, here's my response:It is better. FAR better when written this way. It allows for a failed roll. It is sad that in writing it this way I'm fairly positive you put more thought into it than the designers of the orignal powers from WotC. I remember one solution I liked back when this was a hot topic was saying that the fighter declares they are using the ability, so against a wily opponent they automatically do STR but that is also their maximum (iirc). Made it a little better for me. There are numerous ways to make it more palatable. That is why I say it is so poorly written, because it is. It doesn't account for MANY current mechanics and interactions. It gives a small paragraph of description that works counter to how AC works (Example: non-armored opponents). It is just a bad power as far as I'm concerned. Attempts to say it isn't just come out as wrong when the power makes no sense. I can be brought on-board when effort is put into it. I'm not opposed to ALL forms of damage on a miss/half damage (obviously) but it has to follow from the effect and this power never did that. Certainly refluff/rewrites help because they attempt to bring it more in line but WotC isn't doing that so ANY refluff can be substituted and it makes it no better.Now, my objections with your rewrite are similar to those for the original power. But my issue is that nothing else in the game matches this mechanic. Everything else is pass/fail, not gradient fail-success. So it feels out of place and even though it is better I don't think it belongs in 5e anymore than the existing mechanic. From a power standpoint I don't have a problem with your write up. It even looks more realistic, no that's not the right word but I can't think of a better one. It has better by the sheer fact of allowing the fighter to miss and so I'm happier and I'll leave it at that. I'm less likely to ban your power too - though no more likely to use it.</blockquote>

Verification