Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6320431" data-attributes="member: 95493">Feel free to cut out whatever isn't important from your reply, we're getting very long again.[sblock]If you don't know at this point then I don't see any reason to rehash it. You can easily go back and see when I first replied and what I first replied to.But yeah, I never saw him ask about DoaM in 4e or any E for that matter. He asked if it was similar to other things, I pointed out it was not (from my opinion) and why not. You pointed out how DoaM existed in 4e. I think that is fine, but since the only time he mentioned 4e in his post he said that it had been a turn off for his group I question the virtue in talking about 4e mechanics in a 4e outlook about the 4e game without talking about those things in relation to 5e. Now, he obviously had no problem with that and would have even been okay with people telling him of DoaM from savage worlds (I believe it was) so clearly you didn't do a bad thing. This sub-conversation started before we got a reply from him about his opinion. At this point I suggest we drop it.I'm honestly very surprised you haven't got an interest in 5e. But that is irrelevant to what I am saying. I'm not suggesting you try and sell 5e at all. I was suggesting you are selling a 4e mechanic that you presumably would like to see in 5e - that is all.I have many issues with the power. The biggest is NOT one of balance. Far more significant is that of realism, or simulationism, or versilimilitude or whatever word we are using at present to describe it. Another big one would be that I find it sloppily written and without good backing to exist. Another is that it is too powerful against kobolds <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" /> But the balance of it compared to other powers the fighter gets isn't really an argument I am making. I find it to be a bad power all around, I don't care how it worked in 4e. As you would say I have no horse in that race.We aren't talking about spells in AD&D. Or at least I'm not. I'm taking about 5th edition. In 5th edition combat doesn't work the way you describe. This mechanic in 5e is an aberration. I don't care if it was in 4e, 1e or even 3e. It is a bad mechanic and it doesn't matter its source.But beyond that, I don't assume what I said to be false. Not in the least. It is an aberration. I said last post - show me another fighter ability that works this way and THAT is a fair comparison. Comparing it to magic isn't. I had a whole car vs baseball bat analogy. However, even with another mechanic (which doesn't exist) it doesn't make this power better just makes it more common but equally as bad.If I found power attack in 3e to be bad (I do actually, but for different reasons and I use it anyway) then pointing out deadly aim only serves to illustrate another example of a bad mechanic. However WITHOUT something like deadly aim the best we can say is that it is an aberration since there isn't one like deadly aim. Granted it is a bit of a catch 22, but that is because I'm making different arguments dependent on whether or not there are multiple copies of the mechanic in the game.Simply put: nothing else IN FIFTH EDITION for martial characters works on the principle that you find for this power. In AD&D (or 3e for that matter) the magic system does but I don't find that relevant when discussing a completely different edition of the game.With all of that said and as emphatic and clear as I can make it - can you go back and re-reply to my last post?I know you are TRYING. I also know that in any other type of debate that one example is not valid. So, I personally will not accept it. I know you can be quite persuasive if you want to be but this isn't how you do it.Beyond that, yes I'm having troubles making sense of the game - that makes no sense. Imagine that. All your lack of frustration shows is that you are willing to accept less than I am in respect to game design. I expect clear rules and good ones, you accept whatever they put onto the page because you'll refluff it anyway - I know this because I've read some of your 4e gameplays and they don't work how 4e is written either. Funny.There IS incoherence in the game. The game says it works a certain way. Then a SINGLE power works a different way. If the game didn't have that power the game would be consistent. If the game DOES have that power then it is suddenly inconsistent.I have no idea what "You're making a rod for your own back," means.I can narrate the hit any way I like. I get that. I can do that with ANY hit in ANY edition of the game. The thing is that doesn't change how the power works. The power works a certain way, is written with specific interpretations. I can work on changing that but I hate having to correct something that is apparently worked on by others and supposed to be throught out. It is like having to paint my own warhammer minis. I HATE that. It is busywork that I have no time or inclination to do. Some people are into that. I get that. It is a level of customization that they love. But it isn't one I ever found fun or fulfilling. Refluffing an attack works the same way with me. With any given attack in 3e I can simply understand what is happening. The fighter wings, if he hits he does damage. If he misses he doesn't. There is no other steps. In 5e there are because I now have to stop. Then try and figure out why he missed yet still did damage. I have to work with and interpret the ambiguity in AC which I've found to leave the hell alone for the sake of a smoother game.My issue that I'm left with is that you have no problem with it because you'll narrate that the kobold - on the opening round of a fight - tripped and fell over and hit his skull on a rock. The next kobold, for consistency sake, does the same thing. And the one after that. I've got to wonder why these kobolds are so clumsy as to repeatedly fall over and kill themselves. But more importantly I've got to wonder why someone trained in tripping cant replicate this effect. Someone trained in tripping never "wrongfoots" the kobold into death but the fighter with a twohanded weapon does - every turn?EXCEPT THAT ISN'T WHAT THE POWER SAYS. If the guy with a 5e equivilent of a vorpal weapon misses and fails to cut off the kobolds head - why does the guy with a random 2H weapon do it.. when he misses?I agree. That is the problem with class based games, I'll admit. But I would think that a player who wants to be able to max out their stealth, use a longsword, and backstab people should probably take levels of rogue instead of levels of fighter. I would similarly suggest that a player who wants to ALWAYS be able to deal half damage to a group of kobolds (that kills them) instead play a wizard and get fireball. As for the pious fighter - well that IS a cleric, so...But all my examples of things other fighters can do are based on the FIGHTER class and based on other specializations. This isn't a tricky concept. If a fighter wants to try and trip a kobold to death they should take tripping - not two handed weapons. If they want to cleave a head from a body.. well that's a type of sword, sorry. This is like one type of wizard getting a spell like power word kill or disintegrate, and ALL the others getting polymorph and nothing but. It is wrong and doesn't follow the consistency of the class/game.I don't think it is really all that important to explain what I meant given that you wrote two paragraphs to my one sentence. Also since I explain what I mean in this post too.I meant refluff the outcome but keep the mechanics the same. That is my sneeze to kill kobolds since the roll isn't important. The results can be 1s, or even 0s (an impossibility) and the ability still triggers. It reminds me of the stupidly written scout ability in 3.5 that allowed for the scout to ALWAYS have freedom of movement. Bound, gaged, unconscious, poisoned, sick, stuck in a 3'x3' room? Doesn't matter they ALWAYS have freedom of movement. That is equally dumb as an attack that ALWAYS hits/deals damage.Yes, you are being more rigid and inflexible than me. I have a preference, but I'm willing to often concete half-steps. I haven't seen you take such steps once in any thread I've been in with you. Even in the second wind thread, I asked twice if the replacement rule would be acceptable and got no response. It would work for me. Even with such a replacement I still find second wind stupid, but it becomes more acceptable. But I never see that kind of movement on your side. Perhaps I'm just missing it.I'll also agree that DDNFan is being rigid too. Quitting over a single mechanic in a game that he seems to enjoy seems harsh. I'll call him out on that. I also think that he is expecting too much - transparency from a company mere months before a game is released? I am saying NOW as I've always said: I'm waiting for the game to come out before I judge. I can't judge it any other way. I know I have things I dislike. I can be convinced to play with them anyway if the game is good enough. But I do know that certain things bug me right from the get go and HP is at the top of my list. Without adequate rules to vary them up I probably won't be able to enjoy the game. This applies to HP or rather AC in ways that I find very ugly.I can be flexible. Everything I say isn't necessarily flexible. I don't know why you would expect anything else from anybody. When you are wrong I'll call you out as wrong. But I can be made to change - you've convinced me once or twice over the years. I don't think healing surges as a limiting factor are bad, I find the idea of non-magical healing silly but the limits I find a great idea.That doesn't excuse you being wrong and using the same wrong arguments over and over. I've explained why the argument is wrong in this thread and in others. Using it repeatedly doesn't make it right.Right, but he has one attack per round EVERY round. The wizard gets HOW MANY spells per day? That is the beautiful thing about having a machette - they don't run out of bullets. But the second the machette becomes equally strong to the bullets you have an issue.(Cookie to anyone who understands the Wanted reference.)You caught me, I was using my knowledge of 3e to supplement my 5e knowledge. I've had far more experience with one over the other. No concentration checks. Okay that ONE item in a list of all the others is out.Saving for half certainly helps when it triggers things like evasion. That won't help the first level kobold. But it will help the second level one with evasion. It will help the kobold who is near to a corner who will get the effect of evasion since he is at a corner. That DOES help a first level kobold.Also, for both magic and for this power, this doesn't apply to JUST first level characters. It is harshest to them, but it kills the dragon too and is just as silly. In fact, against the (red) dragon a fireball may not be useful at all, where the fighter power still works fine. Sounds like another (possibly unintentional) win in the fighter power column.(Again, granted, these are from a 3e view because at the moment a lot of these don't exist in 5e. I expect many of them to show up, but many don't exist yet.)Already covered this last point, second level kobolds would (in 3e, who knows where class features end up in 5e). Otherwise "HP" aren't a class feature. Nor can having 5 hp save someone from this ability. Having 5 means that the creature will die in TWO rounds of the fighter whiffing on an attack, MUUUCH better. [/sarcasm]And I raise terrain becaus that is how kobolds (or anyone) gains evasion in 3e. It is a little seldom used but it is a great effect for those who remember. A rogue gets evasion in the middle of the room. Everyone else gets it behind a table.STILL not relevent however since we are talking about fireball which is NOT the same as this power, but I felt I should clarify.Yes. I also think it is important for fighters to be good at fighting. I disagree when I see them performing magic in order to achieve it. I don't recall Aragorn ever swinging and failing to land a blow and yet still killing the goblin. Though maybe that is in the 8th release of the extended scenes.I say that they are casting spells because spells is the only example you have given me of similar abilities.Me: No one else can do X.You: Wizards.Me: Okay then X is a spell.You: No it isn't.Me: ???I am clearly saying now for the THIRD time that I added a sneeze being required. It was a bit of reflavouring. If you can reflavour the power to be causing the kobold to trip and die, then I can do the same to have the fighter sneeze. In either example, regardless of the results on the dice, the fighter manages to kill the kobold in the first round of combat without actually managing to hit. I say hit because it is called "hit and miss" for the success of an attack vs. AC and also because that is what every other character who attacks does. They hit and deal damage, or they miss and do not. Only the fighter with this ability is different. So refluffed they could sneeze with a twohanded sneeze weapon and cause the kobold to trip and spontaneously hemmerage blood and die.. all from a missed attack roll. I'm altering NONE of the mechanics only the fluff surrounding the power.So, since I am specifically, emphatically, clearly saying that I am saying this sneeze can do this.. I will not retract something I didn't say you did.However for placation sake "pemerton never said a fighter could sneeze and kill a kobold" I never said you did, but I'll certainly reiterate that fact. You have repeatedly said that it can be narrated as a kobold being tripped and smashing his head on a rock - or do you deny that and wish for a retraction?I don't honestly refluff ANY attacks, pretty much ever. Though if I did refluff them I may as well refluff them as sneezes since the aspect of collision and damage don't seem to matter as far as the resolution of the spell. Just like the bad example of being trapped in a 3'x3' room doesn't matter to the freedom of movement scout. It is window dressing that clearly doesn't matter. The mechanic matters. It is the mechanic that doesn't make sense as written. If I have to do WotC's job for them and redo the power then something has gone wrong.[/sblock]</blockquote>

Verification