Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6321953" data-attributes="member: 95493">I would like to quote the full mechanic to properly illustrate what I'm talking about but I don't remember if that is allowed.As far as minion rules - people are saying, even supporters of the mechanic, that it shouldn't apply to minions. No I don't think the title minions actually exists in 5e, but using the 4e framework they require to be hit before they can die (one solid hit and dead, specifically) and many are calling for this to be ported over to this mechanic since it would require the last hit that would kill a creature to be one that actually does hit.Now, are you further asking how adv/disadv works for minions? Because I don't think it has a relation at all. As for how adv/disadv works in relation to this mechanic - well I've already pointed out, this mechanic works when you fail. But the adv/disadv is supposed to increase those changes but with this mechanic it doesn't matter. It is like a certain style, let's say bows for some reason are able to protect the fighter from the "fatigue" condition. Why can it do that? Well the problem isn't that this is intentional, it is an undescribed side effect that I seriously doubt WotC put thought into addressing and isn't addressed in the brief description of the power.I gave you a number of ways they don't make sense. They don't all stack, they apply individually. The concerns about high dodge are different than the ones for high natural armor. But this is where giving the full mechanical description would be helpful. I will say that the way it describes the "hit" is that it is so strong as to damage the target through their armor. But with creatures without armor it immediately breaks down. How does it transition through? What about those who have ZERO armor where a miss would be a complete whiff because ANY kind of hit would be deadly? So, no I don't mean high AC no matter the source, I mean two different situations that involve high AC where this mechanic breaks down. The description seemingly only applies to high AC from worn armor.Poison and extra damage are not covered at all. The effect of poison is usually to the effect of a hitting the target takes [poison effect], so is this a hit for that purpose or not? Clearly contact IS made since damage is being dealt. Do the poison damage/save effects apply? Is the poisoned blade somehow is strong enough to go through the armor, even though the description says it is just forceful enough blow of knenetic energy that I suspect shouldn't transfer that poison? I don't know.I'm not trying to muddy the waters. I'm asking what happens when perfectly normal abilities that already exist in the game interact with this ability and the answer is almost universally that it doesn't interact as described. Or shouldn't. If the power is written more clearly so it makes sense to hit the high dodge and high natural armored creatures then I suspect the poison effect should universally go through. At present I don't know what is supposed to happen.(To me muddying the waters is TRYING to ruleslawyer what is supposed to happen to my benefit, but at the moment I just don't have a solid answer of what is RAW or RAI on these topics, that's why I say I don't think I am.)Many have tried, pemerton keeps trying. Their/His explanations don't work for me. Besides WotC are the ones who do need to try, but they haven't. It isn't a mater of justification. Justifications that pemerton does are akin to houserules. I certainly could use those houserules for my game, but with the release of the official rules coming up I expect the actual game designers to give me the answer and so far they've done a poor job.Um.. okay? I still only learned of its existence a few days ago so I'll have to take your word for how it works and how it relates to this thread.What metric do you judge toxicity? I judge it by the outcry of people I see actually calling for something to change. You seem to have a different view, what would define it? The threads weren't closed due to trolling. They were closed due to censorship, WotC being very bad about that in the past few years - especially if something dominates their forum. I recognize that the internet may be an echo chamber and a small sample showing its bias. But it is the only sample I can access. And from the polls we did before there was a split (I don't recall the ratio) between people who would buy the game with this mechanic and for those whom this mechanic poisons the game and makes them less likely to buy it. Those numbers weren't lopsided towards the 'no big deal, I'll buy it anyway' camp. So, since a fair number seem to hold it in contention I'm willing to call it highly contested and debated and given people's adamant disagreement on the subject and what it does to forums and moderation.. I say it is toxic. What is your reasoning that it isn't except for your say so? Where do I lose you? I'm okay with disagreement I'm just curious. The ONLY examples that people can throw that seem to model the damage on a miss mechanic (except for the specific one we are debating) is that of magic, or splash/explosions (in earlier editions), or 4e/13th age where it is exceedingly common.If the closest example is that of magic, then it seems magical to me.If the next closest is splash/explosions and alchemical - that still isn't purely mundane but a semi-supernatural effect employed (in game terms) of alchemy, debatably another type of magic.If the final example is that of 4e, a system disliked for seeming to make all classes magical (not by 4e fans obviously, but from the haters) then this ALSO strikes me as magical even if unintentionally magical. Go look up the "martial is another type of magic" thread from a couple months ago.And the case of 13th age - well the entire game is apparently built with this as a central mechanic and so there it may not be magical but that is only because ALL classes do it.So, regardless whether or not it is listed as magical, if the only and closest examples are purely magical (fireball, etc.) then YES I'm calling it magical. And the fighter shouldn't be using magic to win his fights. Especially as a base mechanic.*scratches head* None of this has a bearing on whether or not DoaM is a bad mechanic. I'm not saying that 5e is perfect, or any edition is perfect. If it were we would have stopped at that edition and never had to innovate ever again. Clearly that didn't happen. God knows that 3e (my preferred game) has its problems. DoaM isn't the first bad thing to come around. It IS still a bad thing.What? No. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that THIS ONE MECHANIC defines the game differently than the GAME does. No other class gets (mundane/non-magical) damage on a miss - except the fighter. No one else gets to play around with the concept that this mechanic does. I don't think touch AC or flat-footed AC even exist in 5e. But this mechanic seems to scream for those definitions. It just doesn't work like the rest of the game. It is a triangle piece of lego in a world of only rectangular pieces.The game defines HP and AC in a certain way, this mechanic defines it in another way. The first way is consistent with how I have always played the game. The second is horribly inconsistent, with both ME and with the GAME. That makes for a bad mechanic.Even if it were just my issues with AC and HP... how does that make my definition toxic?</blockquote>

Verification