Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid

It’s a chain of bad decisions in a row for the sake of “ wow, my players do not miss :)”

Not to mention that the argument "missing too much is no fun" (on which, supposedly, all these changes were made) is dubious, in my book. Fun for whom? Is there a wide survey/playtest that confirms this, or is this "just" an opinion of a couple of people at Larian? Not that their opinion doesn't matter, mind you, quite the opposite, but somehow it's not the same if it's just a couple of people, or a wide consensus. Also, if "missing is not fun" - when you drive that argument to it's logical conclusion, then why even have attack rolls in the first place? Surely it would be more fun - by that logic - to have each attack automatically hit, and just roll for 1-x damage? Except that we intuitively know this is wrong, and isn't in spirit of D&D at all. And also, what does "too much" mean and how do you quantify it - what is the limit at which fights are no longer "not fun" because misses do not happen that much? Who decided on this and how?

So it's a bad argument in my opinion, because I don't see the data behind it and the logic doesn't stand, and yet the whole revamping of the rules is based on the premise that it is true.

Last edited by tyrion85; 29/10/20 07:31 PM.