Making a new thread for this because it's a subject which has been HUGELY controversial - from the Basic D&D PDF as it currently stands, it looks like damage on a miss is gone.
Specifically, the Great Weapon Fighting style, which used to provide it, now does this:
QuoteWhen you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit.
This seems entirely suitable for a "I am good at carving people up with huge weapons" fighting style.
I am cool with this. I'm also glad that the debates over this will end!
...maybe.
Already anticipating crap like, "Wizards have spells that automatically do damage, which completely overshadows the fighter!"
Wait, isn't that argument 30+ years old?
THIS IS BULLSHIT.
SERIOUSLY JUST FLUSH THE 40 YEAR LEGACY OF D&D DOWN THE TOILET AND GO PISS ON GARY'S CORPSE WHILE YOU'RE AT IT.
No, I'm kidding. I'm entirely OK with that.
I think it would have been just as easy to say the great weapon fighter has advantage on damage rolls.
Boom! Bam! Done!
Quote from: thedungeondelver;763826THIS IS BULLSHIT.
SERIOUSLY JUST FLUSH THE 40 YEAR LEGACY OF D&D DOWN THE TOILET AND GO PISS ON GARY'S CORPSE WHILE YOU'RE AT IT.
No, I'm kidding. I'm entirely OK with that.
:D you've been hanging around TBP too much. Starting to act like them ;)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763845I think it would have been just as easy to say the great weapon fighter has advantage on damage rolls.
Boom! Bam! Done!
You know, I actually like this.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763845I think it would have been just as easy to say the great weapon fighter has advantage on damage rolls.
Boom! Bam! Done!
Wow. Yeah that works super well. Nice and simple.
(I'm already liking the rules-jargon too for this game.)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;763846:D you've been hanging around TBP too much. Starting to act like them ;)
Are you nuts? Most of them
want to flush the legacy of D&D - see "Fire these guys and replace them all with 20 year olds, stat!" response to Rob's 'blog post.
And yes, that was a real comment made by someone. Meant sincerely.
Ahem.
Quote from: Necrozius;763850Wow. Yeah that works super well. Nice and simple.
(I'm already liking the rules-jargon too for this game.)
Yeah I would rather do that; I think that's simpler.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763845I think it would have been just as easy to say the great weapon fighter has advantage on damage rolls.
Boom! Bam! Done!
Not the solution I would have to Great Weapon Style personally, but if I was to cleanly implement this rule benefit granting advantage would be the way I would have done it. Cleaner, less wordy, uses an inherent system mechanic, etc. Good job, may it be an errata to the living document in the future.
Huh. Their revision was very similar to what I was considering houseruling. (I was bouncing around between something like that or "if you roll a 1 or 2 on your damage dice, you instead do 3 damage", I wasn't sure)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763845I think it would have been just as easy to say the great weapon fighter has advantage on damage rolls.
Boom! Bam! Done!
It is simpler but I think they did it that way so it isn't just something that's automatic and the ability actually kicks in on your damage roll not your attack roll.
I think they're also strictly limiting the advantage/disadvantage terminology to D20 success/failure rolls, like your to-hits or your saving throws or whatever.
Quote from: Warthur;764079I think they're also strictly limiting the advantage/disadvantage terminology to D20 success/failure rolls, like your to-hits or your saving throws or whatever.
Even so, "roll two damage dice, and take the best" is a lot shorter, and the only impact is if you roll a two followed by a one.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;763845I think it would have been just as easy to say the great weapon fighter has advantage on damage rolls.
Boom! Bam! Done!
Funny - that's a houserule for two-handed weapons in B/X that someone posted on Dragonsfoot years ago. I thought it was awesome then (back when nobody had heard of Advantage) and stole it.
Quote from: robiswrong;764087Even so, "roll two damage dice, and take the best" is a lot shorter, and the only impact is if you roll a two followed by a one.
Advantage is simple because it turns a single die roll into two. But if we're talking damage rolls, that's not always one die. Some weapons use two dice, and crits also add dice. If you're rolling 2d6 damage, suddenly that becomes roll 4d6, drop two lowest, which would kick GWF damage into the stratosphere.
As it is, it's a nice, not overpowered bonus. My main issue is the way it is written is clunky and legalistic. But that have to do that for the rules-lawyer assholes out there.
I guess having a greatsword do 3d6 instead of 2d6 reroll shitty rolls is too simple.
Quote from: Marleycat;763960It is simpler but I think they did it that way so it isn't just something that's automatic and the ability actually kicks in on your damage roll not your attack roll.
Umm.. the advantage IS on the damage roll, not the attack roll.
They also got rid of the Evocers Cantrip damage on a miss power. Now it only triggers if the target makes their save.
Quote from: JRR;764127I guess having a greatsword do 3d6 instead of 2d6 reroll shitty rolls is too simple.
Correct just check TBP or the WotC board.;)
Quote from: Omega;764163They also got rid of the Evocers Cantrip damage on a miss power. Now it only triggers if the target makes their save.
That's logical.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;764161Umm.. the advantage IS on the damage roll, not the attack roll.
No it isn't. You already hit maybe BECAUSE of advantage, this is just triggered if you roll a 1 or 2 on your DAMAGE roll as it should be. It's not automatic.
Quote from: Iosue;764119Advantage is simple because it turns a single die roll into two. But if we're talking damage rolls, that's not always one die. Some weapons use two dice, and crits also add dice. If you're rolling 2d6 damage, suddenly that becomes roll 4d6, drop two lowest, which would kick GWF damage into the stratosphere.
Roll two sets of 2d6. Keep the best set. Not the best two of four.
As a fan of 4e, the damage on a miss was the first rule I nuked for non-magical attacks. I'm cool with it in magic - because Magic! - but not for mundane attacks.
Quote from: Haffrung;764093Funny - that's a houserule for two-handed weapons in B/X that someone posted on Dragonsfoot years ago. I thought it was awesome then (back when nobody had heard of Advantage) and stole it.
I got the rule from Philotomy Jurament for S&W. It works very well at the table - once the player gets comfortable with the Roll 2 Keep 1 mechanic. However, I've switched to 2H weapons doing D6+1 damage in S&W:WB because too many players got confused with the R2K1 concept.
Quote from: Marleycat;764167No it isn't. You already hit maybe BECAUSE of advantage, this is just triggered if you roll a 1 or 2 on your DAMAGE roll as it should be. It's not automatic.
You are a threat to tolerance Pinky.
Quote from: Warthur;763820Making a new thread for this because it's a subject which has been HUGELY controversial - from the Basic D&D PDF as it currently stands, it looks like damage on a miss is gone.
Looking at Mearl's twitter feed, its seems that one of the big reasons they scrapped it is because people ended up being confused how it worked with poisoned weapons.
Quote from: jadrax;764338Looking at Mearl's twitter feed, its seems that one of the big reasons they scrapped it is because people ended up being confused how it worked with poisoned weapons.
That makes sense. Would it trigger poison? If so, how much?
Could have been simple to just say it hits but no bonus effects trigger. Simmilar to how they handled the cantrip hit on a miss.
Moot point now of course.
Obviously, this was not one of my favorite mechanics, and I strongly advocated that it not be included in the Basic version of the game.
Quote from: Spinachcat;764260As a fan of 4e, the damage on a miss was the first rule I nuked for non-magical attacks. I'm cool with it in magic - because Magic! - but not for mundane attacks.
And yet people bitch when I pull out the "fighters can't have nice things" line.
But here is a pretty solid example of why that phrase exists.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;768191And yet people bitch when I pull out the "fighters can't have nice things" line.
But here is a pretty solid example of why that phrase exists.
.*Fighters have more ability bumps/feats
*Fighters attack more often, for more damage, than everybody else.
*Fighters can wear heavy armor and wield badass weapons.
*Fighters have a ton of HP's, and advantage on CON saves.
Fighters have a LOT of nice things. But because a fighter can't do what a magic-user does means, for some people, that they've been screwed with their pants on
Quote from: GnomeWorks;768191And yet people bitch when I pull out the "fighters can't have nice things" line.
But here is a pretty solid example of why that phrase exists.
In this case I have to agree.
Why was is was it an atrocity against gaming for the fighter to have this? But the mage doing it, (later) and doing it far better was fine?
The replacements for both were ok at least.
Quote from: Omega;768200In this case I have to agree.
Why was is was it an atrocity against gaming for the fighter to have this? But the mage doing it, (later) and doing it far better was fine?
The replacements for both were ok at least.
Because people take the words "hit" and "miss" literally when it comes to fighters doing physical attacks with weapons.
That's the real issue here, not some kind of bizarre anti-fighter rant. If you take the words "miss" and "damage" literally, then there's basically no way in which it makes any sense for a fighter to do damage on a miss.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;768191And yet people bitch when I pull out the "fighters can't have nice things" line.
But here is a pretty solid example of why that phrase exists.
In this particular case I agree with you because it's not actually a class ability but an archetype requiring a singular type of weapon. But I understand why people dislike it and the revision is fine.
Quote from: robiswrong;768204Because people take the words "hit" and "miss" literally when it comes to fighters doing physical attacks with weapons.
That's the real issue here, not some kind of bizarre anti-fighter rant. If you take the words "miss" and "damage" literally, then there's basically no way in which it makes any sense for a fighter to do damage on a miss.
What do hit points represent?
If they are anything beyond "meat," then this argument is bullshit, because then you have things like "oh well hp represents your ability to turn a killing blow into a not-killing blow," which means that the words "damage" and "hit" and "miss" don't actually map to what you claim they do.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;768235What do hit points represent?
If they are anything beyond "meat," then this argument is bullshit, because then you have things like "oh well hp represents your ability to turn a killing blow into a not-killing blow," which means that the words "damage" and "hit" and "miss" don't actually map to what you claim they
if you "hit" me i expend hp to turn that blow into a not killing blow. That is what hp do. If you don't hit me i don't need to do that...... Simple.
I would be all for using hp as a deeper fatigue mechanic but it would be i spend hp to do more damage or i spend hp to increase my ac. The option to spent hp or not remains associated to the in game event. If you miss me but still do damage then you are removing the possibilty that you are simply shit at hitting stuff :-)
Quote from: GnomeWorks;768191And yet people bitch when I pull out the "fighters can't have nice things" line.
- it's not that nice of a thing
- it's weird
- it makes people look at hit points harder, which is never good
- hit points may not necessarily be meat points but they have to
include meat points because nothing else does, and that is why it is bad to look at hit points harder
Quote from: GnomeWorks;768235What do hit points represent?
If they are anything beyond "meat," then this argument is bullshit, because then you have things like "oh well hp represents your ability to turn a killing blow into a not-killing blow," which means that the words "damage" and "hit" and "miss" don't actually map to what you claim they do.
Um, I'm not the one railing against damage on a miss. I'm simply trying to explain the other side's arguments, and that it's a little more nuanced than "fighters can't have nice things."
I thought Damage on a Miss was pretty evocative of swinging around a LARGE weapon near anyone and when the sword struck armor or a shield and it was a glancing blow or something that was essentially "blocked" (ie. a miss) it would still hurt like hell or dislodge something or loosen up a piece of armor or etc. etc.
Nothing about it I found 'Broken' considering that I've been using this feature since the Playtest's initial inception back in the first packet (5/26/12) where the pre-gen Dwarf Fighter had a feature called Reaper. It wasn't a problem then and wasn't a problem in the final packet on 10/14/13 where it was a Fighter's choice either.
However I'm not seeing the problem with the basic concept of GWF now being Brutal from 4E. It's different and invokes a bit of a different feeling when using it but it's not bad. The Reaper's style is still something I'd like to see later on or even just homebrew the damn thing in the game as an additional Fighting Option.
Quote from: Batman;768309I thought Damage on a Miss was pretty evocative of swinging around a LARGE weapon near anyone and when the sword struck armor or a shield and it was a glancing blow or something that was essentially "blocked" (ie. a miss) it would still hurt like hell or dislodge something or loosen up a piece of armor or etc. etc.
Nothing about it I found 'Broken' considering that I've been using this feature since the Playtest's initial inception back in the first packet (5/26/12) where the pre-gen Dwarf Fighter had a feature called Reaper. It wasn't a problem then and wasn't a problem in the final packet on 10/14/13 where it was a Fighter's choice either.
However I'm not seeing the problem with the basic concept of GWF now being Brutal from 4E. It's different and invokes a bit of a different feeling when using it but it's not bad. The Reaper's style is still something I'd like to see later on or even just homebrew the damn thing in the game as an additional Fighting Option.
Works for me just like the original definition of Potent Cantrip for Evokers. Houserules are Dnd to me.:)
I didn't hate the mechanic myself but it *does* lead directly back to the ARE HIT POINTS ACTUAL MEAT OR BATTLE FATIGUE? argument and fuck that's one that will never ever be settled
despite every iteration of the game going for the meat/stamina/luck/experience combo platter explanation that is also quite clearly the correct one.Quote from: thedungeondelver;763854Are you nuts? Most of them want to flush the legacy of D&D - see "Fire these guys and replace them all with 20 year olds, stat!" response to Rob's 'blog post.
And yes, that was a real comment made by someone. Meant sincerely.
Ahem.
Link? I'm way behind on muh blog readin.
Quote from: Batman;768309I thought Damage on a Miss was pretty evocative of swinging around a LARGE weapon near anyone and when the sword struck armor or a shield and it was a glancing blow or something that was essentially "blocked" (ie. a miss) it would still hurt like hell or dislodge something or loosen up a piece of armor or etc. etc.
Depending on how you interpret hp's that glancing blow you describe, above, is the fluff text for a hit, not a miss. I also think DoaM proponents also forget that spells are finite resources and weapon swings are not. A fighter can "miss" multiple times a round and still do 15 dmg while "missing." And it's a hit, not a miss, if it does damage. Wizard spells that do damage on a failed save are all hits. That's their schtick. 4E made it everyone's schtick, though, so some folks still expect it. My advice for DoaM proponents is play 13th Age. It's all DoaM. Guess it feels good to NEVER, EVER fail.
I think the problem is that HP IS meat, and fatigue, and luck and other things it has had this duality for a long time. It was what it needed to be to fit the narrative. I know what AD&D tried to define it as, but rules didn't quite match up to that definition. With a to 'hit' rule, a 'damage' roll, and a cure light 'wounds' spell. The definition fell apart and HP took on this particle/wave like duality. It was what the narrative called for at the moment. Undefined and amorphis. Sometimes meat and sometimes only fatigue and sometimes both, at the same time.
With DOAM it is only one thing, fatigue, until the fatal blow. And I think that is the crux of some peoples issue with it.
Me? I still think it's the above. HP IS meat and it IS fatigue, and sometimes both, and sometimes neither, just a counter. And it should stay that way, it's a perfect mechanic, you can't really nail it down so it serves a purpose that fits the narrative at the moment, in the heat of battle as it were.
I think some rules work best when they are unclear and not well defined.
Quote from: honesttiago;768315Depending on how you interpret hp's that glancing blow you describe, above, is the fluff text for a hit, not a miss. I also think DoaM proponents also forget that spells are finite resources and weapon swings are not. A fighter can "miss" multiple times a round and still do 15 dmg while "missing." And it's a hit, not a miss, if it does damage. Wizard spells that do damage on a failed save are all hits. That's their schtick. 4E made it everyone's schtick, though, so some folks still expect it. My advice for DoaM proponents is play 13th Age. It's all DoaM. Guess it feels good to NEVER, EVER fail.
The way I see it is Hit =/= Contact and Miss =/= Whiff. A Hit is like in Baseball where I hit the ball and it lands somewhere in play and I get to run to the base. I can smack the ball ALL day long and foul 1,000,000 times but none of contact is an actual "hit". So in D&D a Hit with a Martial Weapon is when you succeed in equaling or exceeding a target number. That's the game's definition. Not the literal meaning of "hit" as in, I made contact with something.
Granted it's ALL subjective and people will flavor their favorite position on the issue, and I also feel it IS an issue D&D has grappled with since it's inception. The rules, til 4E, however kept things pretty ambiguous. 4E's Reaping Strike sort of let the Couatl (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG38a.jpg) out of the bag so to speak and now we're dealing with the differences that have always been there.
But I have to fully admit that it doesn't matter because I'll be running D&D:Next with Wounds and Vitality system, so there's a much clearer definition of how something like DoaM works in conjunction with a term like "Vitality" and how that doesn't translate over to "Wounds" (something DoaM could never do because the attack was a "miss").
Quote from: Marleycat;768311Works for me just like the original definition of Potent Cantrip for Evokers. Houserules are Dnd to me.:)
Exactly. House rules are pretty much standard-practice in my book that every edition gets. I think I house ruled nearly MOST of the Forgotten Realms prestige classes from the
Player's Guide to Faerûn into 4E as well as a ton of other things like Gunns and Boot-Knives. I also use a lot of other people's homebrew stuff too, like someone's complete creation Avatar: The Last Airbender 4E campaign (complete with 4 Bending classes and 3-4 paragon paths for each Bender AND paragon paths if you wanted to be the Blue Spirit or a fighter with Hook-Swords). It's usually all over the place balance wise, but who cares? That's the the DM is for.
Quote from: Batman;768341The way I see it is Hit =/= Contact and Miss =/= Whiff. A Hit is like in Baseball where I hit the ball and it lands somewhere in play and I get to run to the base. I can smack the ball ALL day long and foul 1,000,000 times but none of contact is an actual "hit". So in D&D a Hit with a Martial Weapon is when you succeed in equaling or exceeding a target number. That's the game's definition. Not the literal meaning of "hit" as in, I made contact with something.
Granted it's ALL subjective and people will flavor their favorite position on the issue, and I also feel it IS an issue D&D has grappled with since it's inception. The rules, til 4E, however kept things pretty ambiguous. 4E's Reaping Strike sort of let the Couatl (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG38a.jpg) out of the bag so to speak and now we're dealing with the differences that have always been there.
But I have to fully admit that it doesn't matter because I'll be running D&D:Next with Wounds and Vitality system, so there's a much clearer definition of how something like DoaM works in conjunction with a term like "Vitality" and how that doesn't translate over to "Wounds" (something DoaM could never do because the attack was a "miss").
I shall be using a W/V system also and likely slower healing. I prefer it to be grittier then the baseline. But big magic and badass fighters that hurt when they hit anything, armor included.
Quote from: Marleycat;768343fi
I shall be using a W/V system also and likely slower healing. I prefer it to be grittier then the baseline. But big magic and badass fighters that hurt when they hit anything, armor included.
I'd like to do grittier but I don't think my other players would. They do put a lot of time and investment into their characters so when death looms or is achieved, they go back to the drawing board. It was funny when I suggested we go with Healing Surges are equal to 1/2 level + Constitution (....and the rage ensued).
Luckily 5E is pretty simple in char-gen area and I could always tell them to bring a few extra characters.
Quote from: Batman;768345I'd like to do grittier but I don't think my other players would. They do put a lot of time and investment into their characters so when death looms or is achieved, they go back to the drawing board. It was funny when I suggested we go with Healing Surges are equal to 1/2 level + Constitution (....and the rage ensued).
Luckily 5E is pretty simple in char-gen area and I could always tell them to bring a few extra characters.
Not a crazy idea. My group like myself, like horror games over baseline Dnd so the buy in is pretty low.
Quote from: honesttiago;768315Depending on how you interpret hp's that glancing blow you describe, above, is the fluff text for a hit, not a miss.
This is the key bit. When a 2 handed sword does 3 damage its because it was a glancing blow that you took on your shield.
Quote from: jibbajibba;768357This is the key bit. When a 2 handed sword does 3 damage its because it was a glancing blow that you took on your shield.
Not necessarily. You can describe a miss that does no damage the exact same way. DoaM is a freebie with the same fluff. Plus that "miss" is STILL a hit, in this case, a hit on the shield. The idea that someone telegraphing a big swing that no one can dodge is bullshit. It's not a hand grenade.
Quote from: jibbajibba;768357This is the key bit. When a 2 handed sword does 3 damage its because it was a glancing blow that you took on your shield.
Not necessarily. You can describe a miss that does no damage the exact same way. DoaM is a freebie with the same fluff. Plus that "miss" is STILL a hit, in this case, a hit on the shield. The idea that some telegraphing a big swing that no one can dodge is bullshit. It's not a hand grenade. If we're going to allow for getting fatigued by defending yourself successfully, then EVERY round of combat should cost hp's.
Quote from: cranebump;768402Not necessarily. You can describe a miss that does no damage the exact same way. DoaM is a freebie with the same fluff. Plus that "miss" is STILL a hit, in this case, a hit on the shield. The idea that some telegraphing a big swing that no one can dodge is bullshit. It's not a hand grenade. If we're going to allow for getting fatigued by defending yourself successfully, then EVERY round of combat should cost hp's.
Bit confused ..... That miss is a hit. A blow you can't dodge is bullshit but a miss should deal damage?
I agree that a more realistic combat model would have a fatigue cost for each round of combat and different options would carry different costs but that is a very complex model that can really only be run on say a computer game.
You do get fatigued in D&D for defending yourself that is exactly how HPs work. I hit you with my big fuck off sword and rather than loosing an arm you loose a proportion of your abstract HPs, which increase as you gain experience so can't be "meat" unless gaining experience also means getting bigger or what not.
Damage on a miss? When did people actually lose the ability to duck under or jump over a blow?
Quote from: Bren;768517Damage on a miss? When did people actually lose the ability to duck under or jump over a blow?
They didn't, it's listed in the Disengage + move away actions for D&D:Next. But if your gonna go toe to toe with a dude wielding 4+ ft. of steel at you then your probably gonna have a hard time leaping and dodging that weapon (telegraphed or not) OR you don't view HP in a "meat only" way. The guy missed your AC, failing to succed on a substantial blow but the attack drove you to dodge, dip, duck, dive, and....dodge which causes HP loss.
The differences are how one views HP and its relation to the literal (or gamist) way in which people perceive "hit" and "miss". In the context of DoaM, a lot of people think Miss is an actual "whiff" and they like to narrate most attacks that way. Others think "miss" is just a gamist way of saying "your attack was not sufficient in dealing any significant damage" but could be narrated by the weapon being turned by a shield or armor or a glancing blow.
The biggest problem I've found with the DoaM debate is the angst and vitriol that has been spewed at people for liking or disliking the mechanic. This was FAR worse than the rule actually making it or being removed from the game. Most "normal" people probably wouldn't be bothered by the decision either way.
The stupid thing about DoaM was that it was simply applied to an entire class of weapon. Sufficiently trained with a two-handed weapon, it is impossible for you to reach a level of performance with it that every other weapon has.
Every other weapon allows for you to make such a poor attack that it doesn't affect your opponent at all. No hitting shields, no dodge necessary, no HP loss, it was just an incompetent attack. Give me a larger weapon and by virtue of size, now, I can no longer be that incompetent.
It's like any WotC rule, might be a good idea, but little to no thought behind the surface mechanical adjustment.
You put in Wounds/Vitality/Stamina, now it starts to makes more sense, but still is ridiculous if it's binary and not subject to how well you roll.
What's naked armor class without any dex, 10. So if you didn't hit a 10, you outright miss no matter what. Not very hard. At the end of combat, if you were in melee, lose 1 hp. Again, not very hard, and I'm sure we'll see some stuff like this in the GM's guide.
It just comes down to staying at the same zoom level and not going to a finer level of detail for a single type of weapon.
Sorry for all the angst and vitriol. :rolleyes:
You know, I don't really have an issue with it.
A lot of people do. And that's fine.
It's also very linked in many people's minds to 4e, and one of the more contentious bits of it.
So I agree with WotC in removing it. The good it added (flavor for a weapon class) can be done in many other ways that are less contentious.
Quote from: CRKrueger;768578The stupid thing about DoaM was that it was simply applied to an entire class of weapon. Sufficiently trained with a two-handed weapon, it is impossible for you to reach a level of performance with it that every other weapon has.
Every other weapon allows for you to make such a poor attack that it doesn't affect your opponent at all. No hitting shields, no dodge necessary, no HP loss, it was just an incompetent attack. Give me a larger weapon and by virtue of size, now, I can no longer be that incompetent.
It has nothing to do with competence. It's simply that a 4+ ft. of steel or wood will generate MUCH more force because your swinging it with two-hands that avoiding the blow by throwing your shield into it OR it glancing off your armor still hurts OR if you use the HP = meat + other things ideal that avoiding the weapon takes a portion of your stamina + luck + blah blah stuff to avoid being hit.
Quote from: CRKrueger;768578It's like any WotC rule, might be a good idea, but little to no thought behind the surface mechanical adjustment.
The fact that you don't like it does not mean that there was no thought put into it. The fact that many people seem fine with it AND the fact that it's been in the playtest for the ENTIRE time shows that a good portion of the fan-base was OK with it's existence and found that it's inclusion wasn't a bad thing.
Obviously it's received negative feedback as well, thus the change in the Basic PDF. That, however, doesn't mean we'll see something akin to it later down the road (or people just adding it in anyways).
Quote from: CRKrueger;768578You put in Wounds/Vitality/Stamina, now it starts to makes more sense, but still is ridiculous if it's binary and not subject to how well you roll.
What's naked armor class without any dex, 10. So if you didn't hit a 10, you outright miss no matter what. Not very hard. At the end of combat, if you were in melee, lose 1 hp. Again, not very hard, and I'm sure we'll see some stuff like this in the GM's guide.
It just comes down to staying at the same zoom level and not going to a finer level of detail for a single type of weapon.
Sorry for all the angst and vitriol. :rolleyes:
No, this is an
actual discussion about the concept. If I wanted to read angst and vitriol, I'd pull up some WotC threads or the ones over on RPG.net. Basically what it does is put a focus on how people narrate the loss of HP and how they describe the combat scene. DoaM limits, to a degree, how they can flavor and describe the scene to make narrative sense without saying "um....magic."
Now you mention AC 10 (no modifiers) and the guy missing someone with that AC. Good example. Personally I've always viewed HP as a combination of crap and someone who has an AC 10 (or someone without armor) that goes up against DoaM is dodging, diving, dipping, ducking, and dodging out of the way of the blade narrowly missing them. Because of this, they're not paying attention to the scrapes and bruises they're receiving from hitting the ground in a roll or straining their muscles to duck out of the way at the last second. But all of this sort of flies out the window when someone actually think about gaining HP by receiving experience. What just happened when my Fighter reached another level and got 8 HP? He didn't just get fatter or grow more meat or his body didn't just metaphysically change to be able to absorb a sword's blade better.
Quote from: Batman;768604It has nothing to do with competence. It's simply that a 4+ ft. of steel or wood will generate MUCH more force because your swinging it with two-hands that avoiding the blow by throwing your shield into it OR it glancing off your armor still hurts OR if you use the HP = meat + other things ideal that avoiding the weapon takes a portion of your stamina + luck + blah blah stuff to avoid being hit.
The fact that you don't like it does not mean that there was no thought put into it. The fact that many people seem fine with it AND the fact that it's been in the playtest for the ENTIRE time shows that a good portion of the fan-base was OK with it's existence and found that it's inclusion wasn't a bad thing.
.
Could you imagine a guy with a sword swinging and missing? is there a circumstance where you swing and for whatever reason you simply miss? In this situation why would the target loose HP?
Now if we take HP as not meat (and its the only logical position really) then when you swing at me and hit I use my HP to negate the "wound" damge and take it as bruise, stamina loss etc. This is how HPs seem to function and you see it in subtext right back from 1e's attacks against helpless foes etc.
In this case then HPs actually represent my ability to deflect/avoid/dodge your blow with the implication that I don't need to do that if you miss.
This is why DoaM is such a big deal because it breaks that explicit relationship between an attack and its result.
Now as noted if you wanted to change HPs to be a full on fatigue mechanic such that your guard, the armour you wear and the weapon you weild each have a cost in HPs to use, so fighting agressively with a Two handed sword might cost you 3 HP per round or 4 in Plate armour, whereas fighting defensively with twin lightweight handaxes might cost you 1HP a round in fatigue. In that case then you might say that the "flurry of blows" special attack imposes a default HP loss to your opponent (although it will cost you as HP as well) whether you land a blow or not, although I would prefer to say if you chose not to expend the HP the attack would receive a large bonus to hit.
However, that is not how D&D works. There is no fatigue for climbing a rope in plate armour there is no HP loss for carrying your max capacity up a 40% incline for 2 hours.
I think there is a valid mechanic in there where HPs protect your meat (as wounds) and also act as a generic fatigue pool the result being a really tired guy is easier to hit and hurt than a fresh guy and wearing hot heavy armour in an underground maze for days is likely to slow you down some, but its not D&D, well not this or any previous iteration.
Im going to interpret it one way and maybee it works maybee it doesnt.
Someone else is going to go the diametric opposite and adamantly believe it cannot ever work. EVER.
Another will look at it and totally see how it makes perfect sense.
What else is new?
Quote from: jibbajibba;768612Could you imagine a guy with a sword swinging and missing? is there a circumstance where you swing and for whatever reason you simply miss? In this situation why would the target loose HP?
Sure, though why did I miss is something that would be questioned. But yes, a "whiff" is something that could happen. The target I'm swinging at could have dodged out of the way or dropped to his heels and tumbled out of nearly getting cleaved. These evasions, however, take a toll (however slightly) on the body and thus, lose HP. It also takes the idea that HP is something other than just 'meat'.
Now can you explain why a character gains HP after earning experience? How does one frame that growth? If someone can gain HP through experience AND not because they've obtained more meat or their body has undergone a metaphysical altered state then why must they lose HP in a way other than taking damage?
Quote from: jibbajibba;768612Now if we take HP as not meat (and its the only logical position really) then when you swing at me and hit I use my HP to negate the "wound" damage and take it as bruise, stamina loss etc. This is how HPs seem to function and you see it in subtext right back from 1e's attacks against helpless foes etc.
I've never read it like that. When I hit you with my sword, I'm dealing wounds. Your not using your HP to negate the attack or avoid serious damage but taking a cut. Now one can narrate the cut as minor or a scratch or whatever but the character isn't "using" HP to avoid the damage.
Quote from: jibbajibba;768612In this case then HPs actually represent my ability to deflect/avoid/dodge your blow with the implication that I don't need to do that if you miss.
This is why DoaM is such a big deal because it breaks that explicit relationship between an attack and its result.
I don't think it breaks any explicit relationship, I just think it paints the narrative of combat into a small box. If someone is using DoaM then they're likely to narrate a miss as either the weapon banging off a shield, banging off someone's armor piece or the "miss" only missed in dealing a considerable amount of damage in likely just grazed the target.
Obviously some people want more freedom with their narration OR find ways in which this ability can completely ruin their campaign (such examples is where I encountered the vitriol and angst).
What DoaM does, like Inspiration Healing, is put an narrow focus on HOW the person narrates the situation. With DoaM the attacker doesn't "whiff" or with Inspiration Healing, the attacks are mostly superfluous and can be restored with an encouraging shout.
Some people are cool with this, some aren't.
Quote from: jibbajibba;768612Now as noted if you wanted to change HPs to be a full on fatigue mechanic such that your guard, the armour you wear and the weapon you wield each have a cost in HPs to use, so fighting aggressively with a Two handed sword might cost you 3 HP per round or 4 in Plate armour, whereas fighting defensively with twin lightweight handaxes might cost you 1HP a round in fatigue. In that case then you might say that the "flurry of blows" special attack imposes a default HP loss to your opponent (although it will cost you as HP as well) whether you land a blow or not, although I would prefer to say if you chose not to expend the HP the attack would receive a large bonus to hit.
However, that is not how D&D works. There is no fatigue for climbing a rope in plate armour there is no HP loss for carrying your max capacity up a 40% incline for 2 hours.
That sounds like a LOT of work to make this mechanic happen. Instead, I just use Vitality and Wounds from the SRD. Vitality is a pretty loose term that can be applied to a LOT of scenarios without having the imagery infringed upon. DoaM removes your "vitality" because of X. I don't think too hard on the terms "hit" or "miss" because the loss of "vitality" is vague and can be applied generally. Wounds, however, does create an imagery and it should be severe. A sword cut that drops vitality isn't terrible or even that bad. A sword gash from a critical attack has injured you greatly (thus, Wound). Personally, I think it's the best way to go OVERALL with D&D, but people are really tied to their sacred cows that such things are always an "alternative module".
Quote from: jibbajibba;768612I think there is a valid mechanic in there where HPs protect your meat (as wounds) and also act as a generic fatigue pool the result being a really tired guy is easier to hit and hurt than a fresh guy and wearing hot heavy armour in an underground maze for days is likely to slow you down some, but its not D&D, well not this or any previous iteration.
Granted, though what "is D&D" is highly subjective. I don't think Dwarven Women with beards is "D&D" and prefer them with elaborate and long Braids that they focus on however I accept that people hold to things like dwarven bearded women or Vancian Spellcasting.
Quote from: Batman;768629Sure, though why did I miss is something that would be questioned. But yes, a "whiff" is something that could happen. The target I'm swinging at could have dodged out of the way or dropped to his heels and tumbled out of nearly getting cleaved. These evasions, however, take a toll (however slightly) on the body and thus, lose HP. It also takes the idea that HP is something other than just 'meat'.
Now can you explain why a character gains HP after earning experience? How does one frame that growth? If someone can gain HP through experience AND not because they've obtained more meat or their body has undergone a metaphysical altered state then why must they lose HP in a way other than taking damage?
I've never read it like that. When I hit you with my sword, I'm dealing wounds. Your not using your HP to negate the attack or avoid serious damage but taking a cut. Now one can narrate the cut as minor or a scratch or whatever but the character isn't "using" HP to avoid the damage.
I don't think it breaks any explicit relationship, I just think it paints the narrative of combat into a small box. If someone is using DoaM then they're likely to narrate a miss as either the weapon banging off a shield, banging off someone's armor piece or the "miss" only missed in dealing a considerable amount of damage in likely just grazed the target.
Obviously some people want more freedom with their narration OR find ways in which this ability can completely ruin their campaign (such examples is where I encountered the vitriol and angst).
What DoaM does, like Inspiration Healing, is put an narrow focus on HOW the person narrates the situation. With DoaM the attacker doesn't "whiff" or with Inspiration Healing, the attacks are mostly superfluous and can be restored with an encouraging shout.
Some people are cool with this, some aren't.
That sounds like a LOT of work to make this mechanic happen. Instead, I just use Vitality and Wounds from the SRD. Vitality is a pretty loose term that can be applied to a LOT of scenarios without having the imagery infringed upon. DoaM removes your "vitality" because of X. I don't think too hard on the terms "hit" or "miss" because the loss of "vitality" is vague and can be applied generally. Wounds, however, does create an imagery and it should be severe. A sword cut that drops vitality isn't terrible or even that bad. A sword gash from a critical attack has injured you greatly (thus, Wound). Personally, I think it's the best way to go OVERALL with D&D, but people are really tied to their sacred cows that such things are always an "alternative module".
Granted, though what "is D&D" is highly subjective. I don't think Dwarven Women with beards is "D&D" and prefer them with elaborate and long Braids that they focus on however I accept that people hold to things like dwarven bearded women or Vancian Spellcasting.
I agree. Then again I play FantasyCraft which uses a vitality/wounds system (your CON are wounds the per level stuff is vitality) coupled with armour as DR and a spellpoint magic system with multilevel feats. Seems very doable in 5e yes?
Quote from: Batman;768528But if your gonna go toe to toe with a dude wielding 4+ ft. of steel at you then your probably gonna have a hard time leaping and dodging that weapon...
Not if the dude is significantly less skilled than my character.
The notion that big weapons always force a loss of hit points and smaller weapons doesn't seem at all reasonable (nor appealing). But if you want to start tracking HP loss for dodging and leaping than you should also track HP loss for fatigue from swinging a 4+ ft piece of steel instead of a 12" piece of steel or for fighting while wearing and carrying 60 lbs. of armor and gear instead of 10 lbs. of gear.
QuoteThe guy missed your AC, failing to succed on a substantial blow but the attack drove you to dodge, dip, duck, dive, and....dodge which causes HP loss.
Or the guy just plain wiffed and hit the wall or a tree instead of my PC. DoaM seems to assume that can never, ever occur.
QuoteThe differences are how one views HP and its relation to the literal (or gamist) way in which people perceive "hit" and "miss". In the context of DoaM, a lot of people think Miss is an actual "whiff" and they like to narrate most attacks that way. Others think "miss" is just a gamist way of saying "your attack was not sufficient in dealing any significant damage" but could be narrated by the weapon being turned by a shield or armor or a glancing blow.
Not sure what point you are trying to make about narration. If one doesn't use DoaM the two narrations are functionally the same (no HPs lost) and I have always seen both used by DMs/GMs when no damage accrues on a miss. A roll close to a hit would likely get the blocked by shield narration, whereas a roll far from a hit would get the whiff narration.
QuoteThe biggest problem I've found with the DoaM debate is the angst and vitriol that has been spewed at people for liking or disliking the mechanic. This was FAR worse than the rule actually making it or being removed from the game. Most "normal" people probably wouldn't be bothered by the decision either way.
Meh. Most normal people don't play RPGs.
Actual medieval armour never weighed more then 20-30 pounds if that. Much like actual heavy weaponry wasn't more then 3-5 pounds. Why else would anybody actually use it.
Quote from: Batman;768629Sure, though why did I miss is something that would be questioned. But yes, a "whiff" is something that could happen. The target I'm swinging at could have dodged out of the way or dropped to his heels and tumbled out of nearly getting cleaved. These evasions, however, take a toll (however slightly) on the body and thus, lose HP. It also takes the idea that HP is something other than just 'meat'.
Again I am not saying the target moved I am saying can you imagine just missing. It seems like you can't.
I have played around with weapons for years and it is possible to miss a tree stump that isn't moving at all.
QuoteNow can you explain why a character gains HP after earning experience? How does one frame that growth? If someone can gain HP through experience AND not because they've obtained more meat or their body has undergone a metaphysical altered state then why must they lose HP in a way other than taking damage?
Um ... from my explanation its obvious they develop a larger range of skills that allow them to mitigate damage. And again they don't loose HPs when they take damage, they "spend" HP to avoid taking damage because HPs represent their skill in combat and in not taking damage.
QuoteI've never read it like that. When I hit you with my sword, I'm dealing wounds. Your not using your HP to negate the attack or avoid serious damage but taking a cut. Now one can narrate the cut as minor or a scratch or whatever but the character isn't "using" HP to avoid the damage.
But you just said that gaining levels must mean they don't gain meat and it must be skill. Hits in D&D don't bleed, they don't cause discomfort or a drop in ability (except the ability to avoid the next wound) so they can't be cuts can they? Surely its more logical to say the blow was turned from damage into something else by HP.
QuoteI don't think it breaks any explicit relationship, I just think it paints the narrative of combat into a small box. If someone is using DoaM then they're likely to narrate a miss as either the weapon banging off a shield, banging off someone's armor piece or the "miss" only missed in dealing a considerable amount of damage in likely just grazed the target.
Obviously some people want more freedom with their narration OR find ways in which this ability can completely ruin their campaign (such examples is where I encountered the vitriol and angst).
What DoaM does, like Inspiration Healing, is put an narrow focus on HOW the person narrates the situation. With DoaM the attacker doesn't "whiff" or with Inspiration Healing, the attacks are mostly superfluous and can be restored with an encouraging shout.
Some people are cool with this, some aren't.
But there is an explict relationship in D&D in a hit = HP loss. You loose HPs in a variety of explicit ways. You fall = HP loss, you get hit in combat = HP loss, you get caught in a fireball = HP loss. The relationship is explicit and it's - "whenever the result of an incident would have caused a wound or other damage you loose HPs. If the loss of HPs exceeds your current HP total you are knocked unconscious".
QuoteThat sounds like a LOT of work to make this mechanic happen. Instead, I just use Vitality and Wounds from the SRD. Vitality is a pretty loose term that can be applied to a LOT of scenarios without having the imagery infringed upon. DoaM removes your "vitality" because of X. I don't think too hard on the terms "hit" or "miss" because the loss of "vitality" is vague and can be applied generally. Wounds, however, does create an imagery and it should be severe. A sword cut that drops vitality isn't terrible or even that bad. A sword gash from a critical attack has injured you greatly (thus, Wound). Personally, I think it's the best way to go OVERALL with D&D, but people are really tied to their sacred cows that such things are always an "alternative module".
I have used a similar system for the last 25 years or so because of these sorts of debates but also due to magical healing, trap damage and PCs of more than 4th level being toally unphased hen 2 guards point loaded heavy crossbows at them from 5 feet away.
However, I feel a complete system would include vitality cost for a wider range of actions and attacking in full armour would be one of those things. In each case though when taking an evasive action the PC needs to decide whether to spend vitality. You roll to hit a hit 5 damage. I can choose to take 5 wounds , maybe loosing an arm, or I can spend 5 vitality to turn the wound into a minor cut. If I want to use a power that costs say 6 vitality I might opt to take the 5 wounds and then expend my remaining 6 vitality on the charge to knock you over the cliff or lift the portcullis or whatever.
So even where I use such a system I never impose a HP loss on a miss. Doing so removes the possibility that you might actually just miss with your attack.
QuoteGranted, though what "is D&D" is highly subjective. I don't think Dwarven Women with beards is "D&D" and prefer them with elaborate and long Braids that they focus on however I accept that people hold to things like dwarven bearded women or Vancian Spellcasting.
Hmmmm... I don't think you can equate a reformating of the entire combat/HP/Damage system with the the folical appearance of one of a number of possible PC racial types. I can see that some beleive that Vancian Casting is of a similar level of importance however I would argue that in the grand scheme of things if a wizard can cast 3 spells due to Slots or 3 spells due to Manna points the actual difference to the game is somewhat limited.
Quote from: Omega;768620Im going to interpret it one way and maybee it works maybee it doesnt.
Someone else is going to go the diametric opposite and adamantly believe it cannot ever work. EVER.
Another will look at it and totally see how it makes perfect sense.
What else is new?
Some people raise a criticism or voice an opinion.
Other people decry the criticism or opinion as having no possible validity. AT ALL.
Another will refuse to engage the topic dismissing through caricature the nature of the argument itself.
What else is new? :rolleyes:
Quote from: CRKrueger;768646What else is new? :rolleyes:
Damage on a miss is new. Then old... Then whatever...
It has at least shown just how divergent some view HP and/or hits and misses.
It's occurred to me that damage on a miss can be reverse engineered to a degree that the attacker doesn't roll to hit at all and the defender rolls a kind of 'reverse' AC saving throw...
So, when you're in combat, you take damage per round, whatever. Let's say that it is 3 points of damage. This damage increases to full weapon + bonuses damage if you fail an AC saving throw.
Your saving throw is equal to your AC minus the attack bonus of the person hitting you.
So, your AC is 18 and you opponent's attack is +6. On a saving throw of 1-11, you take 3 damage, if you roll 12 plus, the attacker rolls full weapon damage.
Quote from: jibbajibba;768469Bit confused ..... That miss is a hit. A blow you can't dodge is bullshit but a miss should deal damage?
I agree that a more realistic combat model would have a fatigue cost for each round of combat and different options would carry different costs but that is a very complex model that can really only be run on say a computer game.
You do get fatigued in D&D for defending yourself that is exactly how HPs work. I hit you with my big fuck off sword and rather than loosing an arm you loose a proportion of your abstract HPs, which increase as you gain experience so can't be "meat" unless gaining experience also means getting bigger or what not.
I think you misundertood where I stand. I'm very much against DoaM, which is basically HP's lost even if you successfully defend. My statement about "defending yourself should cost hp's" was made to illustrate the point about the ridiculousness of it. DoaM basically says, "Good job defending yourself--have some damage." The argument always forwarded by others in support of DoaM is that the exertion of defense accounts for the damage (the second argument is, "well, wizards can do it! [sniff]."
My statement back there was basically speaking to the first point about exertion. If we're going to say defending one's self--successfully-- costs HP's, then let's just spend HP's every round just to fight. I'm not saying I want to do that. I'm saying that's what DoaM is basically all about. If we want to carry this even further then SWINGING mister big costs more exertion than stabbing with a dagger. Then we're getting into activation costs and all that other bullshit that, yep, does work best in the video game. Beyond all that a miss isn't a hit. It just isn't. Foul balls don't count.
(P.S. Not everyone think's HP's represent fatigue. I've heard "meat" and "plot armor" as two alternatives [and I think the second makes the most sense, if not running with wounds).
Quote from: Omega;768673Damage on a miss is new. Then old... Then whatever...
It has at least shown just how divergent some view HP and/or hits and misses.
I think when we can't agree that a miss is actually a miss, then we have problems even discussing the issue, because we can't frame it in the same way. DoaM assumes one ALWAYS hits, and sometimes hits harder. There is no "miss." In 13th age, pretty much everything "hits," so they avoid the argument (and make everyone feel good about themselves in the process, evidently).
(you're right about HP's--those discussions just go round and round and round [which is why the system could use a wounds module, IMHO]).
Quote from: Marleycat;768636Actual medieval armour never weighed more then 20-30 pounds if that. Much like actual heavy weaponry wasn't more then 3-5 pounds. Why else would anybody actually use it.
30 pounds is about right for a hauberk of average size. Of course that is ONLY the armor.
A typical dungeon explorer will have a backpack full of supplies and gear; torches, rope, spikes, etc. which can easily weigh another 30 pounds or more which makes a D&D fighter carrying around 60+ pounds not all that uncommon.
Weapon weights in D&D are generally too heavy. A typical normal sword is about 3 pounds, with a long or bastard sword perhaps 4-5 pounds.
D&D mace weights are utterly ridiculous. A standard flanged German mace is just under 3 pounds. Show me someone who isn't huge and green using a 10+ pound 1 handed weapon and I'll show you a dead man.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;76868430 pounds is about right for a hauberk of average size. Of course that is ONLY the armor.
A typical dungeon explorer will have a backpack full of supplies and gear; torches, rope, spikes, etc. which can easily weigh another 30 pounds or more which makes a D&D fighter carrying around 60+ pounds not all that uncommon.
Weapon weights in D&D are generally too heavy. A typical normal sword is about 3 pounds, with a long or bastard sword perhaps 4-5 pounds.
D&D mace weights are utterly ridiculous. A standard flanged German mace is just under 3 pounds. Show me someone who isn't huge and green using a 10+ pound 1 handed weapon and I'll show you a dead man.
60 pounds for adventuring gear isn't unreasonable in fact it may even be more. Modern soldiers pack more than that in full combat.
Quote from: Marleycat;768721Modern soldiers pack more than that in full combat.
I went hiking/camping with some squaddies, and the sheer amount of crap they were carrying was breathtaking. Their beer alone probably weighed more than my whole kit.
Quote from: jadrax;768730I went hiking/camping with some squaddies, and the sheer amount of crap they were carrying was breathtaking. Their beer alone probably weighed more than my whole kit.
Nice.:)
Quote from: Marleycat;768636Actual medieval armour never weighed more then 20-30 pounds if that. Much like actual heavy weaponry wasn't more then 3-5 pounds. Why else would anybody actually use it.
What I said was "for fighting while wearing
and carrying 60 lbs. of armor
and gear instead of 10 lbs. of gear."
You will notice I never said that the armor alone weighed 60 lbs. And Exploderwizard provided the examples of what "gear" might be involved.
Quote from: Marleycat;76872160 pounds for adventuring gear isn't unreasonable in fact it may even be more. Modern soldiers pack more than that in full combat.
80 to 100lb ruck sacks were the norm, depending on how long you were planning on being gone.
However, and this is one thing that is never done in D&D games but would be done in pretty much every single combat where melee would take place, is the rucks would be dropped. If you wanted to be a realistic DM, you would assign a pretty hefty penalty to fighting while wearing a full ruck.
I guess it's one of those things you never really address in the game for the sake of the game, like most bathroom breaks and getting normal illnesses.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;768741However, and this is one thing that is never done in D&D games but would be done in pretty much every single combat where melee would take place, is the rucks would be dropped. If you wanted to be a realistic DM, you would assign a pretty hefty penalty to fighting while wearing a full ruck.
Yeah, that's one of those things I swear I will emphasis before running every game, and then utterly fail to emphasis while actually running the game...
We did do that in Runequest, but I don't recall anyone ever doing it in D&D.
Quote from: jadrax;768742Yeah, that's one of those things I swear I will emphasis before running every game, and then utterly fail to emphasis while actually running the game...
We enforced it but it was forgotten from time to time. What did get ignored constantly was the weight and general unwieldiness of treasure. We rarely played at levels where teleportation was a thing or had access to multiple bags of holding or similar.
Actually, I did run a WFRP game where for ages they had a hand cart thing that everything got carried on, which caused much fun when it was stolen/got stuck/wouldn't fit down the obvious one-way dungeon...
Quote from: Sacrosanct;76874180 to 100lb ruck sacks were the norm, depending on how long you were planning on being gone.
However, and this is one thing that is never done in D&D games but would be done in pretty much every single combat where melee would take place, is the rucks would be dropped. If you wanted to be a realistic DM, you would assign a pretty hefty penalty to fighting while wearing a full ruck.
I guess it's one of those things you never really address in the game for the sake of the game, like most bathroom breaks and getting normal illnesses.
Well, if you actually track encumbrance and reduce move for it then it does have an effect.
In GURPS is has a major effect because your move rate affects your reaction time and initiative.
Quote from: cranebump;768683I think when we can't agree that a miss is actually a miss, then we have problems even discussing the issue, because we can't frame it in the same way. DoaM assumes one ALWAYS hits, and sometimes hits harder. There is no "miss." In 13th age, pretty much everything "hits," so they avoid the argument (and make everyone feel good about themselves in the process, evidently).
(you're right about HP's--those discussions just go round and round and round [which is why the system could use a wounds module, IMHO]).
Thats the problem.
If you view HP one way then hits and misses may have to follow through. In fact technically then every "hit" is a miss until the last one that drops you if you follow that angle.
If you view it differently then the rest may follow and you get a potentially radically different idea of what combat is.
As for wounds. Those were added way back in OD&D Blackmoor, and hit locations to back it up. While neet and servicible. It just doesnt fit the totally abstracted D&D system and adds Battletech style bookkeeping and limb loss + bleeding out. If I wanted Rolemaster I'd play that instead. aheh.
Quote from: Omega;768778Thats the problem.
If you view HP one way then hits and misses may have to follow through. In fact technically then every "hit" is a miss until the last one that drops you if you follow that angle.
If you view it differently then the rest may follow and you get a potentially radically different idea of what combat is.
As for wounds. Those were added way back in OD&D Blackmoor, and hit locations to back it up. While neet and servicible. It just doesnt fit the totally abstracted D&D system and adds Battletech style bookkeeping and limb loss + bleeding out. If I wanted Rolemaster I'd play that instead. aheh.
Nooooo! Not "chartmaster!":-)
I'm using a very simple wounds tracker for an upcoming b/x knockoff (microlite81 system). PC have body equal to Strength. You get critter, you take HP damage plus 1 body point. Unhealed BP's give you -1 per. Heal at 1 BP a day. Spells heal 1 BP per 5 pts on the dice. I coupled this with faster hp recovery 10% of your max/hour. No death unless BP's per each 0. Also ported level drain over to BP's, though uncertain how many BP's each level drain attack should be (I figured 1 level=1 BP.
Quote from: jibbajibba;768637Again I am not saying the target moved I am saying can you imagine just missing. It seems like you can't.
I have played around with weapons for years and it is possible to miss a tree stump that isn't moving at all.
You've played around, which does not equate to the level of training Fighters go through to receive the sort of "proficiency" to not miss a non-moving stump. But sure, we'll say that the 5% of the time he does miss a non-moving stump is akin to rolling a natural 1.
Quote from: jibbajibba;768637Um ... from my explanation its obvious they develop a larger range of skills that allow them to mitigate damage. And again they don't loose HPs when they take damage, they "spend" HP to avoid taking damage because HPs represent their skill in combat and in not taking damage.
Then how do you explain when someone is poisoned from a hit? You spend HP to not succumb to venom?
Quote from: jibbajibba;768637But you just said that gaining levels must mean they don't gain meat and it must be skill. Hits in D&D don't bleed, they don't cause discomfort or a drop in ability (except the ability to avoid the next wound) so they can't be cuts can they? Surely its more logical to say the blow was turned from damage into something else by HP.
What I asked is how one narrates gaining HP from leveling up. I honestly don't narrate or question the HP increase because it's purely gamist at it's core (and I'm OK with that) just as I don't delve
too deeply into things like how ones loses or replenishes HP from gamist methods (DoaM or Inspiration, non-magical healing). They don't need to make a ton of realistic sense for me to enjoy the game.
When someone gains a level I accept that it's part skill, part meat, part luck, part *plot armor* whatever. Thus when someone is "hit" (ie. the AC was equaled or exceeded by the to-hit roll) then someone takes damage. Explain it however you like, by using HP to deflect the hit or that the sword just cut you and you lost health. I also see why "cuts" must equate to some level of inability to do stuff? Have you ever cut your hand but still had the ability to function with it? Have you ever jarred you knee or toe but was able to walk comfortably in the next 10 minutes?
Quote from: jibbajibba;768637But there is an explicit relationship in D&D in a hit = HP loss. You loose HPs in a variety of explicit ways. You fall = HP loss, you get hit in combat = HP loss, you get caught in a fireball = HP loss. The relationship is explicit and it's - "whenever the result of an incident would have caused a wound or other damage you loose HPs. If the loss of HPs exceeds your current HP total you are knocked unconscious".
Sure, but people can also Save and lose HP too. The relationship in D&D is a Hit = HP loss (that hasn't changed) but things can be added to that which alter the relationship on specific cases.
Quote from: jibbajibba;768637I have used a similar system for the last 25 years or so because of these sorts of debates but also due to magical healing, trap damage and PCs of more than 4th level being toally unphased hen 2 guards point loaded heavy crossbows at them from 5 feet away.
However, I feel a complete system would include vitality cost for a wider range of actions and attacking in full armour would be one of those things. In each case though when taking an evasive action the PC needs to decide whether to spend vitality. You roll to hit a hit 5 damage. I can choose to take 5 wounds , maybe loosing an arm, or I can spend 5 vitality to turn the wound into a minor cut. If I want to use a power that costs say 6 vitality I might opt to take the 5 wounds and then expend my remaining 6 vitality on the charge to knock you over the cliff or lift the portcullis or whatever.
Vitality =/= Endurance. Having actually fought in plate and mail the weight is considerable (though not as bad as Chainmail) but fighting in it for a couple of hours isn't terribly bad. Further, I feel that such as system would be painstakingly cumbersome to keep track of.
Quote from: jibbajibba;768637So even where I use such a system I never impose a HP loss on a miss. Doing so removes the possibility that you might actually just miss with your attack.
And that's bad why?
Quote from: jibbajibba;768637Hmmmm... I don't think you can equate a reformating of the entire combat/HP/Damage system with the the folical appearance of one of a number of possible PC racial types. I can see that some beleive that Vancian Casting is of a similar level of importance however I would argue that in the grand scheme of things if a wizard can cast 3 spells due to Slots or 3 spells due to Manna points the actual difference to the game is somewhat limited.
What is "D&D" to people is subjective, yes? Such a Wound/Vitality system could be in place but you said "it wouldn't be D&D". I said that it's subjective because if D&D did use such a system, then it would still be D&D because that's what's on the cover of the book. Systems don't always have to resemble previous iterations for it to be considered the same game.
Further, a departure from HP to a Wounds & Vitality system was supported by D&D in Unearthed Arcana (and IMO works far better for a mess like this) so were they to implement that system inplace of HP, I think it would still be D&D.
What are hit points in D&D?
A historical perspective
Chainmail
Man to Man combat was added to handle smaller scale combat like siege assaults. In this system you cross indexed your weapon vs the target's armor. If you rolled the number or higher you killed the target.
In addition Fantasy Combat was added. Heroes and Superheroes were introduced. Heroes took four hits to kill and Superheroes took 8 hits to kill.
Blackmoor & Greyhawk
When Dave Arneson adapted Chainmail for his Blackmoor campaign he quickly found that 1 hit = 1 kill to be too deadly and too boring. So it was changed to 1d6 per hit and 1d6 damage per blow.
Heroes were given 4d6 hit points and Superheroes 8d6 hit points. Additional levels were introduced inbetween.
Gygax took Arneson's notes and wrote it up into the form we now know as D&D.
Greyhawk Supplement
This altered the various d6 + modifier rolls of D&D's Men & Magic to a d8 for fighters, d6 for clerics, and a d4 for Magic Users and Thieves.
These three represented the broad phases of the development of hit points. What are hit points? Hit points represent how hard to kill a individual character or creature. Things that are four times as harder to kill get four times the amount of hit points or eight times.
It all goes back to Chainmail abstraction of handling Heroes and Superheroes in medieval combat. Gygax made them harder to kill by require more hits. That design decision has echoed down throughout the various edition to the present.
Everything else is a consequence of that.
Quote from: estar;768831When Dave Arneson adapted Chainmail for his Blackmoor campaign he quickly found that 1 hit = 1 kill to be too deadly and too boring. So it was changed to 1d6 per hit and 1d6 damage per blow.
As I understand it, it was originally 'your weapon hits 1d6 times' rather than 'your weapon does 1d6 damage' which is subtly different.
Arguably, if they had stuck to that rational, D&D would make a lot more sense.
- Practically speaking, it's easier to narrate hits as hits, or very-near-misses, when you're running a fight, and the very-near-miss part is annoying enough by itself. When you then have damage-on-a-miss mechanics, your narration can wind up being entirely divorced from the die rolls, which is worse, or you just dispense with the narration altogether, which is a style thing and IMO worse/less engaging
- now, if you have wounds/vitality, and I don't have a ton of experience with those systems, but it strikes me that you can have a lot of things affect vitality, including morale, which would have the salutary effect of making characters want to run away when they're scared
Quote from: Imp;768844- Practically speaking, it's easier to narrate hits as hits, or very-near-misses, when you're running a fight, and the very-near-miss part is annoying enough by itself. When you then have damage-on-a-miss mechanics, your narration can wind up being entirely divorced from the die rolls, which is worse, or you just dispense with the narration altogether, which is a style thing and IMO worse/less engaging
I feel your correct, it does put the person narrating the scene with DoaM into a relative box. You don't want to narrate that the attack completely missed and the damage done be.....well "magical?". Thus I feel most narrations are glancing blows. Of course, you can narrate it as fatigue, that dodging and avoiding the big weapon is taking a visible toll on the target. It mostly comes down to what people like or don't like doing. Personally, I don't have a problem with it but I see that a portion of the fan-base does, hence it's exclusion from the Basic PDF. I'm not sure if it made it into the PHB or not?
Quote from: Imp;768844- now, if you have wounds/vitality, and I don't have a ton of experience with those systems, but it strikes me that you can have a lot of things affect vitality, including morale, which would have the salutary effect of making characters want to run away when they're scared
It's what I'd love to employ when running revised 3rd Edition and hopefully D&D:Next. The V&W system, I feel, also makes Critical hits EXTREMELY scary regardless of level. So fighting goblins at 10th level is sort of "meh" until one Crits on you and your like "OH DAYUM..."
Of course, most "missed" blows being glancing hits/etc. especially makes sense if you consider how much AC is a result of armor.
But, given how contentious it is, and how unimportant it is to the core design, I still think WotC was smart to leave it out.
Quote from: jadrax;768752Actually, I did run a WFRP game where for ages they had a hand cart thing that everything got carried on, which caused much fun when it was stolen/got stuck/wouldn't fit down the obvious one-way dungeon...
If I have the gold or can pool enough. I opt to buy a caravan and horse and make it a mobile base to sortie out from. And assuming it survives a few adventures, work on re-inforcing it. Phantom Steed was great for that as you didnt have to worry about the horse then, which we tended to lose every other adventure or at least have to defend/recover/un-rustle.
Quote from: estar;768831What are hit points in D&D?
A historical perspective
Chainmail
Man to Man combat was added to handle smaller scale combat like siege assaults. In this system you cross indexed your weapon vs the target's armor. If you rolled the number or higher you killed the target.
In addition Fantasy Combat was added. Heroes and Superheroes were introduced. Heroes took four hits to kill and Superheroes took 8 hits to kill.
Blackmoor & Greyhawk
When Dave Arneson adapted Chainmail for his Blackmoor campaign he quickly found that 1 hit = 1 kill to be too deadly and too boring. So it was changed to 1d6 per hit and 1d6 damage per blow.
Heroes were given 4d6 hit points and Superheroes 8d6 hit points. Additional levels were introduced inbetween.
Gygax took Arneson's notes and wrote it up into the form we now know as D&D.
Greyhawk Supplement
This altered the various d6 + modifier rolls of D&D's Men & Magic to a d8 for fighters, d6 for clerics, and a d4 for Magic Users and Thieves.
These three represented the broad phases of the development of hit points. What are hit points? Hit points represent how hard to kill a individual character or creature. Things that are four times as harder to kill get four times the amount of hit points or eight times.
It all goes back to Chainmail abstraction of handling Heroes and Superheroes in medieval combat. Gygax made them harder to kill by require more hits. That design decision has echoed down throughout the various edition to the present.
Everything else is a consequence of that.
A good retrospective.
Anyways, I prefer the tautological "Hit points are hit points". Or in other words, I know it when I see it. And damage on a miss is not "it".