D&D 4E 4e/13thA immersion question and 5e/13thA DoaM question

[Obryn]

I don't think that's at all what it means. I don't see why people feel the need to take simple English words like hit or miss and try to deprive them of their meaning.

Because it's nonsensical in that context, unless plate armor exudes a magnetic force field to turn away weapons.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

I always get confused when people try to use the dictionary definition of words when it comes to D&D, when a lot of things in D&D have long since abandoned their traditional definition(Paladins, Druids, barbarians, etc)

 

[Ahnehnois]

I always get confused when people try to use the dictionary definition of words when it comes to D&D, when a lot of things in D&D have long since abandoned their traditional definition(Paladins, Druids, barbarians, etc)

To most people, the words "druid" and "paladin" don't mean anything at all. They're certainly not as important as the word "miss".

Nonetheless, if a D&D version emerged that defined them as something completely opposite to their original meanings (as is the case with DoaM, which defines a miss as a hit), as opposed to simply being bastardized variants of their original meaning, I think that would be a problem.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

as is the case with DoaM, which defines a miss as a hit

Nowhere in the playtest does it do this. If it says otherwise, point to where.

 

[heretic888]

I think the difference is really that the mechanics are more abstract than the character's experience.

For example, if the mechanics dictate a hit (and further provide damage and hit poit values), there are many different ways that could be narrated. The character experienced only one of those however. It's common enough that we who are playing the game call it a hit and move on, while the character is keenly aware of how many thrusts he made with his weapon, how many made contact, and a variety of other contextual details.

However, hitting and missing are mutually exclusive states in the mechanical realm, and I think that follows in the world as well. If you hit, you did something that caused harm (whatever that may be), and if you missed, you unambiguously failed to do so.

Correct, however, this brings us back to the point I made in a previous post: "hit" and "miss" aref or the benefit of the players, not their characters. In essence, hitting and missing are terms that refer to what the players are doing with the rules not what their characters are doing in the narrative.

A more narratively accurate description might see "hitting" and "missing" in context of degrees of success (this is especially true of 13th Age, with its fail forward philosophy and all weapon attacks dealing miss damage). Its not that your attack hit or miss, but that it was either effective/successful in weakening your opponent or it was less so.

In any case, miss damage is not an issue for me given the highly abstract nature of traditional mechanics. The same goes for 13A's recoveries and Next's hit dice mechanics.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Nowhere in the playtest does it do this. If it says otherwise, point to where.

It does damage, right? Which is what happens on a hit, right? That damage applies to "hit" points, right?

In any case, miss damage is not an issue for me given the highly abstract nature of traditional mechanics.

In a sense I would agree with that. The 13th Age method works, to an extent, because there is essentially no such thing as a complete failure in the system at large. Thus, the attack roll and the hit and miss outcomes don't mean the same thing as they do in D&D.

However, GWF is not all that abstract. It's a class ability that some characters choose. It's a specific fighting technique, one that you apparently have to be using a very large weapon to learn. Everyone who does not know this one trick does not do damage on a miss, even if they are otherwise the most skilled (/relentless/implacable/unstoppable/etc.) swordsman on the planet. That's one reason why it doesn't work.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

It does damage, right? Which is what happens on a hit, right? That damage applies to "hit" points, right?

Yes it does damage, on a miss. It doesn't turn the miss into a hit, because that's not what the game says it does.

Also, if you're going to go into the "hit" point argument, be aware you're also claiming that nearly half the spell list can't do damage since they can't "hit".

 

[Emerikol]

That can't be right. Every mechanic is disconnected from the character, in so far as it is a process that the player in the real world activates and engages with.

I think what you mean is that the mechanic does not model or otherwise correspond to some decision the character is taking or process that the character is initiating in the gameworld.

You are right. The decision to use the mechanic is not one the character could make but rather only the player.

Which is to say, the mechanic is a metagame mechanic.

Yes.

In D&D, which has always had abstracted combat mechanics and has, over time, only reduced the extent to which action in combat is continuous, that includes a good chunk of the combat mechanics. I posted this recently on another of these threads:

I think the contrast with a "continuous initiative", roll to attack then roll to dodge/parry system (say RQ, or BW) is pretty marked. For instance, an attack roll in D&D seems to cover, as a relevant part of the fiction, how well the enemy parried. But that is certainly not a part of the gameworld under the control of the PC whose player is rolling the d20!

I've been analyzing the misunderstanding over hit points not being a dissociative mechanic and I will likely make a blog post soon that I hope is the definitive definition on the subject. Then we can move on to whether we like or dislike the idea. I am taking the blame for not perhaps being precise enough in the definition. It's just so clear to those of use who get the issue (e.g. it bugs us). And yes I have "discovered" mechanics that bugged me in the past but I didn't know why. After I came up with this theory (I did so independent of the Alexandrian though we mostly agree), I began to see that a lot of things that just didn't feel right originally had a common pattern. Not everything mind you but many things.

 

[heretic888]

In a sense I would agree with that. The 13th Age method works, to an extent, because there is essentially no such thing as a complete failure in the system at large. Thus, the attack roll and the hit and miss outcomes don't mean the same thing as they do in DnD.

I disagree with that last assertion. Attack rolls, hits, and misses mean basically the same thing in 13A that they do in DnD. The key difference is 13A is generally more internally consistent with its narrative treatment of these abstract mechanics. When a "hit" sometimes involves no contact and a "miss" sometimes involves contact (albeit ineffectual) --- which is true of both DnD and 13A --- then therei s no reason that most "attacks" don't involve at least some minute measure of success in wearing diwn ir overpowering an enemy.

... I do agree that restricting such a mechanic to only heavy weapon characters that take a particular feat is awkward and inconsistent. It was obviously done to "silo" the mechanic so groups that dislike miss damage from weapon users wouldn't have to confront it unless they want to.

(Just as a minor point of correction, though, in 13A no miss damage is dealt at all on natural 1's.)

 

[Obryn]

To most people, the words "druid" and "paladin" don't mean anything at all. They're certainly not as important as the word "miss".

Nonetheless, if a D&D version emerged that defined them as something completely opposite to their original meanings (as is the case with DoaM, which defines a miss as a hit), as opposed to simply being bastardized variants of their original meaning, I think that would be a problem.

If someone's wearing plate mail and my weapon contacts it, I'd say I hit them, no? I may not have had much of an effect*, but you're complaining about the definition of "hit" not "hurt." What's more, I'm not going to get all pedantic and say, "I hit their plate mail, but did not hit them." Or - even more telling - "I hit the dragon's scales, but I did not hit the dragon." That'd be ridiculous.

I mean, I have grown to expect some pedantry on RPG boards, especially where this dumb topic is concerned, but harping on dictionary definitions here is asinine.



* unless I'm, say, swinging around a huge two-handed maul, just to, you know, pull a random example out of thin air.