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

[Ahnehnois]

If someone's wearing plate mail and my weapon contacts it, I'd say I hit them, no?

I'd say that if your weapon richocheted off and was obviously ineffectual that would be an overly generous assessment. Combat is not a game of tag.

And look at it the other way. If you smashed the guy with your weapon, bruising him through his armor and knocking him to his knees, would you call that a miss? DoaM does.

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.

I haven't cited any dictionaries, merely stated that when you miss someone, you definitely did not hit them.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

I haven't cited any dictionaries, merely stated that when you miss someone, you definitely did not hit them.

So Plate Armor makes you more mobile and dodgier?

Or you mean "hit" as in "rolled at or above target AC", in which case Damage on a Miss doesn't change this at all.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So Plate Armor makes you more mobile and dodgier?

Or you mean "hit" as in "rolled at or above target AC", in which case Damage on a Miss doesn't change this at all.

I mean "hit" as in "landed a blow that harmed the target". Plate armor can be very helpful at preventing that. If you're trying to hit a person, and you hit their armor or shield instead and cause no real harm in the process, you have not hit the person.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

I mean "hit" as in "landed a blow that harmed the target". Plate armor can be very helpful at preventing that. If you're trying to hit a person, and you hit their armor or shield instead and cause no real harm in the process, you have not hit the person.

So again, Damage on a Miss makes fine narrative sense in that case.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So again, Damage on a Miss makes fine narrative sense in that case.

If your blow ricochets harmlessly off the target's armor...and then you instantly punch the target in the face to express your rage at having missed (I assume this is why DoaM does not include the weapon's damage value)...every single time you miss, then yes that makes fine narrative sense. Assuming you ignore the part about making sense. It's definitely a narrative.

 

[herrozerro]

If your blow ricochets harmlessly off the target's armor...and then you instantly punch the target in the face to express your rage at having missed (I assume this is why DoaM does not include the weapon's damage value)...every single time you miss, then yes that makes fine narrative sense. Assuming you ignore the part about making sense. It's definitely a narrative.

Well as you say, it's not the weapon's damage but your own brute strength that is doing the damage.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

If your blow ricochets harmlessly off the target's armor...and then you instantly punch the target in the face to express your rage at having missed (I assume this is why DoaM does not include the weapon's damage value)...every single time you miss, then yes that makes fine narrative sense. Assuming you ignore the part about making sense. It's definitely a narrative.

Or they dodge your blow but still get taxed by the effort

Or you didn't hit them as hard as you'd like but dented their armor/winded them slightly

Or you missed, but nicked their face slightly.

Or any other number of reasons.

Your inability to work DoaM into the narrative doesn't mean the mechanic doesn't make narrative sense.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well as you say, it's not the weapon's damage but your own brute strength that is doing the damage.

The part that doesn't make sense is the part where you can do it perfectly every time you miss and the punch itself never misses, but you can't do it when you hit with your weapon, but you can only do it when you are a two-handed weapon fighter who has this particular ability.

 

[Obryn]

I mean "hit" as in "landed a blow that harmed the target". Plate armor can be very helpful at preventing that. If you're trying to hit a person, and you hit their armor or shield instead and cause no real harm in the process, you have not hit the person.

Wait wait. A few posts back, you were complaining about people trying to change the common English meaning of "hit" and now you're inventing your own meaning?

In what sense is this the common English meaning?

 

[Obryn]

The part that doesn't make sense is the part where you can do it perfectly every time you miss and the punch itself never misses, but you can't do it when you hit with your weapon, but you can only do it when you are a two-handed weapon fighter who has this particular ability.

Okay, so give it to everyone with two handed weapons and make it do no damage on a 1.

Problem solved!