Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pbartender" data-source="post: 4233463" data-attributes="member: 7533">I didn't say that...&nbsp;&nbsp; I said most DMs don't describe hit point damage in an especially abstract manner, the way the rulebooks usually suggest.To clarify...&nbsp; In my purely anecdotal experience with a multitude of DMs over the last twenty years or so, I've found most DMs simply don't describe damage most of the time.&nbsp; They usually say something like &quot;The goblin attacks you and hits for 7 point of damage,&quot; and that's it.When DMs do describe damage, I've found that they almost always describe it as some physical weapon damage of varying intensity, from a slight scratches for 20 hit point attacks on 15th level fighters, to gaping abdominal wounds for 5 hitpoints attacks on 1st level wizards.In all that time, with all those scores of DMs, I personally can't remember a single instance of a DM describing hit point damage as something non-physical...&nbsp; near misses, luck, exhaustion, etc.I myself have tried a few times to describe hit point damage in such a fashion, and I've gotten funny looks from the players almost every single time...ME: &quot;You manage to interpose your sheild just in time, but the strength of the blow makes you strain with exertion for several tense seconds, before you push the weapon aside...&nbsp; You take 10 points of damage.&quot;PLAYER: &quot;What?&nbsp; I thought you said he missed?&quot;ME: &quot;No...&nbsp; Not exactly.&nbsp; I was just describing how you managed to turn what should have been a mortal wound into a near miss.&quot;PLAYER: &quot;But my shield is part of my AC...&nbsp; Why am I taking damage, if he hit the shield?&quot;ME: &quot;Oh, for crying out loud. It's called narrative exposition of an abstract game mechanic.&nbsp; Just shut up, and take the damage already.&quot; &nbsp;<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Neither do I...&nbsp; just because I understand the opposing point of view, doesn't mean I share it.I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between de jure hit point description and de facto hit point description.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pbartender, post: 4233463, member: 7533"] I didn't say that... I said most DMs don't describe hit point damage in an especially abstract manner, the way the rulebooks usually suggest. To clarify... In my purely anecdotal experience with a multitude of DMs over the last twenty years or so, I've found most DMs simply don't describe damage most of the time. They usually say something like "The goblin attacks you and hits for 7 point of damage," and that's it. When DMs do describe damage, I've found that they almost always describe it as some physical weapon damage of varying intensity, from a slight scratches for 20 hit point attacks on 15th level fighters, to gaping abdominal wounds for 5 hitpoints attacks on 1st level wizards. In all that time, with all those scores of DMs, I personally can't remember a single instance of a DM describing hit point damage as something non-physical... near misses, luck, exhaustion, etc. I myself have tried a few times to describe hit point damage in such a fashion, and I've gotten funny looks from the players almost every single time... [B]ME:[/B] "You manage to interpose your sheild just in time, but the strength of the blow makes you strain with exertion for several tense seconds, before you push the weapon aside... You take 10 points of damage." [B]PLAYER:[/B] "What? I thought you said he missed?" [B]ME:[/B] "No... Not exactly. I was just describing how you managed to turn what should have been a mortal wound into a near miss." [B]PLAYER:[/B] "But my shield is part of my AC... Why am I taking damage, if he hit the shield?" [B]ME:[/B] "Oh, for crying out loud. It's called narrative exposition of an abstract game mechanic. Just shut up, and take the damage already." ;) Neither do I... just because I understand the opposing point of view, doesn't mean I share it. I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between [I]de jure[/I] hit point description and [I]de facto[/I] hit point description. [/QUOTE]

Verification