NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 9216788" data-attributes="member: 5142">Yes, and? So what? How does this represent an actual problem? The game does not tell me that the Warlord's yelling cures my burns or unsinges my skin. It remains absolutely silent on that point. The game tells me that the Warlord's words fill me with greater resolve, potentially allowing me to tap into my energy reserves, so I keep fighting with a renewed sense of vigor. However, in contrast, the Cleric calls upon their deity so they can channel their holy magic to bind my wounds or fill me with divine courage, though this also may also deplete part of my energy reserves. Different proceses in the fiction. Same end result in the mechanics. My point of introducing the complexity of what Wisdom represents was not so you can try to go for another round of tit-for-tat in fallacy accusations. Instead, it was simply to point out that game mechanics can and do represent more than one thing without somehow being a "double-standard," "special pleading," or whatever other fallacy buzzword you want to throw around at me to score points. Yes, a GM or player may have to parse what HP loss represents, much like a GM or player may have to parse what a variety of other mechanics or game processes (e.g., attributes, a missed attack, a saving throw, etc.) may represent in the fiction. Parsing how the mechanics play out in the fiction is called "playing the game." I don't see how HP is somehow peculiar in this regard or why it's an issue. The fact that HP can be a variety of elements that contributes to a character's survival is IMHO meant to be liberating for the GM and player to interpret/parse the fiction in a variety of ways for the purposes of greater rather than less simulation. Though I will add that depending on who you talk to here, it's not the player's job to parse that information; instead, that responsibility rests entirely with the referee/judge/GM to parse that information. Damage on a miss is based around the idea that you have not made a full hit with a full effect, but that your attack still had some effect on the target. Pemerton provides further elaboration on the point of what damage-on-a-miss represents in the context of 4e. You seem pretty easily hung-up on labels without actually doing the work to read the rules in their context. Here is the entry on Miss in the 4e PHB 1, which tells us what a miss represents: Call it whatever you want if it helps you sleep at night. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Regardless of your hang-ups with the name "miss," the game is explicitly clear and internally consistent with what a miss can represent. Those are wise words that you would do well to remember. <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />It's unsurprising that people find arguments they already are already disposed towards agreeing with to be persuasive. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification