Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7750968" data-attributes="member: 22779">On the question of &quot;did the Troll bite me&quot;?&nbsp; Let's unpack that a little shall we?&nbsp; And, let's keep this a 5e example.In 5e, a troll does 1d6+4 points of piercing damage.&nbsp; Now, I have an 8th level cleric in a 5e game with 50 (ish) HP.&nbsp; So, Mr. Troll crits my character who is unhurt beforehand, and deals maximum damage.&nbsp; 20 points.&nbsp; Now, in 5e, no damage that doesn't drop me below half shows on my character other than minor bumps and bruises and the like.&nbsp; Nothing you wouldn't get from a hard day of exercise.&nbsp; So, that troll bites me as hard as it possibly can and I show nothing more than a bruise and maybe not even that.So, how do you narrate it?&nbsp; You could narrate it as scraping off my armor.&nbsp; Or you could narrate it as snapping closed just inches from my nose, causing my life to flash before my eyes and leaving me somewhat shaken.&nbsp; Both narrations are perfectly fine as far as the mechanics go.&nbsp; It seems to me, that insisting that every hit MUST be some sort of physical hit is far more limiting to people's narrations.&nbsp; You flat out cannot narrate that attack as dealing any real impact, by the rules.&nbsp; So, why the insistince that every &quot;hit&quot; must be some sort of impact?&nbsp; It's not like HP actually mean anything.&nbsp; They mean whatever you want them to mean whenever you want them to mean that.&nbsp; For really creative people, I find gamers very stuck in some serious ruts when it comes to creativity.And, really, this goes right back to my original point about this just being edition warring in funny glasses.&nbsp; EVERY edition of D&amp;D, regardless of E was the same.&nbsp; HP were never given any real meaning. The only difference is 4e made that up front and apparent and suddenly forced people to realize that the way they were playing wasn't actually supported by the mechanics.&nbsp; 5e does exactly the same thing as 4e, but, suddenly all these discussions about &quot;disassociation&quot; go by the wayside because people LIKE 5e.&nbsp; If abstractions were actually the problem, then it would be a problem in every edition, but, the arguments are entirely self serving.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7750968, member: 22779"] On the question of "did the Troll bite me"? Let's unpack that a little shall we? And, let's keep this a 5e example. In 5e, a troll does 1d6+4 points of piercing damage. Now, I have an 8th level cleric in a 5e game with 50 (ish) HP. So, Mr. Troll crits my character who is unhurt beforehand, and deals maximum damage. 20 points. Now, in 5e, no damage that doesn't drop me below half shows on my character other than minor bumps and bruises and the like. Nothing you wouldn't get from a hard day of exercise. So, that troll bites me as hard as it possibly can and I show nothing more than a bruise and maybe not even that. So, how do you narrate it? You could narrate it as scraping off my armor. Or you could narrate it as snapping closed just inches from my nose, causing my life to flash before my eyes and leaving me somewhat shaken. Both narrations are perfectly fine as far as the mechanics go. It seems to me, that insisting that every hit MUST be some sort of physical hit is far more limiting to people's narrations. You flat out cannot narrate that attack as dealing any real impact, by the rules. So, why the insistince that every "hit" must be some sort of impact? It's not like HP actually mean anything. They mean whatever you want them to mean whenever you want them to mean that. For really creative people, I find gamers very stuck in some serious ruts when it comes to creativity. And, really, this goes right back to my original point about this just being edition warring in funny glasses. EVERY edition of D&D, regardless of E was the same. HP were never given any real meaning. The only difference is 4e made that up front and apparent and suddenly forced people to realize that the way they were playing wasn't actually supported by the mechanics. 5e does exactly the same thing as 4e, but, suddenly all these discussions about "disassociation" go by the wayside because people LIKE 5e. If abstractions were actually the problem, then it would be a problem in every edition, but, the arguments are entirely self serving. [/QUOTE]

Verification