Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5933381" data-attributes="member: 11300">The simple answer is encompassing variability mixed in with simplification. It is possible that an exceptionally well placed attack just does not deal as much damage as it could have due to... fate, destiny, luck, happenstance or something. Alternatively, you could get a bonus to damage equal to how much you exceed the defender's AC by. At our table with a bunch of maths heads, that is not going to be a problem but I can imagine some groups hating that much arithmetic. On average though the mechanics uphold that a limply cast dagger will do less damage than a skilfully and forcefully swung greataxe and that upon occasion, this might not necessarily be so.Perhaps or perhaps not. As long as this sort of stuff gets examined each iteration as to whether there's a better way of doing it, I'm happy.I can appreciate what you are saying here and such would be why I would prefer hit points separated from actual wounds. Hit points take care of the bigger abstraction of luck, glancing blows, morale, divine providence, and skill at finding a way to avoid the brunt of an attack. Wounds take care of the physical damage and whether a character is incapacitated. That way, whether you are dealing hit point damage or wound damage, you have a reliable and easy way of narrating results pre-damage roll. The damage roll then becomes the fickleness of lady fate and whether a character heroically stands or surprisingly falls.In such a system, a reaper does hit point or wound damage on their main attack (dependent upon skill, advantage, disadvantage), but they are always going to force a small loss of hit points, representing the bumps and bruises, wearing down and even fear of the defender, but never their wounds. That's my preference anyway.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification