Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6261093" data-attributes="member: 42582">For the reasons that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has given, this doesn't really work for me.If parrying in D&amp;D is reduced to the mechanics you describe (and I'm not even sure they're in Next, unless you count Dodge), then it doesn't happen at anything like the frequency it does in either real hand-to-hand combat (to the best of my second-hand knowledge) or Errol Flynn-style duelling (which, given my greater familiarity with cinema than real life fighting, is what I'm envisaging while I'm playing).On the other side: if every &quot;hit&quot; - ie every attack roll that beats AC - counts as &quot;penetrating the target's defences&quot; in the way that that happens in real life (as I understand it) or cinema (as I view it), then in D&amp;D defences are penetrated way to often. It would make combat more like a piñata smackdown then a duel between competent fighters. To satisfy my mental image of combat, some of those AC-beating &quot;hits&quot; have to be understood as parries or dodges that nevertheless wear down the target (via exhaustion, wrongfooting, changing the tempo, inflicting pain without otherwise causing physical impairment, etc).&nbsp;[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s post number 94 hits the nail on the head, as I see it: the process-sim interpretation of D&amp;D mechanics is fine for those who want it, but it doesn't work for me because it produces a verisimilitude-destroying picture of melee combat. At the moment, if I put healing to one side, the core D&amp;Dnext mechanics seem to be neutral as to how one interprets them. (And the designers suggest as the default interpretation of hit point loss that leaves a target above half hp that it is not injury - see the sidebar on p 22 of &quot;How to Play&quot; - and hence presumably did not, in any meaningful way, involve &quot;penetrating the target's defences&quot;.)Preserving this neutrality is quite important to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6261093, member: 42582"] For the reasons that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has given, this doesn't really work for me. If parrying in D&D is reduced to the mechanics you describe (and I'm not even sure they're in Next, unless you count Dodge), then it doesn't happen at anything like the frequency it does in either real hand-to-hand combat (to the best of my second-hand knowledge) or Errol Flynn-style duelling (which, given my greater familiarity with cinema than real life fighting, is what I'm envisaging while I'm playing). On the other side: if every "hit" - ie every attack roll that beats AC - counts as "penetrating the target's defences" in the way that that happens in real life (as I understand it) or cinema (as I view it), then in D&D defences are penetrated way to often. It would make combat more like a piñata smackdown then a duel between competent fighters. To satisfy my mental image of combat, some of those AC-beating "hits" have to be understood as parries or dodges that nevertheless wear down the target (via exhaustion, wrongfooting, changing the tempo, inflicting pain without otherwise causing physical impairment, etc). [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s post number 94 hits the nail on the head, as I see it: the process-sim interpretation of D&D mechanics is fine for those who want it, but it doesn't work for me because it produces a verisimilitude-destroying picture of melee combat. At the moment, if I put healing to one side, the core D&Dnext mechanics seem to be neutral as to how one interprets them. (And the designers suggest as the default interpretation of hit point loss that leaves a target above half hp that it is [I]not[/I] injury - see the sidebar on p 22 of "How to Play" - and hence presumably did not, in any meaningful way, involve "penetrating the target's defences".) Preserving this neutrality is quite important to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification