Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 7840515" data-attributes="member: 6987520">Please stop posting as if you speak for &quot;we all&quot;. I am certain you simply mean it as an expression for emphasis, but you certainly don't speak for me--I do.Thank you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Weapons (of whatever nature) were given damage types because they can represent physical damage. My point was they don't have to. This is why I find it better to think of things such as damage and hit points as the effect they have regarding combat effectiveness.The rock in my example (not an axe, by the way... ;-) ) does its damage in this case by threatening physical harm which the character avoided by skill and luck (i.e. expending the hit points required by the rock attack). You seem to be stuck on the idea that a &quot;hit&quot; for an attack actually has to make contact with the target, and that simply isn't the case for D&amp;D. You can narrate hit points in D&amp;D as a bank of energy and such that is expended until depleted, at which point you are hit and dropped by the damage that remains or is done next.You can, of course, say all damage is physical as well if you choose, but I don't think many people will agree in the 5E framework. It would require a character with over 100 hp to be able to take a ridiculous amount of physical injury (equal to dozens of sword hits) before even going unconscious. If that is the style you want to play, cool. But while it is a valid point of view, it wasn't IMO want the designers intended or how most tables run.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 7840515, member: 6987520"] Please stop posting as if you speak for "we all". I am certain you simply mean it as an expression for emphasis, but you certainly don't speak for me--I do. Thank you. :) Weapons (of whatever nature) were given damage types because they [I]can[/I] represent physical damage. My point was they don't [I]have[/I] to. This is why I find it better to think of things such as damage and hit points as the effect they have regarding combat effectiveness. The rock in my example (not an axe, by the way... ;-) ) does its damage in this case by threatening physical harm which the character avoided by skill and luck (i.e. expending the hit points required by the rock attack). You seem to be stuck on the idea that a "hit" for an attack actually has to make contact with the target, and that simply isn't the case for D&D. You can narrate hit points in D&D as a bank of energy and such that is expended until depleted, at which point you [I]are[/I] hit and dropped by the damage that remains or is done next. You [I]can[/I], of course, say all damage is physical as well if you choose, but I don't think many people will agree in the 5E framework. It would require a character with over 100 hp to be able to take a ridiculous amount of physical injury (equal to dozens of sword hits) before even going unconscious. If that is the style you want to play, cool. But while it is a valid point of view, it wasn't IMO want the designers intended or how most tables run. [/QUOTE]

Verification