Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bert1000" data-source="post: 6216388" data-attributes="member: 29013">This is closely related to questions like:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Why do mental attacks, illusions, taunts, etc. all do HP damage?   Seems like everything just does HP damage now?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How can the warlord inspire wounds closed without magic?</li> </ul>4e was unfortunately saddled with the terminology of older additions.   HP really should have been called something like “heroic persistence” and healing surges should have been “heroic surges” or similar.  Even though HP were supposed to be abstract and not flesh points, even in the gygax days, 3e had gotten to the point where most HP damage was from sources that could do physical wounds, with other type of damage represented by ability damage, effects that occurred after a failed save, etc.  4e goes back to lumping anything that ‘wears down’ a hero into HP.   So, when you see an illusion attack doing HP damage that isn’t necessarily meant to mean that the defender is physically injured, but rather off balance, confused, distracted, demoralized, etc.    A strength of 4e IMO is that it is easier for both the DM and player to have narrative license to describe it however they will.‘Wears down’ isn’t really a physical or mental thing either, it’s really a narrative / pacing mechanic.   When you run out of HP, you’ve suffered enough stuff that you are in danger of the next bad thing taking you out of the scene. With HP abstracted, these damage on a miss powers become easier to understand as well.    Again “hit” and “miss” are probably not the best terms that could have been used.   Maybe “Fully effective” and “partially effective” attack?Powers with damage on a miss represent that even when the attack does not do exactly what the attacker wanted (‘hit’), the act itself (due to skill, luck, etc.) still causes some of the defenders’ “heroic persistence” to be lowered.   For a weapon power that could mean getting your opponent off balance, glancing blows, defender shaken by realizing they suffered a near miss, etc.   For a spell like power that could be being singed by fire, the illusion still freaking defender out momentarily, etc.    Or, it could be that the attack does nothing in game at all, but the “heroic persistence” of the defender is still lowered.  Narratively, the defender is still closer to being taken out.The specifics of the ‘miss’ can be narrated by the DM/player based on the power and circumstances.   I think this is a fun part of 4e, coming up with ways to wrap the narrative around the mechanical results (some people hate this).  I find that 99% of the time you can come up with an interesting in-game narrative with the 1% of the time you just move on.This question is also closely related to questions like:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Aren’t these martial encounter and daily powers artificial?  Why can’t a fighter use any of his mundane powers at will?</li> </ul>‘Powers’ are not meant to be an in-game construct.  In 4e, they are pure metagame abstractions (even the spells, although they can have a closer in game parallel) that help model and shape the narrative.  4e doesn’t do a good job of explaining this though.  To a certain extent you can rationalize in game the martial dailies as “it takes the perfect combination of skill, luck, defender actions, environment, etc.” to pull off this maneuver and that happens on average once a day.   The player can decide when that combination of circumstances occurs by using the daily.But even that doesn’t have to be true.   There is no “cleave” maneuver in an in-game fighting style for the character to learn.   Cleave is just the game mechanic that the player triggers to signify that the character is using their fighting prowess to do something cool.</blockquote>

Verification