I wonder if video games have given the modern generation a default bird's eye or 3rd person perspective, which is very meta. I learned D&D before video games, and I automatically entered into 1st person perspective. I don't remember hit points being an issue; it's possible that I was just young and impressionable and irregularities were filtered through a "that's just how the fantasy world works" lens. Then playing AD&D when I was older, I was more aware of the inconsistencies but by then D&D had already been impressed upon me. I think that, like anything in life, most of us do "recognize" the failings; we have simply learned to accept them. The resistance or de-programming, I suspect, has more to do with switching roleplaying stances required of outcome-based mechanics.
D&D 5E Q&A 10/17/13 - Crits, Damage on Miss, Wildshape
- Thread starter Sir Brennen
- Start date
Ratskinner
Adventurer
Here's the thing, though...any mechanics require explanation, because there isn't any sort of purely intuitive way to play a story game/rpg.* Before someone explained that you had to roll "to-hit" on a d20 and then add your characters modifiers to compare that total to the AC of your target to determine whether or not you "hit"....would you have thought that process "intuitive"?...I wouldn't have. The only thing even vaguely intuitive about it is the use of the natural-language word "hit" to indicate proceeding on to a damage rolling mechanic. That causes the conflation between "hit on a d20" and "my sword hits him with this strike". (Which, BTW, old-school versions of the game explicitly tell you is not the case...otherwise you're taking one swing in a minute-long round...which, I would think, is very counter-intuitive.)
Oh totally. I'm not saying (or at least not trying to say) that one way of doing this is strictly better than the other. However, the idea that the D&D engine for combat is somehow "coherent" in any sense other than "self-consistent" is ludicrous on its face, IMO. Its nigh-legendary litany of narrative bizarrities put the lie to that.
*other than running around the back yard with fingers cocked shouting "Bang Bang! I shot you, Billy! Billy, you're Dead!"
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Since I grew up playing videogames, I would tend to agree. I tend to play mostly zoomed out except during interaction scenes, when I release my inner thespian.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I think there is a lot of cross-contamination between gaming sub-cultures. For example, when introducing tabletop newbies, many are already familiar with HP because they are fairly standard in rpgs. Although many look for some kind of degradation or "death spiral" mechanic to associate with HP totals, IME. Often, its the open-ness of a face-to-face, that seems to shock them.
I think there's some of that, and a lot of habit. Most of the games out there followed D&D's lead with combat mechanics (more or less), so even some gamers experienced with multiple systems haven't really had to challenge that model much. That said, the stance part seems to drastically affect other aspects of play much more profoundly, especially when more narrative systems call for rolls that would be decided by "fiat" in D&D or when the fiction isn't pre-determined by the GM. Any exchange like:
"Is there toolbox around here?"
"I dunno, roll your Scrounge+Lucky...or you could spend a FATE point to find one."
Seems to spark all sorts of shock for some players the first time.
Speaking of which, I would be OK with something like D&D fighters having an auto-damage aura which inflicts non-lethal damage. In the fiction, for hp-as-meat games, this reflects exhaustion from blocking and dodging the fighter's unrelenting assault, and creatures which are immune to exhaustion are not affected. For other games, the fighter aura could inflict more nebulous loss of morale and destiny, and even Queen Mag might be affected in that campaign. This is preferably not a hit on miss, which is just confusing lingo that piles on top of the existing problems. It's preferably not exclusive to great weapon fighting but ideal to that stance. And, of course, it should be fun and easy to play. It could be part of a tactical module. I don't know if it's practical, but something in that vein doesn't count against my threshold for outcome-based mechanics. It does not ask me to interpret a hit-on-a-miss round by round. It jives with how I experience sparring, how your stamina gets sapped in a long fight with a strong opponent. For world-building, it tells me an interesting story of how fiercesome a fantasy warrior is.
Unlike hit on miss which just compounds lingo inconsistenices, all that it requires me to do is 1) imagine that engaging in combat with a fighter hero costs hp every round, and 2) hit points in a modern D&D has a significant non-lethal (stamina, morale, etc.) component. (And if the autodamage is null if the player rolls a 1 on attack rolls, then a simple villager has a 5% chance of not being hurt automatically)
Last edited:
Oh I agree with you there. Especially when we had THACO It took me a while to figure out how to add all my numbers up right, and the minute long round for one swing was very counter-intuitive. There's a whole lot of those old rules that seemed counter intuitive and were confusing to me as a kid. Like many people I played a pretty "broken" version of that game where I ignored them. I played Dragon Quest though, so I thought I knew what a "hit" was.
I'm not trying to say the combat rules makes any coherent sense, but once I figured them out (more or less) I lived pretty easily in the disconnect between how I intellectually knew what the mechanical explanation was and pretending a "hit" meant I connected a blow. -Just having fun with rolling dice and adding numbers and not overthinking everything.
When the Rule of 3 article says Great Weapon Damage is the result of your blow connecting forcefully enough to do minor damage even on a miss though, I naturally think about it some more though and wonder "Ok. But what happens with the kind of 'miss' where you don't even bounce off the armor?-Where you just whif? How do you do damage then?"
Which reminds me... I think Mearls once made a point of how he likes Next using naturalistic terminology, like announcing an ability or skill check with naturalistic language that that doesn't throw you out of immersion. Hit on a miss is not just interpretively problematic, it's also as annoying as saying "bloodied" when bloodied doesn't actually mean bloodied.
A thief, no matter how good, in B/X and AD&D used to have a chance of failing a climb (no 100% chances of success). A fighter, no matter how good, in every edition before 4e had a chance of failing to do damage (natural 1). But a magic-user never has to check to see if s/he forgets the words to the spell, or sneezes/coughs/chokes at the crucial moment. The player has fiat authority in that respect.
My point was that giving fighter players fiat authority for minmium damage on an attack is, in its fundamentals, no different.
(And 3E did this for players of thieves, too, by taking away the rule that there can be no auto-success on skill checks).
I can't see any different between the rule you describe here and the rule being debated except (1) the autodamage is non non-lethal (I don't think D&Dnext has this concept in its repertoir), and (2) it is targetted rather than an aura.
Which of (1) or (2) (or both?) is the breaking point?
Older editions can be appreciated for their contributions to past and ongoing games but are not part of the argument for me for how a modern RPG should be designed.
No problem there for me; Georges St. Pierre doesn't inflict damage in every shot.
That's world-building. If you don't find it compelling how magic works in a D&D setting, that's fine but it's not the same thing.
Throwing sneezing powder at a mage would probably require a concentration check in my book. There's no player fiat outcome-based rule that "Your mage PC will never fail to cast a spell despite all prevailing circumstances."
You might as well say that a player has fiat authority that his PC will never have diarrhea affecting his ability to go adventuring. I find these comparisons to be distracting from the main issue, sorry!
It is different for people, you just don't accept it as a subjective valid truth?
When I think you're ready to accept the opinions of those playing D&D in pseudo-sim 1st player perspective, I might hazard to explain further
Warbringer
Explorer
Well, I'm late to this little shindig.
For me, the primary issue in attempting to impose an fictional position on the outcome is the fictional position of the defense, not the attack (though IMO there is enough confusion caused by the "to hit" game mechanic on its own).
What I mean by the fictional position of the defense is what a passive check vs. AC implies the target is doing; is it dodging(flitting around like the pixie); is actively try to parry and deflect its opponents incoming blows; or is it relying on sheer meat and thickness of armor.
For short lets call these dodge, parry, absorb and apply them to 3 simple antagonists: Pixie (Dodge), Orc (Parry) and Dragon (Absorb). The nature of a hit, or rather a miss, can now have a different fictional position in which the damage on a miss can be resolved. In fiction, I think we can all easily agree that each opponent here is using different tactics in combat.
The positioning of the defense can be either passive (part of the monster description) or an active fictional positioning during combat:
The Orc, pummeled by your attacks chooses a more cautious approach and begins to avoid (dodge) your incoming blows, rather than parry them and stay close to you.
The trigger for narrative damage on a miss can now become "when an opponent parries or absorbs your blows, you still do X damage even when you fail to beat their defenses."
For me, the primary issue in attempting to impose an fictional position on the outcome is the fictional position of the defense, not the attack (though IMO there is enough confusion caused by the "to hit" game mechanic on its own).
What I mean by the fictional position of the defense is what a passive check vs. AC implies the target is doing; is it dodging(flitting around like the pixie); is actively try to parry and deflect its opponents incoming blows; or is it relying on sheer meat and thickness of armor.
For short lets call these dodge, parry, absorb and apply them to 3 simple antagonists: Pixie (Dodge), Orc (Parry) and Dragon (Absorb). The nature of a hit, or rather a miss, can now have a different fictional position in which the damage on a miss can be resolved. In fiction, I think we can all easily agree that each opponent here is using different tactics in combat.
The positioning of the defense can be either passive (part of the monster description) or an active fictional positioning during combat:
The Orc, pummeled by your attacks chooses a more cautious approach and begins to avoid (dodge) your incoming blows, rather than parry them and stay close to you.
The trigger for narrative damage on a miss can now become "when an opponent parries or absorbs your blows, you still do X damage even when you fail to beat their defenses."
Similar Threads
- Locked
