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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6208356" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sure.  You can rationalize whatever you like.   But your rationalization only works for specific concrete examples of what melee combat is like.  If we assume that melee combat is always between two armored individuals who are wailing away on each other for six seconds your explanation for the mechanic makes perfect sense.  But the mechanic simply does not make sense as written for the general case.   There is lip service to the ideal that D&D combat is abstract here, but no actual adherence to the conventions of the abstraction.   It's like the claim that since not all hit points represent the physical capacity to endure damage, that an attack can be abstracted to only effecting those non-physical portions of hit points.   That claim contradicts the logic of hit points that had been in use forever prior to the claim.   And here we have a mechanic that makes lip service to the fact that AC is abstract, but attempts to create a mechanic that treats AC as if it where concrete in a way that has no bearing on what AC actually can represent.  AC doesn't just represent ability to absorb a blow without injury, but also the ability to evade a blow entirely.  In the general case we cannot ignore the fact that for a particular individual ALL their AC might represent the ability to evade blows and that the abstract number is entirely representing the concrete reality that the target is difficult to land a blow on and not at all difficult to damage when landing a blow.For example, suppose the fight is between a PC and a flock of outsiders/elementals/fey etc.  The outsiders have DEX 30, tiny size, natural fly speed, perfect maneuverability and is immune to fatigue and the other sorts of things that represent the weaknesses of mortals (sleep, hunger, thirst, aging, etc.)  They also have 1/2 HD.  It makes absolutely no sense to rationalize damage on a miss as wearing down the foe through your unrelenting attacks in this case as if the picture here was the same as attacking a tortoise with a thick shell.   The target can't be worn down.  The most salient aspect of this combat's narration is probably, "You can't hit the buggers, but when you do they go down."  They aren't narratively parrying the attacks.  There isn't narrative of making contact, but failing to breach the targets armor/thick hide/etc.  There are no glancing blows here.  If you swing, it's a miss, the target darts nimbly away and is not fatigued by dodging away in any way.  It's immortal.  If you don't hit it, it can literally keep up this entertaining game of dodge the sword forever.   There is no 'damage on a miss'.Can you rationalize the mechanic still?   Of course, but notice that to rationalize it in this case, you have to totally change the rationalization.  Instead of brutally wearing the opponent down, the new flavor you are giving the mechanic is that the fighter has such precision and accuracy in his attacks that they never completely miss.  But now this is no longer a mechanic that seems to relate to the original color of 'brute force' and 'massive weapons'.   This is now the color of finesse!!!We could of course grant 'immunity to damage on a miss' to all targets where the rationalization breaks down in order to remain consistent in our imagined world, but this is bad design.  Ideally a newly introduced rule shouldn't require remote reference to the rule.   Otherwise, each introduction of a rule or each rule change requires changing all the numerous references to the rule and people designing new monsters require knowledge of literally all the rules to be successful in the design.  It's much better to design the rule in such a way that it understands the fundamental assumptions of the abstraction and doesn't break them.  Have the rule inherit the assumptions of the system, rather than make the entire system inherit the assumptions of the new rule.So, sure, you can rationalize whatever you like, provided you don't care for a systematic description and you prioritize mechanics over the imaginary space being played in.   The ultimate result of that is that you no longer have a game of warriors fighting monsters in a fantasy world, but figures in conflict with other figures on a table top.   There is nothing wrong with that.  I like chess, Blood Bowl, and Necromunda as much as the next guy.  But don't try to tell me you aren't changing anything about my game when you try to foist that on me.</blockquote>

Verification