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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6208728" data-attributes="member: 42582">That is not correct. You miss yet deal damage. "Hit" and "miss" are, on this account (as in fact they always have been) technical terms. Damage on a miss does not turn misses into hits. It is a new condition for dealing damage.I don't understand. AC and amour still matter - there is a big difference between being worn down at the rate of 5 hp per round and being worn down at the rate of 10+ hp per round (1d8 sword +5 STR +1 or more from sundry other bonuses).Feel free to point me to the relevant rule. I haven't noticed it, though. I assume that this is intended as snark and smart-arsery. Anyway, I believe that HP, AC and skill checks are defined in the How to Play document; that weapon damage dice are defined in that document and also in the Equipment document; and that magic is defined in that document and also the Spells document. I haven't been keeping track of Hit Dice, but last I looked they defined healing resources rather than the number and size of dice rolled to establish a creature's hit point total.You seem outraged that terminology is changing, and rules concepts also. But it happens. Both the terminology and the concept of saving throws changed dramatically between AD&D and 3E, for instance. No one is obliged to like such changes (I don't particularly care for the 3E change to saving throws, for instance) but they're part and parcel of rules revision. It strikes me as a bit odd to rail against them as if the terminology and mechanical elements of D&D were laid up in heaven like Plato's forms.I do not believe that there is such a mechanic.There are several things here. First, it has always been possible to inflict hit point loss in D&D without dealing "scratches" - phantasmal killer (hit point loss from fear) is one example. Maybe the immortal dies from exhaustion? Or from being pummelled to death (that happens often enough in the real world)?As for poison, I am looking at the Areana on p 2 of the Bestiary, which requires a poison save on a hit. This is the typical way that poison has been handled in D&D, and I assume the Areana is typical of how it is handled in D&Dnext. Given that the fighter has missed, rather than hit, no poison save would be required.And there is nothing especially odd about this. It is possible to be physically struck by a venemous creature or a poisoned blade yet not to be poisoned. (For instance, the fang/blade does not pierce clothing.)What immortal creature do you have in mind? Devils, demons, elves, earth elementals, etc can all be worn down.I guess part of my problem is that I don't really understand your model of hit points. Presumably you concede that 5 or even 10 hp of damage dealt to a creature with 50 or 100 of them does not reflect any serious injury to that being, given that the being is in no danger of dying or even disability, and in fact is able to go about its business as if it were at full health. That is, the immortal can be worn down by attacks that don't seriously wound or inconvenience it. I would say that whatever is being done on those occasions by a hit, is also being done by this super-tough fighter on a miss. The fighter is just that unrelenting!On the other hand, the same amount of damage - 5 or 10 hp - dealt to a 1st level being (kobold, goblin, villager, whatever) will be fatal. Therefore, a roll of 5 or 10 on the damage dice - the exact same mechanical event at the table - corresponds to different events in the fiction, depending on both the starting hit point total and the current hit point total of the target to whom the damage is dealt. Whatever interpretation of hit points you use to make sense of this - I get the sense that you see it as a bit like shaving meat of a spit, though I don't quite understand how that is meant to work as a biological/medical analogy - you can do the same sort of work to make sense of what 5 hp loss might mean to different targets. Conversely, if you don't worry about the fact that a given damage roll can mean something completely different in the fiction depending on the target to whom that damage is dealt, then presumably you might take the same relaxed attitude to the dealing of damage on a miss.As I said, because I don't really get your model of hp, I don't follow your objection to wearing down immortals via relentless attacks.As I've just said, I don't know what you think hit points represent at the moment. A hit to a fighter with 150 hp that deals 3 hp damage does not connect in any meaningful way. That fighter is not remotely injured or inconvenienced by that "hit". Whatever you think happens to that fighter when s/he is hit (by a kobold, say) for 3 hp of damage, the same thing happens to an immortal who is being worn down by a relentless fighter who does a minimum of 5 hp per round.This is the bit that I really don't get. I take it as obvious that what Rodney Thompson said is by way of illustration only. For a start, given that not every creature has "armor/hide/scales" - say, a zombie or a lich - he is obviously not talking about those sorts of beings.But more importantly, it is already the case that damage does not work consistently in a single way. As I've already pointed out, the meaning in the game of a roll of 5 or 10 hp on the dice changes dramatically based on the starting point and the current hit point total of the target. If the target has 50 total hp and is at full health when struck for 10 hp of damage, then those 10 hp represent nothing more than (perhaps) modest exertion in ducking the blow and perhaps a (radically non-fatal and not even debilitating) nick. If the target has 5 total hp and is at full strength than those 10 hp represent some form of fatal blow. Which is very far from being the same thing.All sorts of characters in 4e can deal damage on a miss, depending on details of powers, feats etc. It's not uniquely a fighter thing, nor is it uniquely a two-handed weapon thing.As to why everyone in 5e can't do it, because not everyone is a relentless fighter who will wear you down. It's a class feature. Why do the gods only answer the prayers of the clerics, no matter how devout another might be? That's a class feature too. I don't see why fighters shouldn't have class features, and being relentless in combat seems like a pretty apposite one to me.</blockquote>

Verification