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: 6209236" data-attributes="member: 42582">Can you please cite that definition? It is not one that the rules use - obviously - given that they include, as a possible consequence of a miss, the dealing of damage! Page 2 of the "How to Play" document defines a hit as an attack roll which, after relevant bonuses and penalties are applied, equals or exceeds the AC of the target.Obviously if this ability is in play then damage can be dealt without hitting on an attack. At the mechanical level, the player has a "fiat" ability - s/he can simply declare an attack and thereby bring it about that, in the fiction, the target is somewhat worn down. In the fiction, the fighter in question is so unrelenting that every 6 seconds of combat with this guy guarantees that the target will be on a trajectory towards death.I don't know what you think the attack roll models, and so I don't know what you think it's exclusion from the resolution process is modelling. But presumably you are familiar with the idea of games with fate points, which players can spend in order to fiat outcomes rather than rely on the dice? In that case, it might help you to think of this ability as building into the fighter a fate point resource for the player - every time the fighter attacks, the player has a little fate point s/he can play which says "No matter what the dice say, you take at least 3 (or 5, or whatever) damage from this attack".The fighter does have a capability to deal extra damage - namely, this ability! And why should the fighter tire him/herself out quicker than the pixie. The point of this ability is to model an unrelenting fighter. S/he strikes so swiftly and viciously that the pixie gets worn down, and loses the energy to dodge, more quickly than against an ordinary foe.I already answered this - every time you roll a damage die you have to vary your description based on both the base hit points and the current hit points of the target. The need to vary your description of what happens when you deal damage on a miss based on the circumstances of the target, and the ingame context, is no different.And on that topic:No one ever got killed by a scratch, or even a cumulation of scratches. (Putting tetanus infections to one side.) So presumably, the 5 hp loss for the immortal with 100 total hp but only 5 current hp is something more than a scratch. That is, exactly the same game mechanical process - rolling an attack die and then rolling a damage die - means something different in the fiction depending on the context, including the status of the target.The fact that the in-game meaning of damage on a miss can similarly vary is no dramatic new thing.It's against board rules to insult other posters, so I'd rather that you didn't.The rule makes perfect sense. It is a fiat mechanic, like a fate point mechanic, that empowers the player of the fighter to impose a certain vision of the fighter upon the fiction: namely, this fighter is so relentless that 6 seconds of combat with him/her will always wear an opponent down.Of course those who like process simulation mechanics don't like it, but that tells us nothing about its coherence as a mechanic. The real puzzle for me, as always, is why people who like process simulation mechanics would play D&D rather than (say) Runequest or HARP.</blockquote>

Verification