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: 6209734" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know why we would make that assumption when the mechanics tell us otherwise. The raging barbarian attacks furiously but is sometimes wild or inconsistent (higher spike damage, no auto-damage); the two weapon fighter is attacking furiously with two weapons (higher spike damage, no auto-damage); the great weapon fighter is relentlessy wearing down his/her opponent (lower spike damage, but auto-damage producing a guaranteed floor). If you are familiar with Monte Cook's Unearthed Arcana, the two weapon fighter emulates the Unfettered, while the great weapon fighter emulates the Warmain. I think these are recognisable types from fantasy gaming and at least a certain style of fantasy fiction. Let's suppose the hit chance is .5 for the lower level fighter; and let's strip the lower level fighter of the "damage on a miss" ability. In that case, the following scenario has the same probability: that the higher level fighter misses twice, and that the lower level fighter misses once and then hits the second time, killing the foe. D&D has always allowed for this conundrum! How do we narrate it? Whatever story you tell to explain how a more fearsome opponent fails to drop an enemy that a less fearsome opponent does defeat, I assume that it is portable to the situation you outlined. The high level fighter got unlucky, for instance. Or as [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] suggested, the high level fighter is engaging the enemy to such an extent that the low level fighter can push through its defences.There is no "the attack". The attack roll represents the outcome of 6-seconds of to-and-fro between the attacker and defender. Auto-damage on a miss is a form of player fiat: the enemy is getting worn down to some extent no matter how this die roll turns out.As I said upthread, it's a variant mechanical implementation of fate points or plot point. I'm glad that this got mentioned, because I've certainly been thinking of it! These various mechanics - sneak attack, auto-damage, hit bonuses, damage bonuses - are all devices for changing both the average damage delivered, and it's "shape" (consistent, high spike, positioning-dependent, etc). Because of the vagaries of dice rolls their will always be odd occurences where the outcome deviates somewhat from the stereotypical shape; the rogue flanks with the fighter and misses, then flanks with the mage and hits and kills with sneak attack damage - why was the mage such a better fighting partner?!; or the fighter attacks and misses, then the mage throws a rock and hits for 1 hp of damage, dropping the injured kobold - all fear the mage's deadly pitching arm!I've always taken it that these sorts of oddities - which aren't a feature of all RPG systems - are part of D&D's charm.I've got nothing against process sim mechanics in principle, but you're right that I don't regard them as a be-all and end-all. And I find process-sim objections to variant mechanics within D&D combat - which in its attack and damage rules has never been process-sim - almost unintelligible.If you want proces-sim attack and damage, why not go to the systems that actually deliver it: Runequest, Rolemaster, HARP, etc.First, dealing hit point damage is a common simple mechanic in D&D, and as I've already pointed out twice upthread it requires different "narrative justifications" (ie correlates to different events in the fiction even though the mechanical resolution at the table is identical) as a matter of course.Second, as [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] indicated, there is actually no empirical evidence that new players have trouble with player fiat mechanics like "plot points", auto-damage etc.</blockquote>

Verification