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: 6209805" data-attributes="member: 42582">OK, but in that case what is your problem with the lower-level fighter killing via autodamage when the higher level fighter fails to hurt it? I can't see any difference between the two cases.I think that's an important point of difference in preferenes. I do not read the rules in order to establish how the fictional gameworld works. I already know that because I've read Conan stories and watched the LotR movies.When I read the rules I am reading them to understand how they will generate outcomes in play. It is those outcomes that matter to me. Hence, for me, there is no difference between you "condundrum" (of the low level fighter who outfights the high level fighter due to auto-damage) and my "conundrum" (of the low level fighter who outfights the high level fighter due to hitting rather than missing).This is also why I am not that moved by odd corner cases. (Other famous corner-cases: the rogue who is standing on an unadorned glassy plain, which damages anyone who walks on it - mechanically expressed as (say) 5 hp of damage for every square entered - and who uses evasion to take no damage from a fireball; or the fighter who is hog-tied, thrown over a 100' cliff, and lends at the bottom still hog-tied yet still alive.) These don't come up much in play, and when they do a suitable narrative can be ad-libbed if anyone asks for it.This is another difference. I prefer to play games whose mechanics I like, rather than playing a game despite its mechanics. For instance, with hit points, rather than treat them as an absurdity to be tolerated, I treat them as a metagame mechanic.If people are playing D&D but don't like its mechanics because they are not process sim, then I can understand they wouldn't like even more such mechanics. It just hadn't occured to me that many D&D players would fit this description.</blockquote>

Verification