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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6210379" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I must say that I find way too much as been made of the "immortal" thing. In any case..On the contrary, there's a whole host of "realistic" reasons why the fighter would have these difficulties...D&D just doesn't attempt to include those in the narrative or address them mechanically. That's why, and I agree, that it makes more narrative sense for the fighter to tire out before the pixie (maybe pixies should deal more damage to reflect this?). All we have revealed here is that the D&D combat engine breaks down in extreme cases, losing what little ability it had to produce a coherent narrative....I don't think that's really news for anyone. I personally don't find that "damage on a miss" contributes significantly to exposing the limitations of that engine in these cases.Now, just so I'm as clear as I can be. I'm perfectly willing to accept upfront without qualification that "damage on a miss" is just the final straw the broke the camel's back for some folks...or that they just don't like it...or whatever. I think that's a perfectly fine position to have that doesn't require any justification to me at all. However, I don't think that anything particularly distinguishes the effort required to find make narrative sense out of the "damage on a miss"  that doesn't also apply to gobs of other inconsistencies and insensibilities generated during typical D&D play by the combat engine*....other than the historical fact that most of us have just gotten used to the others. If you're trying to tell me that the traditional D&D combat system was made of consistency rainbows and coherent unicorns up until that horrid "damage on a miss" thing showed up...well, then I disagree. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I think that is a (potential) problem. The easy fix is to make it like 13th Age where (almost) everybody gets miss damage. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Another easy fix is to remove the "to hit" roll and just go straight to damage (likely with multiple dice.) *most of which seem to involve the lack of clarity or consistency about what any particular Hit Point actually represents narratively, but that's a bigger argument. It does make me wonder if this sort of issue can even be resolved satisfactorily under any of the extant D&D HP definitions, or even under a HP system at all.</blockquote>

Verification