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: 6211350" data-attributes="member: 6688937">A very good question, I had to think about this a while before I even responded.I don't think particular mechanics on one side or the other are the problem. Its the muddle of the two that creates the worst tensions. If healing spells cause this problem...is it that the HP are abstract ("meta") or that the healing spell titles aren't? I've seen plenty of other systems that handle things either very abstractly or very fiction-oriented, and either can work. So..As you note..HP, damage, and the general combat engine for just about all editions. Missile combat stands out to me as a place where its just better not to look.The healing spells for the older editions in particular. 4e and healing surges made that a little more sensible. However, non-magical healing adding another discouragement to narrating an attack too specifically so you don't find yourself "shouting wounds shut".Pre-4e saving throws are another area that can often cause us to just not look too closely. I mean, you're in an open space, no cover, and an AoE goes off covering two identical rogues, they are engulfed in <something>. Yet one dies and the other doesn't...they both stood their ground, not moving...so its not like the one who made his save actually leapt out of the blast zone...what exactly did the survivor do that the other didn't? The notorious 4e Prone Ooze. I imagine there are probably other less-common circumstantial cases that come up during 4e play. I know I also have seen the circumstance of dealing both frost and fire damage with the same weapon...which seems....counter-intuitive.Stealth in general seems to be poorly modeled, and that's compounded by the way sneak attacks/backstabs have worked. (Which, I think has always cheated the sneak-assassin types on the attack, but benefitted them on the sneaking part...maybe just to encourage them to go on ahead and get in trouble?)I've presided as DM over several instances (particularly 2e) where the result of overlapping effects of spells was not immediately evident. I've been in situations where it was obvious what should happen as per the "crunchy" bits of the spell descriptions, but I couldn't figure out exactly what should actually be visible to someone watching the scene. No one edition...all of them. I think D&D would have to give up to fairly fundamental sacred cows in order to avoid these.This could be said for every single time anything or anyone takes HP damage during a D&D combat: "Bob deals damage and imagines the greatsword clipping the pixie..." Worse, what happens if the table agrees on the "exhaustion" narration for a hit but then somebody hits it with a healing spell?I think early D&D was a confused animal. <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=":)" /> Especially if the stories of its "organic" growth and development are correct, then it actually didn't start out with any design goals.</blockquote>

Verification