Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6213374" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Correct, its not my point. My point is simply that in that last paragraph, you cited mostly gamist/balance reasons. The same type of reasons that &quot;validate&quot; (to use the word extremely loosely) damage on a miss.I don't understand your side's fascination with the words &quot;Hit&quot; and &quot;Miss&quot; as if they were somehow significant. They are exactly the same positions reversed. The common-language meanings of &quot;hit&quot;, &quot;miss&quot;, and &quot;Critical Wounds&quot; are functionally superceded by their definitions within the game mechanics. I keep bringing up the &quot;Critical Wounds&quot; thing because it is an obvious example of how the combat system abstractions create narrative difficulties. The caster must know that he is using a spell called by that name (especially since it can appear on scrolls) and yet will not often be using it in a manner consistent with that knowledge. (Especially in comparison to the tight resource management that occurs for such resources.) To reiterate, since it seems at risk of getting lost, here. I really&nbsp; don't care if damage on a miss is in the game or not. I just think that&nbsp; the suggestion that it alone makes nonsense of D&amp;D's otherwise&nbsp; perfectly sensible combat/wounding rules is rather silly.That is common parlance where I'm from. Although usually reserved for a truly bad or exasperating miss, for example a basketball shot that hits neither net, rim, or backboard. (Also, at least locally, its spelled &quot;whiff&quot;.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 6213374, member: 6688937"] Correct, its not my point. My point is simply that in that last paragraph, you cited mostly gamist/balance reasons. The same type of reasons that "validate" (to use the word extremely loosely) damage on a miss. I don't understand your side's fascination with the words "Hit" and "Miss" as if they were somehow significant. They are [U]exactly[/U] the same positions reversed. The common-language meanings of "hit", "miss", and "Critical Wounds" are functionally superceded by their definitions within the game mechanics. I keep bringing up the "Critical Wounds" thing because it is an obvious example of how the combat system abstractions create narrative difficulties. The caster [I]must[/I] know that he is using a spell called by that name (especially since it can appear on scrolls) and yet will not often be using it in a manner consistent with that knowledge. (Especially in comparison to the tight resource management that occurs for such resources.) To reiterate, since it seems at risk of getting lost, here. I really don't care if damage on a miss is in the game or not. I just think that the suggestion that it alone makes nonsense of D&D's otherwise perfectly sensible combat/wounding rules is rather silly. That is common parlance where I'm from. Although usually reserved for a truly bad or exasperating miss, for example a basketball shot that hits neither net, rim, or backboard. (Also, at least locally, its spelled "whiff".) [/QUOTE]

Verification