Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6319006" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't really follow a lot of this.You seem to be asserting that a missed attack roll always corresponds, in the fiction, to a failure of the attacker to hurt his/her opponent, and hence that DoaM is impossible, and hence that the DoaM mechanic is incoherent and a nonsense.Your problem is with your opening premise: it isn't true, in a game that contains a DoaM mechanic, to say that a missed attack roll always corresponds, in the fiction, to a failure of the attacker to hurt his/her opponent. Often it will; but sometimes it won't. Sometimes it corresponds, in the fiction, to the attacker hurting his/her opponent less than s/he otherwise might have.That is not incoherent. And it makes perfect sense. You may not like it, because you may prefer a game system in which every missed attack roll corresponds, in the fiction, to a failure of the attacker to hurt his/her opponent. But the fact that you prefer a game founded on a different premise about the relationship between attack rolls and ingame events doesn't mean that games like 4e, 5e or 13th Age are incoherent and make no sense.As to the fact that the fighter with DoaM is able to kill every kobold that s/he engages in combat, I regard that as on a par with the fact that a mage with fireball is able to kill every kobold that s/he catches in the blast of a Burning Hands spell. Namely, it shows that some creatures in D&amp;D die easily when confronted by competent opponents.I didn't say this, and would appreciate a retraction and apology. Particularly coming from someone who is attacking others in this thread for the tone and manners of their posting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6319006, member: 42582"] I don't really follow a lot of this. You seem to be asserting that a missed attack roll [I]always[/I] corresponds, in the fiction, to a failure of the attacker to hurt his/her opponent, and hence that DoaM is impossible, and hence that the DoaM mechanic is incoherent and a nonsense. Your problem is with your opening premise: it isn't true, in a game that contains a DoaM mechanic, to say that a missed attack roll [I]always[/I] corresponds, in the fiction, to a failure of the attacker to hurt his/her opponent. Often it will; but sometimes it won't. Sometimes it corresponds, in the fiction, to the attacker hurting his/her opponent less than s/he otherwise might have. That is not incoherent. And it makes perfect sense. You may not like it, because you may prefer a game system in which every missed attack roll corresponds, in the fiction, to a failure of the attacker to hurt his/her opponent. But the fact that you prefer a game founded on a different premise about the relationship between attack rolls and ingame events doesn't mean that games like 4e, 5e or 13th Age are incoherent and make no sense. As to the fact that the fighter with DoaM is able to kill every kobold that s/he engages in combat, I regard that as on a par with the fact that a mage with fireball is able to kill every kobold that s/he catches in the blast of a Burning Hands spell. Namely, it shows that some creatures in D&D die easily when confronted by competent opponents. I didn't say this, and would appreciate a retraction and apology. Particularly coming from someone who is attacking others in this thread for the tone and manners of their posting. [/QUOTE]

Verification