Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eleran" data-source="post: 4101543" data-attributes="member: 26319">Maybe we need to go back to basics and re-discuss what hit points really are, and always have been.&nbsp; If a fighter swings his word and hits the other fighters shield hard enough to make him stagger, or hard enough to lose his breath momentarily, he did damage.&nbsp; there isnt a mark on the other fighter, but he definitely felt it and took some damage.&nbsp; However, if that same swing had resulted in a glancing blow to the shield which was practically unfelt by his opponent we would say, in game terms, that he missed.&nbsp; I seem to recall back in the salad days of my youth an article in some mag or another that made a system whereby you figured out where and how the blow struck based on the to hit roll and how much of a success over or under the AC it was.&nbsp; For instance the hit I described above might be a to hit of 17 vs an AC of 16, etc.&nbsp; But that kind of thing is WAY too simulationist for me and my group.&nbsp; I hope the game never goes in that direction.Also keep in mind that from 1e on &quot;hitting&quot; and &quot;attacking&quot; are also abstract concepts.&nbsp; When 2 fighters square off in a 6 second round they arent dancing to the tune of 1 2 3 swing 5 6.&nbsp; Your attack roll represents the 1 or 2 good opportunities you get for a solid blow in on your opponent.&nbsp; Just as hitting doesnt mean sword ever met flesh as I demonstrated above.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eleran, post: 4101543, member: 26319"] Maybe we need to go back to basics and re-discuss what hit points really are, and always have been. If a fighter swings his word and hits the other fighters shield hard enough to make him stagger, or hard enough to lose his breath momentarily, he did damage. there isnt a mark on the other fighter, but he definitely felt it and took some damage. However, if that same swing had resulted in a glancing blow to the shield which was practically unfelt by his opponent we would say, in game terms, that he missed. I seem to recall back in the salad days of my youth an article in some mag or another that made a system whereby you figured out where and how the blow struck based on the to hit roll and how much of a success over or under the AC it was. For instance the hit I described above might be a to hit of 17 vs an AC of 16, etc. But that kind of thing is WAY too simulationist for me and my group. I hope the game never goes in that direction. Also keep in mind that from 1e on "hitting" and "attacking" are also abstract concepts. When 2 fighters square off in a 6 second round they arent dancing to the tune of 1 2 3 swing 5 6. Your attack roll represents the 1 or 2 good opportunities you get for a solid blow in on your opponent. Just as hitting doesnt mean sword ever met flesh as I demonstrated above. [/QUOTE]

Verification