Community

Jan 18, 2013 -- 2:40PM, Maxperson wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 2:36PM, Ravenmancer wrote:

And that's one of the things they said they'd like to do with this change over from mdd to [w], isn't it? If you have 3[w] to attack with, you'll either attack one guy at 3[w]+mods, two guys at 2[w]+mods and 1[w]+mods, or three guys at 1[w]+mods each. So basically each [w] is a separate attack but you only roll to hit and add modifiers once per target.

That makes no sense.  If I can attack 3 different people for 1w+mods, then I can attack 1 person three times for 1w+mods each attack.  Anything else is nonsensical.

Actually, if you outright remove the "+mods" part, it makes perfect sense that you either do 3[W] to one, or 1[W] to three.  And considering how they did mention once that they're at least considering the removal of the ability modifier to damage, I'd like to see how completely removing modifiers and sticking to just weapon dice would affect dynamics.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 3:27PM, Dwarfslayer wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 3:20PM, Maxperson wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Unless you got more than one attack, and then you got........more than one attack that applied the equally whether you attacked multiple opponants or a single opponant.  Your example doesn't apply.

I don't see your point. You're talking about abstracting an attack roll to be multiple attacks as though that didn't happen, but in 2E, it very clearly did. in fact the book specifically said it did. Your one attack roll or two attack rolls or whatever didn't represent one swing, but instead represented strikes you made on your foe over the course of your battle.

The idea that one roll = one swing is flat out not true.

That's not true.  The one attack roll represented the ONE opening you found to get in a hit during that round.  The rest was manuevering and sparing back and forth waiting for your ONE ATTACK.  One roll equalled one attack. 

Then why does your AC improve by getting plate armor? Why does a big iron golem or a dragon have high AC? The assumption of AC has always been that you can "miss" and basically still strike the creature, you just don't damage it. That's why 3E has a specific touch attack mechanic to differentiate a "hit" from a real hit.

Right.  Attacks that don't hurt are misses.  Attacks that miss are misses.  Attacks that hurt are always "hits" as defined by the book.  A "hit" is never a miss, because a miss does no damage.  So a "hit" is always a hit no matter what.  You're just confused over the nature of abstract hit points and how to describe that hit point loss.  It's hit point loss you are describing, NOT a hit or a miss.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 4:16PM, Dwarfslayer wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 4:11PM, Maxperson wrote:

Right.  Attacks that don't hurt are misses.  Attacks that miss are misses.  Attacks that hurt are always "hits" as defined by the book.  A "hit" is never a miss, because a miss does no damage.   

Except with some of the many mechanics in D&DN and 4E (and I believe 3E even had them) where you can miss and do damage. See D&DN Inflict X wound series of spells. "hit" and "miss" are abstractions, the same as hit points.

Then it's not truly a miss.  With such powers, you cannot miss.  You can only hit in degrees.

Jan 18, 2013 -- 4:26PM, Dwarfslayer wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 4:18PM, Maxperson wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 4:16PM, Dwarfslayer wrote:

Jan 18, 2013 -- 4:11PM, Maxperson wrote:

Right.  Attacks that don't hurt are misses.  Attacks that miss are misses.  Attacks that hurt are always "hits" as defined by the book.  A "hit" is never a miss, because a miss does no damage.   

Except with some of the many mechanics in D&DN and 4E (and I believe 3E even had them) where you can miss and do damage. See D&DN Inflict X wound series of spells. "hit" and "miss" are abstractions, the same as hit points.

Then it's not truly a miss.  With such powers, you cannot miss.  You can only hit in degrees.

Max come on man. Here's a quote from the inflict light wounds spell text "The target takes 3d8 necrotic damage on a hit, and half as much damage on a miss."

It's specifically called a miss.

I'm looking through the D&D Playtest's "How to Play" section, and "Hits" have no such definition as "attacks that hurt".  In fact...

Attack Rolls
When you attack with a weapon or a spell, you must determine whether the attack hits or misses.
You do so with an attack roll, a d20 roll with modifiers that represent your natural skill with a weapon or spells, as well as any special skill or training you possess.
The DM might decide that you have a better or worse chance to hit depending on factors beyond your control. For example, it is harder to hit an orc that is crouched behind a stone wall than one standing in the open.
An attack roll looks like this: d20 + ability modifier + weapon or magic training (if any) + situational modifiers.
If the total of your roll equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the attack hits.

Unless I've overlooked something, I do not see anything even in the current itineration of the playtest where "hit" was described outside of being used purely as a mechanical game term.  In fact, it's only Parry that states that:

If the damage drops to 0, the hit becomes a miss.

I think the explanation is this: normally, even if the damage of an attack is reduced to 0, the other effects of an attack still kick in -- a poisoned blade's venom still seeps into the armor, or a really strong attack still staggers you even though you took no damage from it.  Parry (be it with sword or shield) allows you to completely negate an attack by explicitly turning an attack into a miss.