|
Yes, it is an investment, but not a spendable (and possibly renewable) resource, which is what I meant - and you knew that ;)I'm not sure if I like abilities that automatically turn a miss into a "not-miss" without investment of some kind of resource, even if the damage is negligible.Well, seeing as the ability isn't automatic for all Fighters (it's a feat gained through the Slayer theme, so any character without said theme/feat wouldn't deal damage on a miss. So, yeah, there's the investment.
I actually didn't think about it in this way, at least not until before I'd already posted and was no longer at my keyboard. But yeah, I understand where you're coming from.
The main source of rejuvenation of hit point is trough healing spells, which descriptively "heal wounds" although the abstract nature of damage means that perhaps there weren't any wounds. While I agree that this is easy to re-fluff/reinterpret, it isn't surprising that the connection between damage=wounds has been present since 1st edition.
But the absolute connection between damage and wounds was dismissed in the first edition. I don't see where you're coming from with the idea that 1e AD&D promoted the idea of damage=wounds.
See my quote from the AD&D 1e DMG upthread. Gary Gygax was very open about the fact that hit points were not just a presentation of how many stabs you could take to your stomach before you fell, but an abstract representation of a number of things, including your ability to avoid blows, divine favour and magical protection.
I know we shouldn't take everything Gary wrote as gospel, because a lot of it was inconsistent. For an example, the cure wounds spells, combined with the abstract nature of hit points, makes for a situation where these spells supposedly cure wounds, but loss of hit points might not represent actual wounds. The most likely explanation to this disconnect is that Gary and friends were making things up as they went and cure light wounds sounded a lot better than restore an arbitrary amount of an abstract unit used in measuring how many hits your character can take, which, while more accurate, doesn't really roll off the tongue. (Here I am paraphrasing someone on the RPG.net forums who made the exact same point, but sadly I can't attribute the post to the said person due to having lost track of the discussion)
EDIT: Otherwise I'm very much in agreement with your post, as it very well outlines the problems that arise from the abstract nature of hit points in D&D. Then again, I'm okay with the nonsensical consequences of abstract hit points, because I find they make for a better (or at least easier to play) game than games that have you keep track of separate wounds. :)
|
|
I actually did some calculations to see who has the highest average damage per round, a Slayer Fighter or the Rogue. The Fighter came clearly on top, even when assuming that the Rogue has advantage and gets a sneak attack, which they'll only be able to do every other round.
I'm going to be really busy for the next couple of days, since I have two graveyard shifts coming, but I guess I could extend my calculations to the Wizard. I'm pretty sure the Fighter will come out on top in terms of raw damage output.
The fighter's pretty close to the Magic missile even if he always misses.
Guaranteed Str damage, 3 for our example character, vs d4+1, average 3.5, for the magic missile mage. It the fighter hits, he'll average 14 pts. That makes up for a lot of misses.If you assume a 16 AC (just to make the math easy) he'll hit half the time: Average damage 8.5.
If my math is right, the fighter will still average more even if he only hits on a 20. 14*1/20 + 3*19/20 = 3.55.
Of course the wizard has other things to do. Like area effect spells. And probably improves faster.
Without the slayer feat, the fighter still comes out ahead up to AC 20 (needs a 14 to hit, 14*6/20=4.2) and breaks even at 21 ((needs a 14 to hit, 14*5/20=3.5)
Your calculations match up to mine, except for the fact that you seem to have forgotten to take into account the Fighter's damage on a critical hit. On a 20, the Fighter deals maximum damage. This slightly nudges the Fighter's average damage upwards.
Also, since they've talked a lot about flattening the math, it's unlikely that ACs will increase in the same degree as in 3.5 and 4e. Most creatures in the playtest documents seem to have ACs between the 10 and 17 range, IIRC.
|
What promotes the idea that damage=wounds is the need to heal damage done.
Of course, that need is being wiped out in 5E, with the overnight "everything comes back" healing style.
Just another thing to houserule, IMO.
But even the word wound is used in ways that don't make sense. "Wounded pride, wounded ego" etc. None of these strictly mean a laceration to either pride or ego, very much like Cure Light Wounds need not strictly mean such.
Going down the a hit equals a wound in the dictionary sense (of either term) goes against the idea of abstract. Keep in mind that under 1e AD&D a round was 1 minute yet you only rolled once to hit* (usually) or cast 1 spell in this. A d20 fighter would have hit you up to 12 times! (assume 1-4th level fighter).
Yes only ONE roll to hit every game minute!!! When reading what combat was, again abstract in 1e, this makes perfect sense - more so than d20's blender like combat timing. Lots of threads about with people claiming in real life they could swing a claymore 5 or more times effectively in 6 seconds to defend d20 logic. Also more esotherically, 1 minute to find a spell component and harness arcane energies seem 'right' compared to 6-seconds. I can't produce my car keys from my pocket in 6 seconds some days - imgaine having numerous pouches and pockets!
Bring back the 1 minutes round!
S.
*This 'once to hit' wasn't 'one swing' it was the culmination of all the things we would call 5'-steps and parries and feints and all sort of interesting things under d20 that previously were under 1e/2e left up to the imagination.