• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

Do you find the mechanic believable enough to keep?

  • I find the mechanic believable so keep it.

    Votes: 106 39.8%
  • I don't find the mechanic believable so scrap it.

    Votes: 121 45.5%
  • I don't care either way.

    Votes: 39 14.7%

Status
Not open for further replies.

ShinHakkaider

Adventurer
Nobody is talking about BADWRONGFUN here. First and foremost, I am a consumer and I don't want a repeat of 4th edition. This has nothing to do with edition warring and I don't want to give the devs the impression that these types of mechanics are "A-Okay". Certain types of mechanics tend to creep their way into other aspects of the game to the point where if you don't want it, you have to rewrite the whole game. What happened to this modularity stuff we were told about?

I don't like these types of mechanics and since the game is still in the building phase, I feel like this is the best time to get my point across. Stop with the "edition warring" and "badwrongfun" cards. You don't have to like what I like but trying to paint me as a trouble maker so you can have this thread closed is not on.

First of all where are you getting that I'm "edition warring" I SPECIFICALLY stated that while I dont care for 4E I can appreciate the design that went into it. That's me CLEARLY stating that the game is not my preference but STILL being able to state that I think it's a well designed game. So again where are you getting that I'm "Edition Warring"?

Second when you unilaterally state that something that YOU dont like is a "cancer"? You actually have the audacity to say that I'm painting you as a troublemaker? You could have voiced your disdain for house rules in any number of ways that would have gotten your point across without being as antagonistic but no, you CHOSE the way you put it for a reason. And I voiced my opinion on it. By unilaterally saying that houserules=cancer you ARE staying that anyone who uses or enjoys houseruling IS having BADWRONGFUN.

Unless there is something actually GOOD about Cancer that I'm missing. And having had at least one family member and a few former co-workers who have died from it? I'd have to say...yeah...NO. THERE'S NOTHING GOOD ABOUT CANCER.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Weather Report

Banned
Banned
Damage on a miss is a great rule, it is in 4th edition D&D and 13th Age I love both of those games and want this to be a core ability of a core class in D&D Next.

I want a repeat of a lot of stuff found in 4e.

Hopefully 5th Ed will not be your cup of tea, for my sake!
 

Burninator

First Post
True, so this poll really has no reason for existing.

Sounds like you don't like the way the poll is turning out, and have an agenda (not very hidden, it's clear you want it to stay, just be honest about it)

I detest damage on a miss too, and also have a strong reaction to any game where that type of confusing mechanic is forced on us, front and center of the most basic class in the game.

I don't want to pick this option, or even see someone else in a game I join to have it. It completely ruins the believability of D&D combat to me.

To recap, I hope this feature ends up in a Sisyphean torment of self-inflicted auto-damage hell for all eternity.

(sorry for the hyperbole, it was fun!)

Actually, this mechanic's logic kind of reminds me of the way they used to determine a witch's guilt by throwing them into water : if they drowned, they weren't witches, and if they didn't, they were, so they were promptly put to death. It's only poetic that negative feedback should result in its own demise.

The mechanic would be used as the cornerstone for 5e's version of Pun Pun. The more bonuses that trigger off doing damage that are added later on, the more broken it becomes. The solution isn't to remove all bonuses to damage, it's to remove this mechanic so that fighters actually have to use dice, even to kill "minion" type creatures. In the last round of their lives and low remaining HP, all creatures are essentially insta-kill with this mechanic, precisely in the most epic / tense round of their existence. This removes all dramatic tension from the game, to the point where a fighter doesn't even need to roll any dice, and can just steamroll monsters off the map, like a zamboni machine or an etch-a-sketch
 

ForeverSlayer

Banned
Banned
Let's look at "Damage on a miss" from 4th edition.

You could damage creatures on a miss but for some reason you couldn't kill Minions with it. Why? This mechanic brings up that kind of reaction.
 

Burninator

First Post
I've compiled a list of problems with GWF and damage-on-a-miss over at Wotc forums:

Hello forum, I've compiled a list here of problems with Great Weapon Fighting style, which I will now quote:

Great Weapon Fighting
When you miss a target with a melee weapon
that you are wielding with two hands, the target
still takes damage from the weapon. The damage
equals your Strength modifier. The weapon must
have the two-­‐handed or versatile property to
gain this benefit

Problems that I see with this mechanic (being a game creator with over a dozen high profile, AAA titles to my credit):


1) It allows 1st level fighters to do damage every round they attack. If you cannot see why that violates how D&D combat is supposed to work, I don't know what to say. It's not how D&D fighting has worked in any game I've ever played.
2) No human is so perfect that he can never fail to harm his opponent any time he attacks them. Certainly not a 1st level Fighter fresh out of boot camp
3) Armies of Ogres or Trolls using PC creation rules can use this to auto-win any battle due to their excessive strength and HP in the first round or two of battle, by concentrating firepower on one target near them.
4) If used against PCs, they will not appreciate the DM being able to kill them without any input or agency from either D20s or damage dice
5) It ignores which weapon you're using, so a longsword used two-handed has the same effect as a greatsword or greataxe. Removing the importance of weapon selection is something feedback rejected
6) The higher level you get, and thus better accuracy, the less often the fighter will benefit from his fighting style. Fail. Simple fail.
7) All objects being attacked, no matter how small, will be auto-smash. Has important ramifications for epic battle scenes where crystal balls need smashing on time. Or ropes need cutting to lower the drawbridge. It removes the agency of the dice from the game, which, being a game where dice are used when outcomes should be uncertain, is bad form.
8) It turns all enemies with HP < # of attacks per round * str mod into insta-kill minions, up to 20 HP. That was previously a level 20 fighter ability in a previous packet. Should give a clue. This is terrible news for wizards, both PC and NPC wizards, who will be insta-gibbed.
9) It completely negates all defensive fighting styles : AC +1 ? Useless. Granting disadvantage? Useless. Investing into 30 AC, with artifacts, spells, buffs, invisibility, disadvantage? Useless
Actually, it basically means a fighter in full plate and magic is no better defended from incoming damage occurring than a naked, prone, disarmed and helpless princess on the floor.
10) If you have less than X (mentioned above) HP vs a foe with this ability, your armor is useless, as you will die no matter what, anyway. Ever single time.
11) There is no point in rolling to-hit or damage when a fighter attacks a foe he knows has less than his GWF damage. This can be 20, or it could be 50, 60 per round. Insta-kill terminators, here we come!
12) There is nothing specifically relating to the use of two-handed weapons even hinted at in the style. It could easily apply to any other weapon type, TWF, S&B, bare-hands.
13) It says you miss with your weapon, but your weapon does damage. Not you doing damage, your weapon doing the damage. Since the weapon missed, how is this possible? Doesn't bother explaining (it can't, because it's nonsense)
14) It makes a mockery of the english language, basic logic, and basic physics, and forces you to interpret HP as being essentially a meaningless stat. Contradictory definitions = meaningless.
15) Wizards have unerring striking in a daily spell, Magic Missile, not a cantrip. This is essentially an at-will Magic Missile for fighters, mechanically. Actually better since it can potentially do much more damage. So it fails on a balance level against an iconic wizard spell, which currently costs them a daily slot to use.
16) Wizard cantrips do not do damage on a failed saving throw, and thus never miss. Why should fighters get that? They already get multiple attacks per round to scale their damage
17) Spells with saving throws that are succeeded by the target are still within the area of effect of the spell. The analogy is that they hit, but roll less damage. This mechanic is like a spell with NO saving throw for zero damage, no matter defensive abilities like Evasion.
18) In the last round of battle, every monster from the lowest kobold, to the greatest dragon, stands a good chance of being auto-killed without any dice rolls, precisely in the most dramatic possible moment of their existence. Removing dramatic tension in epic death scenes, and nail-biting will he / won't he be killed this round, is one of the cornerstones of D&D fun. Finishing off that dragon with a lame auto-damage mechanic is probably the thing that bothers me the most about this. In the last round of battle, at low HP, a dragon is no tougher to kill than a naked, blind, and gagged kobold.

Any additional flaws? I intend to write this as an open letter and hound the designers until they respond to each bullet point one by one.

If you discover valid reasons why any item here does not belong on this list, please discuss below.

 
Last edited:

JRRNeiklot

First Post
There's a significant amount of people who seem to detest damage on a miss. Some people like it, and many just don't care either way. I don't think many of those who like the mechanic really feel that strongly about it. The inverse is not true. That's a good reason to ditch the mechanic. On a less pro 4e forum, I'd wager the percentage of people who strongly dislike the mechanic is much higher.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
There's a significant amount of people who seem to detest damage on a miss. Some people like it, and many just don't care either way. I don't think many of those who like the mechanic really feel that strongly about it.

On the contrary... since the rule is currently in the game, what's more likely is that the people who like it don't feel the need to post reiterating it. I love the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic... but I don't feel the need to crow about it in every thread that it gets brought up. If Ad/Dis ever got removed from the game... that's when I'd be here online showing my dismay over it.
 

There's a significant amount of people who seem to detest damage on a miss. Some people like it, and many just don't care either way. I don't think many of those who like the mechanic really feel that strongly about it. The inverse is not true. That's a good reason to ditch the mechanic. On a less pro 4e forum, I'd wager the percentage of people who strongly dislike the mechanic is much higher.

1 - This is a pro 4e forum?

2 - I'm not sure your position is correct. I'm a singular datapoint as a 4e advocate but every 4e player that I know is a huge fan of martial damage on a miss. To the extent that there is some non-overlap between 4e advocates and 13th Age advocates, those players also (must) appreciate martial damage on a miss.

3 - This thread is derivative of the HP paradigm and general combat abstraction...which basically means this thread has absolutely 0 chance of going anywhere. HP is abstraction of multiple (already abstracted components) + attack roll as abstraction of multiple vectors of a combat interval vs HP as mostly meat + attack roll as binary, singular event within a combat interval. Never the twain shall meet (meat?).
 

ForeverSlayer

Banned
Banned
1 - This is a pro 4e forum?

2 - I'm not sure your position is correct. I'm a singular datapoint as a 4e advocate but every 4e player that I know is a huge fan of martial damage on a miss. To the extent that there is some non-overlap between 4e advocates and 13th Age advocates, those players also (must) appreciate martial damage on a miss.

3 - This thread is derivative of the HP paradigm and general combat abstraction...which basically means this thread has absolutely 0 chance of going anywhere. HP is abstraction of multiple (already abstracted components) + attack roll as abstraction of multiple vectors of a combat interval vs HP as mostly meat + attack roll as binary, singular event within a combat interval. Never the twain shall meet (meat?).

Saying this thread isn't going to go anywhere does what exactly?

We are already fully aware of the abstraction of hit points but this mechanic goes beyond abstraction to the realm of nonsense.
 

JRRNeiklot

First Post
1 - This is a pro 4e forum?

Yes. It's no secret Enworld ties itself - or has so far - to the most current edition.


2 - I'm not sure your position is correct. I'm a singular datapoint as a 4e advocate but every 4e player that I know is a huge fan of martial damage on a miss. To the extent that there is some non-overlap between 4e advocates and 13th Age advocates, those players also (must) appreciate martial damage on a miss.

My point exactly.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top