Uh... since when was this an issue.

[Evenglare]

Clearly I haven't been keeping up with 5th edition as much as I should be I'm sure. But Damage on a Miss.... why did this suddenly blow up? I mean, 13th age has this and I literally heard NOTHING negative about it. Then 5th edition does it and it's the worst thing ever apparently? Why was this not brought up with other games? Did I just miss it or something?

 

[Morrus]

It was unpopular with some in 4E, too. So a few years. Blew up again with these threads when WotC mentioned it was coming back in 5E.

 

[Tovec]

As for why it is in 13th age and not 'blown up' like it did with 5e I have a theory.

Reason 1:
With these discussions it seemed fairly well split for those in favour of the mechanic liking 4e generally speaking and those who did not disliking 4e or at least preferring other editions. And 13th age being popular with 4th edition players and less so with people who disliked 4e. So, 13th age has a mechanic that people who like 13th age (and also 4e) approve of and so it didn't blow up. If Pathfinder had done something similar (in the same way, I'm not trying to reignite this powder keg) I imagine there would be some outrage since the people who like Pathfinder already seem to dislike this mechanic.

Put another way, if 13th age had broken the other way on DOAM then it would have been more surprising and would have raised a larger stink.

Reason 2:
13th age doesn't get as much coverage as 5e. It simply isn't as popular. Even so, there is a 13th age labeled thread here I believe.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In 13th Age, it isn't a class ability that you select. It's pretty much embedded in the game. Everyone does damage every time they attack (with some small-niche exceptions). So a lot of the issues disappear, because it's not a thing that someone learns how to do, it's just assumed that whenever you attack you wear down your opponent at least a little. The term "miss" becomes something of a misnomer and the balance and gameplay implications are still questionable, but at least there's some logic and consistency there that's absent in the D&D version.

Also, 13th Age isn't D&D, doesn't get as much attention, and doesn't carry the same expectations.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Personally, I was wondering when we'd get around to deleting this no-longer-necessary subforum.

 

[Tovec]

Personally, I was wondering when we'd get around to deleting this no-longer-necessary subforum.

I personally figured it was necessary until after the 5e book release. I'm expecting this issue and all manner of other issues to resurface once we see the finalized form of the books and mechanics. They're dormant at the moment only because we aren't continuously fed information via the playtest packets, but once the actual books come out people will come to complain about what did/didn't make the cut.

Granted at that point it'll be too late to change anything but it will happen all the same.

 

[Emerikol]

13th Age unapologetically dives into the 4e philosophy tent sans the tactical combat. I'd rather play it than 4e because the classes are at least different but I'd never choose it over pre-4e D&D or even Pathfinder. They are what they are and they aren't keeping it a secret. They are the home for at least some disaffected 4e players.

I bought the basic book mainly to mine it for campaign ideas. Some of their fluff is not bad and some of their ideas on skills via backgrounds are innovative. The system though is not for me. I think most D&D'ers who think like me know that and feel no need to bash a game that is just another game.

The intense war over D&D is one of "ownership". The fans who grew up with the game from almost day one resent the game getting turned into something it has never been before and thus you have warfare. Right or wrong, I'm not judging. I'm just explaining why 13th Age gets a pass and D&D 5e and 4e do not.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Just yesterday I was happy that this subforum didn't have a single post since March 27th. Well, this thread isn't ranty.

I personally figured it was necessary until after the 5e book release. I'm expecting this issue and all manner of other issues to resurface once we see the finalized form of the books and mechanics. They're dormant at the moment only because we aren't continuously fed information via the playtest packets, but once the actual books come out people will come to complain about what did/didn't make the cut.

Granted at that point it'll be too late to change anything but it will happen all the same.

I suspect this subforum will vanish anyway. Whenever a new edition comes up, there's some kind of edition war. The moderators have to tamp it down. Maybe 5e will get its own subforum. (If worst comes to worst, maybe edition warring in it's entirety will have its own subforum, but I think the problems were caused by only a small number of people.)

Clearly I haven't been keeping up with 5th edition as much as I should be I'm sure. But Damage on a Miss.... why did this suddenly blow up? I mean, 13th age has this and I literally heard NOTHING negative about it. Then 5th edition does it and it's the worst thing ever apparently? Why was this not brought up with other games? Did I just miss it or something?

Damage on a miss wasn't universally popular or unpopular, and various polls showed a split between those who liked it and those who didn't. Having said that, I think most people on both sides didn't think much of it one way or another. People who don't like 4e rarely point at Reaping Strike (a damage on a miss at-will) as the main reason for disliking it. People who don't like 3e or an older edition don't bemoan the lack of a martial damage on a miss option generally. I can think of plenty of weakpoints of those editions that have nothing to do with damage on a miss.

Unfortunately, a small number of contributors to this website were virulently against damage on a miss, and started creating multiple threads on the main D&D board attacking the issue. I think these people were generally fans of 5e but didn't want any 4e or "unrealistic" rules in it, but I can't say for sure because I put all those people on my ignore list.

As for 13th Age, it's drawing mainly upon 4e fans, specifically those who wanted faster, slightly less complex combat. Not every 4e fan is actually a fan of martial damage on a miss, but most aren't going to drop the game like a hot rock due to that as to them it's not a big deal. Damage on a miss does come up more often in 13th Age than in 4e, because literally every martial attack does this. I doubt 13th Age would be less popular if it didn't have damage on a miss. I presume the designers wanted to ensure that missed attack rolls weren't terrible. (Missed attacks come up a lot, early in battles, due to 13th Age's different math.)

 

[Emirikol]

Will it be pretty easy to house rule out? Seems kind of like just existing fo accounting sake. I didnt know it was even in 13th A' , but we never got that thick into the rules, and we didnt playtest 5e that far.

jh

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Will it be pretty easy to house rule out?

Probably. The few who really hated the concept seemed offended that the purity of D&D was contaminated with damage on a miss though. There's even a thread about whether damage on a miss might stop someone from buying D&D Next.