maybe espousing the virtues of 4e isn't the best solution when trying to sell 5e
I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
I wasn't "espousing the virtues of 4e". I was answering a question about how DoaM worked in 4e, including making the point that I was not (and still am not) aware of any balance problems that it has caused. (Contrast, say, charging, where I understand that there are feat and item combos that do cause balance problems, though I've not seen them first-hand.)
Nor was I trying to sell 5e. That's WotC's job. I haven't got a horse in the 5e race.
Balance wasn't really addressed, as it isn't the issue being addressed now either. On the contrary, 4e is seen by many of its detractors as TOO balanced.
So you agree with me that DoaM in 4e does not create balance issues. Which is what I asserted in the post you objected to. So what is your objection again?
The reason I'm asserting that is because that is how it works for every other martial based attack. No other martial attack that succeeds represents a LACK of wounding, just as no other martial attack that fails to succeed represents a GAIN of wound. So, yes I am ALWAYS saying that the game works that way - EXCEPT this one mechanic for this one class which goes completely counter to that assumed base.
Why would you assume something which you know to be false?
Some spells in AD&D allow a save for half. Others allow a save to negate all damage. When I first started playing I assumed that all spells which allowed a saving throw for damage avoidance did half damage on a miss. Then I learned that for some spells, a saving throw negates all damage. And for other spells, damage is determined by an attack roll rather than a saving throw. Hence I corrected my assumption.
By the way, plenty of martial attacks that succeed represent a LACK of wounding. For instance, a hit with a dagger for 1 hp, against a dragon with 300 hp, represents a LACK of wounding. Whatever exactly has happened to that dragon, it has not been wounded!
The game contains a SINGLE damage on a miss mechanic, the one we are debating. Yes. You can't then use that single mechanic to say the game works a certain way.
Well I can, and I have. I'll note that only one of us is having trouble making sense of the game as actually presented, including DoaM. The fact that I'm not having any trouble suggests, to me at least, that my understanding of how the game works is the sounder one.
excluding this singular ability the game gets better and remains more consistent and coherent. With this ability it becomes LESS of those traits.
As I've said, there is no incoherence or inconsistency unless you adopt a premise which the game itself neither asserts nor implies. You're making a rod for your own back.
With Damage on a Miss, you describe it as causing the kobold Yto trip and fall over and die.
You could describe it that way for damage on a hit, too. In the real world, people in combat suffer injury from all sorts of things, of which being skewered by their opponents is only one.
I simply suggested the "wrongfooted and falls over, hitting its skull on a rock in the process" as one possible account of how someone might die without actually being touched by a weapon.
Another possible narration, of course, is that the fighter lops off the kobold's head with a deft swing of the greatsword. You can describe it however you want, changing from moment to moment as the whim takes you!
But a fighter who doesn't have this ability who, for example, specializes in trip and thus causes a kobold to trip NEVER has the same chance of death that this fighter with DoaM gets EVERY SINGLE ROUND. It is broken and nonsensical.
A fighter who specialises in longsword fighting, and who also specialises in Stealth, can
never get the chance to backstab or assassinate that a thief or assassin gets. A pious fighter, who learns all the prayers and rituals of his/her god, can never cast even as many cleric spells as a first level cleric. That sort of thing is an inevitable byproduct of a class-based game where different abilities are rationed out.
If you think it will upset the player of your trip fighter to narrate DoaM (or on a hit) as tripping the kobold over, then narrate it some other way.
I can understand that YOUR playstyle preference doesn't care as you seem to refluff, or narrate, or basically completely alter the effect after the dice rolls.
What does this sentence mean? What do you mean to "refluff" after the dice rolls? Refluff what? What do you mean "completely alter the effect after the dice rolls"? Alter what effect? I can read the words, but they're empty. You're not actually describing anything.
As for "narrating after the dice rolls", when do you narrate the effects of an attack roll? Before the dice are rolled? In that case, what do you use the dice for? In my game the dice are used to determine the outcome of action declarations, so until the dice have been rolled and the results of those rolls tabulated the outcome can't be narrated.
I understand why you are participating in this conversation and why your position never seems to move. But that doesn't mean that your position is inherently correct or better - just more rigid and inflexible.
More rigid and inflexible than whom? You - who are insisting that (i) the game should be interepreted on the assumption that it does not contain DoaM and then (ii) complains that, when you do it like this, DoaM is incoherent?
More rigid and inflexible than [MENTION=6776483]DDNFan[/MENTION], who is going to stop playing a game he enjoys if published rules, that he can download for free from the publisher, contain DoaM?
pemerton said:
As to the fact that the fighter with DoaM is able to kill every kobold that s/he engages in combat, I regard that as on a par with the fact that a mage with fireball is able to kill every kobold that s/he catches in the blast of a Burning Hands spell. Namely, it shows that some creatures in D&D die easily when confronted by competent opponents.
NO IT IS NOT. FALSE CLAIM. PERIOD. FULL STOP. YOU ARE WRONG.
Is this an example of flexibility and a lack of rigidity? I'll take notes!
The mage can fireball many opponents he meets. Many, maybe even most. But he cannot kill EVERY SINGLE ONE on the opening round of a fight with a single class ability 100% of the time.
Nor can a fighter with DoaM. At 1st level, for instance, that fighter has 1 attack per round, and hence can at most kill one opponent in that round.
At the VERY LEAST there are limits on spells per day, concentration checks, saves, class features that already exist to counter his spells, and terrain/line of sight concerns.
In the last version of the playtest there are no "concentration check" rules for casting Burning Hands (or Fireball). Both are single action spells.
Saving for half damage won't help a kobold against a spell that does more than double its hp.
Kobolds have no class features (whereas most monsters have a "class feature" that prevents them dying automatically to a GWF attack, namely, more than 5 hp).
Terrain and line of sight concerns are more severe for the fighter, who must actually close into melee in order to deploy his/her great weapon attack.
If you WANT to be able to kill hordes of monsters with a single spell then there is a class for that.
First, I think it's probably good for the game if fighters are good at fighting hordes of monsters. It fits with the whole Conan/Aragorn vibe.
Second, fighters in D&Dnext don't cast spells and don't get to kill "hordes" of targets with a single action - they peak at 4 attacks plus action surge - so a 20th level fighter can, in a single round, lay waste to 8 kobolds, which is probably about the same number a 1st level mage can kill with Burning Hands.
I think you are radically exaggerating the actual effects of DoaM.
I didn't attack the content of your character, I attacked the content of your comments.
You imputed to me something that I didn't say.
So, I'll retract nothing.
I added the sneeze part.
OK, so you in fact
admit that you attributed to me something I didn't say, but you won't withdraw the attribution. Can you explain why not?
But you DID give tripping over and dying from this ability as valid. I'll admit it was sarcastic (that may not have been well conveyed) but I'll retract nothing and certainly not apologize. You refluffed and I refluffed your refluff. Since mechanically they are exactly the same it makes no difference - actually why I use the sneeze example. It just points out how silly the mechanic is.
Well, Tovec, as it happens, in your game you have refluffed all longswords to sneezes, and all plate armour to ballet tutus! So your game is competely ridiculous - people die when hit by sneezes, but wearing ballet tutus helps protect them from sneezes (and from maces, too). What a stupid set of mechanics you use!
