D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[delericho]

I'm also not a fan of damage on a miss. It's not a deal-breaker, but it is a strike against an edition (or game) that includes it.

 

[urLordy]

Also, not a fan. Primarily because it opens the door to more mechanics in the same vein, and confuses my understanding of D&D Next's design philosophy which is to use rules that encourage more attention to what's happening in the game world. Damage on a miss is dangerously at the edge of moving towards rules that make combat confusing and encourage narration avoidance.

 

[herrozerro]

Also, not a fan. Primarily because it opens the door to more mechanics in the same vein, and confuses my understanding of D&D Next's design philosophy which is to use rules that encourage more attention to what's happening in the game world. Damage on a miss is dangerously at the edge of moving towards rules that make combat confusing and encourage narration avoidance.

Could you point me to anything that states that?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Yes, and we can come up with absurd examples of almost every single rule. does that stop up from using them? No.

True. However, when there is a massive on-going community argument over a rule, perhaps the absurd examples should be given a bit more weight. There is a reason so many people despise this mechanic. It may not be a problem in your game, in the same way LFQW wasn't a problem in a lot of people's games. But it was such a huge turn off for a large portion of the gaming community that something had to be done about it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm also not a fan of damage on a miss. It's not a deal-breaker, but it is a strike against an edition (or game) that includes it.

Ditto that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Really? that's how exception based games work! general rules are superceeded by specific rules.

Take any rule. Weapons needing to be drawn with a move action. Feats or abilities change this and let players play by different rules.

Feats as a rules element are all exception rules.

The type of action required to draw a weapon is on a lot smaller scope than the definition of a hit and a miss. Even when designing exceptions, it makes sense to manage that kind of thing.

For example, one could create an ability that said that instead of your strength modifier, you add your strength score to an attack. That would be exception-based design, right? It would also be a poorly written rule that is needlessly aberrant in the way it deviates from the core.

Even when designing specific character abilities that modifiy the core rules, parsimony is highly desirable.

More to the point, no one has ever explained what damage on a miss adds to the game, or what would be lost with its removal.

 

[herrozerro]

The type of action required to draw a weapon is on a lot smaller scope than the definition of a hit and a miss. Even when designing exceptions, it makes sense to manage that kind of thing.

For example, one could create an ability that said that instead of your strength modifier, you add your strength score to an attack. That would be exception-based design, right? It would also be a poorly written rule that is needlessly aberrant in the way it deviates from the core.

Even when designing specific character abilities that modifiy the core rules, parsimony is highly desirable.

More to the point, no one has ever explained what damage on a miss adds to the game, or what would be lost with its removal.

It adds a cool mechanic where a fighter can be dangerous to anyone, what is missing if it is removed is just a fighter's ability.

I also disagree the idea that this rule is smaller in scope. Both are rules that govern all characters.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Here's an additional thought -

The only place this rule seems to be an issue is this one power. There aren't a raft of special attacks or spells that "hit on a miss" this way. Why does this power exist? Because they needed a concept for "heavy weapon fighter" that wasn't overpowered. There's nothing about the concept that requires unstoppable damage.

Maybe they just didn't have a better idea for greatsword specialists?

 

[Kobold Stew]

Does this really need another thread?

We have a poll dating back to the first time the idea was introduced in the play test, here.

We have a thread, in which both views have been clearly expressed, here.

To claim

so many people despise this mechanic ... it was such a huge turn off for a large portion of the gaming community that something had to be done about it

simply does not ring true.

There is a small number of people who are very vocal in their opposition. Those people have views that are legitimate, and presumably have made their views known in the play test feedback. But they are not "so many" or "a large portion": the rule was tried in the summer of 2012; it was abandoned for a while, and then it cam back.

In all the discussion, has anyone found that it interfered with an actual game being played? Not that's been reported, that I remember.

 

[urLordy]

We have a poll dating back to the first time the idea was introduced in the play test, here.

34% don't like it for believability, which is not a majority but pretty significant in my book, especially for a core rule. Of those that say "believability is OK", we don't know what fraction think that believability is good, okay or just don't care. ~3% love it and won't play Next without it, but a greater amount ~8% hate it as a dealbreaker, and we don't know how many love or hate it without the dealbreaker. And of course, the poll is subject to self-selecting bias.