D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[herrozerro]

Nope.

Mechanics like these are like a virus or a cancer, they begin to spread throughout the game which would eventually cause me to change so much that I might as well build my own system.

I really like that mechanics that support my playstyle are represented as a cancer... Yay!

 

[Texicles]

I voted believable because I like, or don't dislike, the mechanic. As to the believability, meh.

I think a lot of this comes down to how fast and loose you like the HP abstraction to be, and perhaps that's reflective of how you like your games to feel. I like my (fantasy) games to feel fantastic, whimsical, magical, heroic, et. al.. I like my HP abstraction really abstract (possibly as a result). I don't really care for gritty games, but I imagine there's a correlation between the people who do and the people who want HP abstraction less abstract.

For the games I like, I can rationalize just about anything narratively and use abstract HP as a simple, representative mechanic. Level 1 wizard mauled to 0 HP by a housecat? Maybe he didn't really die but was so shamed by the experience that he returned to his library to study and tell wild tales about how he used to be an adventurer (until he took a tabby to the face).

Damage on a miss? Maybe that's bruises from dented armor, maybe it's "luck" running out, or maybe it was just such a near miss that the foe had a serious sphincter pucker moment, weakening his resolve and ultimately reducing the amount of fight he's got left in him.

If my real life becomes more fantastical (say, a dragon attacks my village), I'll probably rethink my stance on HP abstraction. Until then, the whole game (as I like to play it) is an abstraction, so I don't mind abstractions within my abstractions. Abstractception!

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I voted believable because I like, or don't dislike, the mechanic. As to the believability, meh.

I think a lot of this comes down to how fast and loose you like the HP abstraction to be, and perhaps that's reflective of how you like your games to feel. I like my (fantasy) games to feel fantastic, whimsical, magical, heroic, et. al.. I like my HP abstraction really abstract (possibly as a result). I don't really care for gritty games, but I imagine there's a correlation between the people who do and the people who want HP abstraction less abstract.

For the games I like, I can rationalize just about anything narratively and use abstract HP as a simple, representative mechanic. Level 1 wizard mauled to 0 HP by a housecat? Maybe he didn't really die but was so shamed by the experience that he returned to his library to study and tell wild tales about how he used to be an adventurer (until he took a tabby to the face).

Damage on a miss? Maybe that's bruises from dented armor, maybe it's "luck" running out, or maybe it was just such a near miss that the foe had a serious sphincter pucker moment, weakening his resolve and ultimately reducing the amount of fight he's got left in him.

If my real life becomes more fantastical (say, a dragon attacks my village), I'll probably rethink my stance on HP abstraction. Until then, the whole game (as I like to play it) is an abstraction, so I don't mind abstractions within my abstractions. Abstractception!

The problem, as has been pointed out, is that even the abstract argument falls apart under this mechanic. You say that it's bruises from dented armour. Well how do you describe it against something that isn't wearing armour, or how do you describe missing something but it dies anyway? Each time you come up with a reason as to why, there is another right behind it that contradicts that reasoning, and then that gets contradicted by another etc..

 

[urLordy]

I really like that mechanics that support my playstyle are represented as a cancer... Yay!

Subjective cancer? Yet another crack at Pandora's Box?

 

[herrozerro]

The problem, as has been pointed out, is that even the abstract argument falls apart under this mechanic. You say that it's bruises from dented armour. Well how do you describe it against something that isn't wearing armour, or how do you describe missing something but it dies anyway? Each time you come up with a reason as to why, there is another right behind it that contradicts that reasoning, and then that gets contradicted by another etc..

As already pointed out. This mechanic has no singular explanation. And as soon as you realize that things can have several different explanations nothing falls apart.

 

[D'karr]

As already pointed out. This mechanic has no singular explanation. And as soon as you realize that things can have several different explanations nothing falls apart.

Yep.

 

[tuxgeo]

I didn't vote, partly because I don't like the way the poll options are worded.

For my part, I dislike "damage on a miss"--but not because of believability. I view hit points as being more like "victory points": they are a way to score the game, in the sense of determining who wins at combat. In this sense, the combat portion of the game includes the concepts of "hit" and "miss," which are the sole types of outcomes of certain types of attacks: if your opponent hits you, that means he is getting closer to winning; but if he misses you, that means he isn't getting closer to winning. It's binary in nature, and the idea of "damage on a miss" muddies the waters of that otherwise simple, binary concept.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The mechanic does cause the hit point reasoning to break down and has
been proven many many times already.

I have already stated that this isn't a poll about balance. That was 4th editions problem, it was always about balance which caused things to fall apart.

So you begin by starting an edition war. Classy. You'll note I had said nothing about previous editions, and was only concerned with the testpack materials.

I think posters like you forget what role playing games are all about with a big emphasis on "role playing". When I play Monopoly, I don't think about a giant shoe owning a bunch of property, money, and goes to jail at times. RPGs are different.

Then, instead of responding to the substance of the post, you make an ad hominem attack ("posters like you")? And then you claim a superior understanding to "posters like [me]" of RPGs?

Shame on you.

You do not even take time to read your interlocutors before you respond with personal attacks.

Edit: From the OP: "Balance isn't an issue here, but just because something is balanced, doesn't make it good."

Had you read my post instead of simply responding with insulting characterization you would know that I cited this.

You've shown that you are not interested in open discussion: you are unwilling to admit the things you know to be the case, if only to get them out of the way to enable your stilted discussion and your skewed poll.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Oh yes, because 12 people not liking something is a great reason to remove it.

There's been an awful lot of histrionics devoted to the (approximately) twelve people who think fighters and wizards should be built the same way. Plus an entire rpg.

 

[herrozerro]

There's been an awful lot of histrionics devoted to the (approximately) twelve people who think fighters and wizards should be built the same way. Plus an entire rpg.

The thing I was getting at was the idea that 40% is a large percentage. Until you realize that it's only 12 people. Like I said early on in this thread. The numbers will get skewed to somehow portray this mechanic in a negative light.