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

[Manbearcat]

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

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

It points out the obvious.

 

[Burninator]

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.

Indeed.

The definition of HP is irrelevant to the phrase "When I miss you with my sword my sword damages you"

People use the word abstraction incorrectly, to allow HP's abstraction to "abstractify" by proxy the words that are used around it. If one attempts to narrate the effect of this mechanic using casual language, you are forced to not use the term "I missed you" and "with my sword so that causes you damage" in the same sentence.

It is obvious nonsense on its face. Abstractions are meant to reduce complexity, not increase it, and certainly cannot make false statements true, or impossible things possible.

A triangle is abstract, but that doesn't mean, therefore that you can say, it's SO abstract that I can say "my triangles have 4 sides". The abstraction itself cannot change the truth value of things its abstracting. It can render them meaningless nonsense, sure, when there is a contradiction between abstract concepts. But in science and engineering, when those contradictions are found, they are correctly identified as errors, and promptly corrected. Not defended ad nauseam.

Abstraction does not allow one to say anything can be true if you're sufficienctly "vague". Actually abstraction is often less vague, that's the whole point. Hit points being abstract, the designer says in his QA defense of this, allows you to handwave that the foe is tired. So then, how can it kill foes? You can't kill or even hurt or damage a foe with your weapon, unless that weapon is making contact. If it isn't, then it's just tiring them, and you can't easily kill someone by tiring them, especially not if they would otherwise have no trouble running all day long.

 

[Kobold Stew]

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

Thanks for this list. Three of the points you raise are, in my view, very strong. None has been raised in the discussion so far as far as I can tell.

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

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 is certainly true that there would be more hostility to this specific mechanic if it existed more widely among opponents (4); and the logic of (6) is tight; and it is harder to maintain the usual understanding of hit points with an object (7), and it might make sense for the effect to work only against creatures.

Thank you for this, genuinely.

The other points are too laden with vitriol and assumptions to be persuasive. I see them either as an imposition of one specific narrative (among many) on the mechanical situation (2, 14, 18), an irrelevant example (3, 8, 11, 16, 17), or a misrepresentation (5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15).

You have some strong arguments here: you shouldn't let them drown amongst much weaker ones.

 

[Burninator]

It points out the obvious.

It's not obvious to Rodney Thompson, obviously

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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

lol, no. You're confusing "Nonsense that I haven't had years to internalize and rationalize" with general "nonsense."

Let's look at how hit points work in every edition: They're an abstraction of luck, skill, dodgitude, stamina, whatever. Except that there are a myriad of situations in which hit points are clearly 'meat points,' like sneak attacks, specific damage types, falling, coup de grace, etc..

If you spent a fraction of the time and mental energy on making sense of game details you haven't yet justified to yourself, rather than spawning numerous argumentative threads, you'd be honkey-dorey!

 

[Raith5]

It's pretty funny what people get flabbergasted by:

Hit points and damage are abstract...except when they're not. (Crits, sneak attacks, specific damage types, falling, ect..) "I've been rationalizing this stuff since day one, so it's A-okay! Also because tradition!"

Some attacks deal half damage on a miss. "Booo! Unbelievable!"

I dont understand the 4 threads worth of angst about this.

I dont think there is any remotely unrealistic about damage on a miss. I think skilled fighters can (and do) wear their opponents down in real life. A good example would be something like boxing where a barrage of blows wears the opponent down - successful dodges and blocks still hurt and do some damage.

FWIW I think there are a couple of points in this video clip about Muhammad Ali where he just wears down his opponents without getting a clear strike in.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I dont understand the 4 threads worth of angst about this.

I dont think there is any remotely unrealistic about damage on a miss. I think skilled fighters can (and do) wear their opponents down in real life. A good example would be something like boxing where a barrage of blows wears the opponent down - successful dodges and blocks still hurt and do some damage.

FWIW I think there are a couple of points in this video clip about Muhammad Ali where he just wears down his opponents without getting a clear strike in.

What does that have to do with not achieving success because that is what a "miss" is.

 

[Burninator]

Thanks for this list. Three of the points you raise are, in my view, very strong. None has been raised in the discussion so far as far as I can tell.

It is certainly true that there would be more hostility to this specific mechanic if it existed more widely among opponents (4); and the logic of (6) is tight; and it is harder to maintain the usual understanding of hit points with an object (7), and it might make sense for the effect to work only against creatures.

Thank you for this, genuinely.

The other points are too laden with vitriol and assumptions to be persuasive. I see them either as an imposition of one specific narrative (among many) on the mechanical situation (2, 14, 18), an irrelevant example (3, 8, 11, 16, 17), or a misrepresentation (5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15).

You have some strong arguments here: you shouldn't let them drown amongst much weaker ones.

Thank you for your critiques. What are some of the things that I've missed from this forum? I want to make a solid, comprehensive list.

18 is really the number 1 for me though, I don't like that the dice have less chance of altering the specific round # a foe is killed in, later in the battle rather than earlier, where the monsters aren't threatened to go under 0 due to this ability alone.

I can easily see a fighter with a halberd and polearm master, having 5 attacks with this, and walking up to each foe that he knows or suspects has currently less than 25 HP and just removes them from play, without rolling a single D20. (indeed, what would be the point, it would be a foregone conclusion that he can finish off any foes he wants to, at-will, just by standing next to them)

I don't want any monster to be killed by auto-damage, it's lame and removed that "kill shot" which is what I love about playing fighters. It's very satisfying and dramatic. Auto-win is not.

It's funny they removed auto-success from skills in a previous packet, since feedback showed people didn't like not having any possibility of failure, and then move that from a rogue ability to a fighter one, for attacks. Completely missing the point. Auto-win and auto-fail mechanics are only apt when the outcome should be certain (such as trivial tasks like climbing stairs not requiring dex checks, or attempting completely impossible things like jumping over a building), not during combat. The actual round # that foes perish in, is in actuality, the only stat that really matters. So this ability gives a huge meta-game advantage, when a fighter can guarantee the removal from the board of certain creatures, and that certainty changes the nature of the game, to something it is, IMO, not meant to be.


Dice rolls should matter. Dice rolls should dictate when you die, or when you kill.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Indeed.

The definition of HP is irrelevant to the phrase "When I miss you with my sword my sword damages you"

People use the word abstraction incorrectly, to allow HP's abstraction to "abstractify" by proxy the words that are used around it. If one attempts to narrate the effect of this mechanic using casual language, you are forced to not use the term "I missed you" and "with my sword so that causes you damage" in the same sentence.

It is obvious nonsense on its face. Abstractions are meant to reduce complexity, not increase it, and certainly cannot make false statements true, or impossible things possible.

A triangle is abstract, but that doesn't mean, therefore that you can say, it's SO abstract that I can say "my triangles have 4 sides". The abstraction itself cannot change the truth value of things its abstracting. It can render them meaningless nonsense, sure, when there is a contradiction between abstract concepts. But in science and engineering, when those contradictions are found, they are correctly identified as errors, and promptly corrected. Not defended ad nauseam.

Abstraction does not allow one to say anything can be true if you're sufficienctly "vague". Actually abstraction is often less vague, that's the whole point. Hit points being abstract, the designer says in his QA defense of this, allows you to handwave that the foe is tired. So then, how can it kill foes? You can't kill or even hurt or damage a foe with your weapon, unless that weapon is making contact. If it isn't, then it's just tiring them, and you can't easily kill someone by tiring them, especially not if they would otherwise have no trouble running all day long.

Exactly!

If getting tired is the issue then you should be losing HP every time you swing your weapon, or side step those vicious attacks etc...

 

[herrozerro]

I don't want any monster to be killed by auto-damage, it's lame and removed that "kill shot" which is what I love about playing fighters. It's very satisfying and dramatic. Auto-win is not.

So lets remove half damage on a save spells as well. it's the exact same problem. If a monster is low enough a wizard just has to say "I cast X spell. Half damage is more than the monsters HP so it's dead."