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

[pemerton]

simply pick one of the other options for your fighter. There will be others that apply to a fighter with a big axe, like Defense, and Protection, and likely others in the final published book. Right now there are five options, and fully three of them apply to someone wielding a bix axe.

Thanks - I had missed that Protection didn't require a shield.

 

[wedgeski]

Despite the OP's stated bias, I agree with the conclusion that this subject is divisive enough that it shouldn't be in the core game. We're trying to unite the player-base with DDN, right? At least a bit?

For me, I see this from a purely mechanical/social standpoint. Damage-on-a-miss was always intended as a salve to firing off the huge Power and rolling really badly. That was its purpose. And in 4E, where combats can take a while and time between turns even longer, being able to affect the battle meaningfully on a "miss" was actually really good. It kept you engaged, it kept you useful, and it kept your eyes on the table. (Personally I had more respect for players who would try to set up advantages and hit bonuses before unleashing their Dailies, but that was just me!)

In a faster-moving game like 5E core, which is more akin to AD&D-speed combats, damage-on-a-miss just isn't needed for that purpose.

 

[D'karr]

You shouldn't make your decision based upon what I think about it.

I think you misunderstand my decision.

 

[Burninator]

I see this asserted a lot, but what's the evidence? I'm going to dislike such a game, for instance: I have zero interest in process-sim D&D.

D&D is a process sim, whether you admit it or not. D&D combat is a very rough combat simulator, but it is one.

Pretending like it isn't, in order to say you don't want new rules to support it simulation-worthy mechanics, when the game explicitly made a difference from the start between modelling magical effects and non-magical ones, does not really matter.

I write weapon collision and damage simulations all day long, and I can tell you, in games you can easily hack together stuff that appears realistic to the end user with little effort compared to modelling physics accurately would require.

This, however, is a mechanic that you could simply not model in a videogame without it being magical or spooky action at a distance. The weapon does not strike the target, so how does it damage me? It cannot. Making statements like "I don't want D&D to become a process sim" ignores the fact that it already is one, however imperfect.

Some of us want, in the course of the game's evolution, for it to make more sense, rather than less.

Damage on a miss is forcing everyone who wants to have a clear understanding of the action and have mechanics directly linked (associated) with game-events to not be able to play or enjoy the game.

Process sim is exclusionary : certain things, we know are not possible, like leaping over tall buildings. We'd have the same trouble with a fighter gaining the ability to jump 50 feet in the air too. To be inclusive of those of us who want our fighters to use plausible, human-achievable things (however extraordinary they may be), the game rules needs to exclude such mechanics that are IMPOSSIBLE to ignore how fake and impossible they are.

I don't need to take this style, but if someone else at the table does, it forces me to throw my hands in the air and makes it impossible for me to enjoy the game. Because every time they miss yet still do damage (without magic or any kind of sensible explanation, which there can't be since it's impossible for a non-god to never miss), my suspension of disbelief is destroyed.

There are plenty of classes with magical powers, this is not one of them. The closest analogy is a melee magic missile. It would be fine to include damage on a miss, on a class like a melee warlock or hexblade. The thing is, you have to call it magical. You don't get to put magic things in the game, give them to non-magical classes like the vanilla fighter, then claim to be inclusive towards D&D players of all stripes.

Your right to enjoy a mechanic is preserved if that mechanic is put in a magical class, but it must have that label if is it otherwise impossible. It effectively means a 1st level fighter cannot miss. I cannot support any set of D&D rules that includes this.

Quite aside from the innumerable other, non-simulationism points against it that I brought up. And there are many.

From the agency of the dice being removed, to the inversion of frequency of use the more accuracy a fighter achieves, thus using it less, to the fact that it makes the weapon moot, including whether it's magical. I mean, you get a magical weapon, if gives bonuses. Guess what, this ability does not benefit from them! A cleric's bless? Nope! It makes you use your fighting style LESS often.

There are dozens and dozens of scenarios aside from the druid flying through the gate, that took me two seconds to come up with. The point of that is that OAs are insta-stop for fleeing enemies who tend to flee when they are about to die. This mechanic is pure, unadulterated garbage from any point of view. It doesn't belong in D&D, period. And certainly not in the fighter class. It would still stick out like a sore thumb even if it did get pushed into the warlock exclusively, because no class should have a single feature that allows them to completely bypass ALL the normal rules of combat : AC, Adv/Dis, Blindness, Prone, benefits from magic weapons, benefits from weapon choice, etc. You use an artifact-level greatsword and it doesn't benefit your use of this ability one iota.

It's completely broken and bypasses all critical combat resolution mechanics and modifiers, except for your foe's current HP. Every other fighting style still uses AC as-is : Protector, Defensive, TWF. They all modify the use, not completely circumvent, of those game stats and mechanics. You know, the ones the designers painstakingly got us all to give them feedback on. Yeah, let's just ignore how D&D combat works entirely, let you skip to the front of the line, and bam, damage at-will with no roll.

Terrible, terrible mechanic.

 

[Burninator]

I just don't understand why you won't simply pick one of the other options for your fighter. There will be others that apply to a fighter with a big axe, like Defense, and Protection, and likely others in the final published book. Right now there are five options, and fully three of them apply to someone wielding a bix axe. If they simply had not included the Great Weapon Fighter option and you'd have to choose between Defense and Protection and never even knew about this ability, would you really be upset?

Why does this mere existence of this in the book, as an option you decide to not use, offend you so much? There are lots and lots of things I do not use in the books. They don't offend me, I just don't use them. If I am playing a wizard and I just don't like a spell - I simply don't select the spell. If this is an option for a fighter you don't like - just don't select that option.

What's the big deal? It bothers you that in other games out there, that you are not playing in, that people are using an option you don't like?

If I walk into a restaurant and ask for a cheeseburger, and they say it comes with mushrooms, I say can I have a tomato instead, they say no, but you can order the steak if you don't like mushrooms on your burger, would you eat there?

People who want to have characters who are good at wielding big swords offensively is not supported by saying "take Defensive or Protector instead"

That's not being generous or inclusive, that's a slap in the face. I don't go to restaurants that won't let me put my own toppings. A selection of 1 option offers no choice at all.

If I want to play the guy who is great with a two-handed sword, I have to take defensive fighting style? Seriously?

Damage-on-a-miss has NOTHING evocative about using two-hands on your sword. You could easily make apply it to anything else, just like you could give a +1 to attack rolls to any combat style. I.e. there is no good reason to not easily offer something like a +1 or 2x str mod on a hit, or a cleave effect, or something. I don't want to become a better fighter and use his style less and less often as I get better.

The mechanic is back-*wards in every single way.

 

[Halivar]

It should be like any player ability, and HOPEFULLY how you were running your 4E games (if you had them); they don't get to point at their sheet and say, "I use my Blah Blah Blah power." They have to state what they're doing, how the mechanics apply, or they have to do something else.

If they can come up with a compelling explanation of this ability, they get to use it. If not, then it will trouble you not.

 

[TwoSix]

D&D is a process sim, whether you admit it or not. D&D combat is a very rough combat simulator, but it is one.
<snip>
It's completely broken and bypasses all critical combat resolution mechanics and modifiers, except for your foe's current HP. Every other fighting style still uses AC as-is : Protector, Defensive, TWF. They all modify the use, not completely circumvent, of those game stats and mechanics. You know, the ones the designers painstakingly got us all to give them feedback on. Yeah, let's just ignore how D&D combat works entirely, let you skip to the front of the line, and bam, damage at-will with no roll.

Terrible, terrible mechanic.

No, no, tell us what you REALLY think!

 

[Burninator]

Nerd rage smash!!!

hehee, sorry for going a bit extreme there, but D&D Next is SO close to being great, yet this one mechanic sticks a fork into my eye, or rips out my beating heart and sets it on fire.

Yeah, even in a game with elves and polymorph and dragons and time stop and wish, I cannot accept that joe bloe fighter never can miss. It is really that annoying. I like the contrast between magical and non-magical classes, because when I play a non-magical one, I want to find a way to do stuff that's not just hand-wavey or automatic. I don't want to play the game on auto pilot, I need the narrative to make sense. Yes, magical fireballs that obey certain prescribed rules make sense, they follow those rules and magic allows impossible things to exist. It's part of the definition, so even in a fantasy game world there are rules to follow. When you mix magic and mundane together, you get magic. But you have to label it as such. The fighter specifically should exclude magical effects, or effects which could only possibly work via magic or divine agency.

I love the L&L about the Warlock, I think a mechanic like this that is anti-logical would make sense for a devil to bestow upon his hellish minions doing his bidding. That's great. But no one's under any illusions that what they do round by round is in fact magical in nature, and beyond the reach of ordinary mortals.

 

[Mistwell]

People who want to have characters who are good at wielding big swords offensively is not supported by saying "take Defensive or Protector instead"

I don't know which "people" you claim to be speaking for, but at least it seems you want an offensive option. OK so you'd be OK if there was an additional offensive option, even if this offensive option was still in the game? It hasn't sounded like that so far, but maybe you would be fine with that?

That's not being generous or inclusive, that's a slap in the face.

That's not a rationale thing to say, it's excessive and unnecessary hyperbole. Please stop. Just have a conversation. You don't need to pretend someone is metaphorically slapping you in the face because you don't like one option for one sub-class of one class.

this one mechanic sticks a fork into my eye, or rips out my beating heart and sets it on fire.

No, really. Please stop. All you are doing is making me discount your opinion. When you say you speak for others, and you then say stuff like this, all you're doing is making sure I know you don't speak for others - because others don't generally say way over the top ridiculous things over an issue like this.

If I want to play the guy who is great with a two-handed sword, I have to take defensive fighting style? Seriously?

You say that like it's self-explanatory why that is a bad thing. I have no clue why you think that is a bad thing. With bounded accuracy, the two defensive options are literally the best of all the five options for the fighter - mathematically, those are the "winners" of the bunch.

Regardless, as I said, you should be fine if they offer an additional offensive option, which doesn't replace this option but is just another option you could choose?

 

[Kobold Stew]

Regardless, as I said, you should be fine if they offer an additional offensive option, which doesn't replace this option but is just another option you could choose?

It's worth building on this a little bit. In a side-conversation with [MENTION=6747028]urLordy[/MENTION] yesterday, I suggested a few alternatives for the HWF.

There's several easy things they could do for HWF:
* +1 damage on a hit would probably not be seen as enough; +2 as too much.
* 1s and 2s on damage dice can be re-rolled
* 1s and 2s on damage dice count as a 3
* etc.

I've made no attempt to balance them, but I see that +1 damage is also in the suggestions offered by [MENTION=83533]Burninator[/MENTION] *(citation below).

So. Let's try to move forward.

For those who are excited to play a HWF: would you trade the (playtest) rule of STR damage on a miss for +1 damage on a hit?

I'm deliberately picking the low-ball option, and the mechanically least interesting option. It is a possibility that seems to meet all of the objections raised by those opposing this sort of rule, and it is singularly boring, even if it does mean that HWF will do more damage on every hit.

So -- be honest now -- who prefers this and wants to be a HWF?







*

Damage-on-a-miss has NOTHING evocative about using two-hands on your sword. You could easily make apply it to anything else, just like you could give a +1 to attack rolls to any combat style. I.e. there is no good reason to not easily offer something like a +1 or 2x str mod on a hit, or a cleave effect, or something. I don't want to become a better fighter and use his style less and less often as I get better.