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

[pemerton]

It'd be much simpler to just grant a flat bonus to all attack rolls (within the limits imposed by bounded accuracy).

Those two things are in tension. And do not generate any distinctive flavour. Auto-damge both conforms to bounded accuracy, and gives the character who has it a distinctive flavour: s/he is a relentless wearer-down of opponents.

I do see this mechanic as an insult to the game's history and all the fans out there, who, like me, do not like being told that our playstyle (which happens to be the default, original playstyle this game has supported for nearly 40 years), is invalid and no longer supported

For the past 5 years the published version of D&D has been 4e, which is replete with damage on a miss effects, including on at-will fighter powers.

Also, process-sim is not the default playstyle for the game. And I quoted from Gygax's DMG in one of these threads indicating that the attack roll is not a process sim mechanic but rather a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic.

The only thing I see that's hyperbolic was the claim to take Bounded Accuracy seriously in the same game where 1st level fighters can effectively hit any monster in the game without fail, every time, and then turn around and pretend like all playstyles are being supported.

<snip>

Simulationism is not possible in a game where human fighters cannot miss nimble, invisible targets with a huge, heavy axe, ever.

Part of the point of this mechanic is that it doesn't undermine bounded accuracy. It keeps to hit bonuses within a (comparatively) narrow range. It is a way of increasing average damage by lifting the floor rather than the ceiling.

in D&D, fighters have never had what amounts to as perfect accuracy, and nor should they.

Being guaranteed to wear your opponent down notably in 6 seconds of fighting is not "perfect accuracy". Perhaps they parried every blow, yet nevertheless were worn down.

And before you say " Magic Missile", that's always been a daily spell, and magical, and an explicit exception.

Except in 4e, where it's a somewhat default wizard at-will.

People who don't care about consistency in game rules have really no business contributing to their creation, as far as I'm concerned.

And now we get the obligatory remark that those who like it don't care about consistency.

A year of listening to promises about being inclusive to many playstyles then they put this in there.

Perhaps because they're including many playstyles.

I don't like having those player-fiat abilities, and I don't like seeing them used. And certainly not every single round.

I gather that you don't want to be inclusive of many playstyles.

Damage-on-a-miss is wrong for me, it's wrong for D&D, and it's wrong for America.

Whatever. I'm in Australia.

 

[Mistwell]

I can't speak for others, but for me, yes. I would be annoyed (not offended) if it were in the book and not part of "effects on a miss" module. If a mechanic is used in the standard rules, then it's a standard mechanic that designers can use elsewhere. I have no problem with such things in a clearly optional system, that's the point of modules. They allow controversial elements to be developed in such a way that they best suit the needs of those that want them, and don't affect those that don't.

How does it affect you, if you choose to not use it and have alternatives already which are acceptable?

 

[Manbearcat]

Whatever. I'm in Australia.

This entire thread has, predictably, devolved (well you can't really devolve when your genesis is consistent with your current evolutionary track) into badwrongfun, segregate the badwrongfun so I don't see, taste, touch, smell, "feel" its existence within a mile of my game. So, again, not very productive.

However. As an opportunity for this terribly amusing retort, I retract my position that this (3rd of its kind?) thread was not productive. Mea culpa, crow eaten, etc.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

How does it affect you, if you choose to not use it and have alternatives already which are acceptable?

Because the rules are more than just tools, but also a description of how things work. If damage on a miss is a standard mechanic, then merely by existing it modifies what the rules represent.

But, mostly, by being a standard mechanic, it can show up in more areas of the system. I'm not going go through and remove individual elements from the game. I'm too lazy for that. I'd rather they not be there in the first place, instead being set aside for those who want them. That way, those that want them can get a more robust module that requires minimal effort to add.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

This entire thread has, predictably, devolved (well you can't really devolve when your genesis is consistent with your current evolutionary track) into badwrongfun, segregate the badwrongfun so I don't see, taste, touch, smell, "feel" its existence within a mile of my game. So, again, not very productive.

However. As an opportunity for this terribly amusing retort, I retract my position that this (3rd of its kind?) thread was not productive. Mea culpa, crow eaten, etc.

It's not declaring badwrongfun to ask that elements I don't like be made into a module so that everyone can more easily play a game they enjoy. Optional modules don't have to be tempered to be acceptable to others, so they better serve the needs of those who want them while not affecting those that don't.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This entire thread has, predictably, devolved (well you can't really devolve when your genesis is consistent with your current evolutionary track) into badwrongfun, segregate the badwrongfun so I don't see, taste, touch, smell, "feel" its existence within a mile of my game. So, again, not very productive.

However. As an opportunity for this terribly amusing retort, I retract my position that this (3rd of its kind?) thread was not productive. Mea culpa, crow eaten, etc.

Please don't throw the "badwrongfun" card and think that it's going to magically win the thread.

It's all about a mechanic that many people find they don't like it for what ever reason.

These kind of mechanics generate a bad and wrong kind of fun for me so I want it removed.

 

[pemerton]

It's not declaring badwrongfun to ask that elements I don't like be made into a module so that everyone can more easily play a game they enjoy. Optional modules don't have to be tempered to be acceptable to others, so they better serve the needs of those who want them while not affecting those that don't.

This doesn't answer my question, though - why is the "gritty" module, or the "process sim" module, or however it might best be labelled, the optional thing?

Because my concern is the same as yours:

the rules are more than just tools, but also a description of how things work. If damage on a miss is a standard mechanic, then merely by existing it modifies what the rules represent.

If damage on a miss is relegated to an optional module then I am going to get rules that adopt, as a default, a process-sim outlook. Which will mean that I have to contort my game to get it to work.

In case it's not clear, I'm not saying that my interests should outweigh your interests. Rather, I'm trying to point out that our circumstances are strictly parallel, and hence that if you think a module is no good for you, then you should be able to see why it's no good for me either.

Frankly, I don't see why including another offensive/aggressive option besides auto-damage - which both I and [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] have flagged multiple times upthread or on the other threads (the blend together in my mind) - isn't enough. That way everyone can get what they want from the game.

And yes, on my approach my sorts of options will turn up in other places. So will yours. We can each just not take the options aimed at the other person.

 

[Paraxis]

Please don't throw the "badwrongfun" card and think that it's going to magically win the thread.

It's all about a mechanic that many people find they don't like it for what ever reason.

These kind of mechanics generate a bad and wrong kind of fun for me so I want it removed.

Many well maybe, but not enough Mearls has already tweeted when asked about it that it was polling well in the play test feedback.

These kind of mechanics generate a good and right king of fun for me so I want it to stay and even become more prevalent.

This mechanic does interact with other rules and will probably continue to do so a few powers are worded that they do an extra effect when the target takes damage not on a hit, colossus slayer and hunter's mark are just two.

Edit: I made a list of all the things I could find that would work on a miss while using GWF

Cool abilities and spells that work with damage on a miss

Favored Enemy: Colossus Slayer ability Slayer’s Momentum +1d6
Favored Enemy: Horde Breaker ability Horde Slayer +1d8
Bard ability: Call to battle it only works with a damage roll so you need to have bonus damage dice from another source first so you have some dice to roll. +1d4
Ranger Spell: Hunter’s Mark +1d6
Feat: Charger +5 damage
Weapon: It works when you throw a spear or trident
Magic Item: Dwarven thrower, not the extra damage but a dwarven thrower is a ranged & versatile d10 base so a little higher then the spear
Magic Item:Holy Avenger when attuned to a paladin and used two-handed +2d10 to fiends & undead

So a ranger/paladin using a holy avenger two handed fighting a balor with hunters mark cast can rush in and do the following rolling a 1 on every single attack. Let’s assume for the sake of this conversation he has a bard ally who is 13th level since you know fighting a balor.

Let’s face it with multiclassing into fighter for action surge, or war cleric, and haste it could be a ton of attacks. But let’s assume every attack is a natural ‘1’.

Str mod + 1d6 colossus slayer + 1d6 hunters mark + 2d10 holy avenger + 1d10 call to battle
[5+3d10+2d6] = 28 average damage 10 minimum and 47 maximum

I guess this high level fighter/ranger/cleric/paladin might have a belt of storm giant strength and an ioun stone so he could have a 30 strength score and be doing an extra 5 damage on a miss, but that would be going Full Monty Hall and you never go Full Monty Hall.

I don’t know about you all but I think that would be one hell of a story, the night you killed a balor with a string of natural ‘1’s.

What if any other things are in the play test packet can we combine with damage on a miss.

 

[urLordy]

What I've come to realize over the last few years is that verisimilitude isn't a cognitive thing. It's not about elaborate explanations of how mechanic X simulates game-world concept Y. That stuff doesn't matter. Verisimilitude is about presenting a facade that does not cause players, in the heat of the game, to question what's going on.

What I've come to realize is that arguments against damage on a miss from a believability aspect is about a feeling, and the truth is that a lot of people don't take feelings as seriously. It's hard to argue for the authority of a feeling. I actually sympathize being in the wife's shoes trying to relate emotional angst to a husband in rational mode. Given that, I think those arguing against the believability of damage-on-a-miss are doing about as a good a job as it gets.

 

[Umbran]

It is insulting...

I do see this mechanic as an insult to the game's history...

A metaphorical slap in the face...

Damage-on-a-miss is wrong for me, it's wrong for D&D, and it's wrong for America.

Amen

It is time to bring down the level of rhetoric in this thread about three notches, folks.

Do remember, we are talking about rules details about how we pretend to be elves. This is about a hobby game we use for entertainment in leisure time. Please keep that in perspective.

Thanks, all.