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

[Burninator]

But there is no real debate, if you asked any schmoe off the street:

Q) If I swing my sword at you, and miss, can the sword hurt you?

They would say no. Every time.

Damage implies hurt. Hit implies damage (it even says it). Miss now implies damage? How? The sword must connect to hurt someone. I could stand an inch from a set of propeller blades whizzing by all day long, and NEVER die, for the same reason as a sword that misses cannot hurt me in real life, and should not hurt my character in the game. That's easy to model : they way it always has been, without mechanics like this turning the narration of the game on its head and forcing you to speak in orwellian doublespeak every time a fighter attacks.

Feedback also said people wanted a simple to understand and run game, with simple rules they get out of the way of the story. This rule sticks its absurd nose into the round-by-round narration of the game.

I don't even want it as an option anywhere, I want it purged from the rules like the insult to reason that it is. My desire to have a simple set of rules and game definitions that allow the game to be played in a similar fashion to the way it always has been, is not a fringe one, it's the default. Most feedback affirmed that.

Including rules like this will lead to arguments ("ban it! It's too fake! your guy never misses" "No! (insert some nonsense about abstraction making false statements true)", slow the game down, lead to bad feelings.

It puts the new edition firmly in the "nonsense and proud of it, and if you don't like it, too bad" category. It's not a surprise that it's being explained in two QA sessions in a row (clear sign that it's confusing people), by the guy who seems to be pushing it. Rodney Thompson. He gives good, sensible interview responses on many other topics, but his explanation was a total cop out non-exaplanation that meant nothing.

I can't say colors are "abstract", therefore BlackWhite. (read some 1984 if you wish to understand how pernicious the abuse of english terms can be).

I am actively, intellectually repelled by Newspeak / Doublespeak, which this forces the game of Dungeons and Dragons to be. The rest of the game doesn't attack my sense of reason, on a round by round basis, sure it has inconsistencies (HP being defined to model incommeasurable things), and outright inversions / contradictions (wearing armor should make you easier to hit, but harder to damage), but those things can be ignored.

I could previously ignore the definition of HP part modelling luck and stamina (which never made any sense), now I can ONLY use it to define as stamina when someone is damaged by this feature. But if it's stamina, why are those HP not restored after a VERY short breather? It makes no sense. I can run up my staircase ten times and get out of breath, then after 5 minutes my heart rate and breathing rate are back to normal. Not an hour later, and require medical attention.

It forces the game to be more contradictory than it already is, and that's a step in the wrong direction.

New editions of roleplaying games that rely on casual narration, should gradually FIX problems in narration, not create new ones willy nilly for no real benefit, and alienate 1/2 the playerbase in the process.

I really hope Mearls reads this. The majority (if it indeed it, this pool seems to contradict that) can be wrong. Ask any guy off the street the question I posed, someone who doesn't have and has no clue about HP or AC, and then realize that this rule forces you to refer to HP all the time, a concept that has no clear meaning.

The only reason Hit Points aren't wounds and nothing else, is because you can have 10x as many at level 10 as level 1. So it's a scaling issue causing realism issues. But I can easily re-interpret that as saying damage is proportional to level. Sure that's also irrational and false, but it's more easily waved over than abusing the casual use of english on a round by round basis. Problems in definitions are less critical if they can be ignored, not stick out like a sore thumb.

I cannot ignore the falsity of the statement "I miss the orc with my sword, but the sword still damages him". It is a GLARINGLY OBVIOUS rules bug that forces you to use false/impossible statements

 

[Burninator]

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.

Hello moderator, I apologize for going a bit over the top in the rhetoric, but I am passionate about this, and have spent a year of real time helping to playtest this game and I have a right to be pissed off that my favorite game is being ruined and made impossible to enjoy.

Saying it's about elves has nothing to do with the problems we have here. This problem would exist with two humans fighting each other, and no magic exists in the world.

I have played such campaigns before, and they were amongst the most interesting and unique.

 

[Umbran]

Hello moderator, I apologize for going a bit over the top in the rhetoric, but I am passionate about this, and have spent a year of real time helping to playtest this game and I have a right to be pissed off that my favorite game is being ruined and made impossible to enjoy.

Burninator, you've got a low post count, so maybe you've missed one of the usual rules - don't discuss moderation in-thread. If you want to discuss it, take it to e-mail or PM, please.

My statement stands. The "pretending to be elves" bit is about how this a game of "let's pretend" - humans, elves, hyperintelligent shades of the color blue, it doesn't matter - we are discussing entertainment play, not the weighty issues in which people's welfare is at stake. In the greater scheme of things in the world, the rules of a game played by only a niche market are not worth that kind of rhetoric.

Moreover, this place is dedicated to reasonable discussion, not impassioned verbal brawls. If your passion is overcoming your ability to be reasonable, it is time to step away. We don't take, "but I really *LOVE* it", as an excuse - because someone else will love it the other way.

 

[JeffB]

After 18 pages...I rest my case.

 

[Burninator]

After 18 pages...I rest my case.

Did you make a point, other than to say people should houserule the game if there are broken things in the packets?

We're providing negative feedback on a mechanic that has system-wide negative implications and ramifications, before it's too late, so they can correct it (by removing it entirely, ideally) :

To prevent stacking with GWF, any time you have a bonus to damage (in a game where damage scaling is the preferred way to scale player effectiveness), it must be worded specifically to only apply to "when you roll damage" instead of "when you deal damage", which is a gotcha of legalese complicated jargon that doesn't belong in a game that's meant to be simple to understand and play, with simple rules.

Gotchas are not simple. They lead to errata. The same mistakes will be made again and again, at many tables. "Oh wait, no, I didn't roll damage, I just dealt it, so this doesn't stack with that...."

We don't want another edition with 50 pages of errata like last time. This mechanic is errata-bait, and that's a very good reason to kill it decisively, so the rest of the game can remain simpler.

That's not hyperbole, that's a simple fact. I make games, I know what I'm talking about, I can spot problematic mechanics usually before even implementing them (sometimes after, but when I realize my mistake, such as that I'd have to re-write a dozen of other subsystems, I will go back to the drawing board).

Saying : houserule out bugs from the game is just saying that you like it, and want it to remain, to force us to houserule it out. We want this mechanic gone, for 20+ different mechanics reasons, many of which have nothing to do with the simulationism / narrativism debate.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

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:

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 @Mistwell 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.

If all things were equal, I would agree with you. But, there is a difference.

The core mechanics are, generally, the common element across playstyles. In this case, whether or not you like effects on a miss, the structure of an attack roll is the same for both of us. Since the game still functions without the optional component, it makes sense to leave it out as the default. It's not a judgement statement in the least. What you want builds upon what I want in this case.

Another example is the inspiration mechanic. I know I would use, and probably expand upon this mechanic. But it doesn't need to be in the core game. I would rather it be an optional mechanic so that it doesn't have to compromise for those that don't like metagame tokens.

 

[pemerton]

if you asked any schmoe off the street:

Q) If I swing my sword at you, and miss, can the sword hurt you?

They would say no. Every time.

<snip>

I could stand an inch from a set of propeller blades whizzing by all day long, and NEVER die, for the same reason as a sword that misses cannot hurt me in real life, and should not hurt my character in the game.

In real life fighting, though, a miss with a sword can hurt you - for instance because in avoiding the sword you are wrongfooted and fall; or because in moving your weapon/shield to parry one blow, you open yourself for another.

In other words, combat between two warriors has nothing in common with a set of whizzing propellor blades.

Now how do we model these elements of combat dynamism and prowess? The game has a range of ways, just as it has multiple ways of modelling barbarian's toughness (ie both hit points and +CON to AC). One of those ways is damage on a miss.

 

[Burninator]

If all things were equal, I would agree with you. But, there is a difference.

The core mechanics are, generally, the common element across playstyles. In this case, whether or not you like effects on a miss, the structure of an attack roll is the same for both of us. Since the game still functions without the optional component, it makes sense to leave it out as the default. It's not a judgement statement in the least. What you want builds upon what I want in this case.

Another example is the inspiration mechanic. I know I would use, and probably expand upon this mechanic. But it doesn't need to be in the core game. I would rather it be an optional mechanic so that it doesn't have to compromise for those that don't like metagame tokens.

+1 Core rules should not force one playstyle over another, or make one playstyle impossible except via houserule.

I agree the basic core of the game should support all playstyles that it indends to, and is the lowest common denominator. This is clearly an issue where there is nothing in common, no middle ground possible, so it should be excluded from the core, or made strictly optional (i.e. not the only choice for fighters who want to use GWF). Including it at any game table actively prevents simulationists from enjoying the game.

As a paying customer who's actually in the majority camp of D&D preferences, I want the default majority of classic interpretation of D&D combat to not be rendered impossible by a new-fangled mechanic, (regardless of how nonsensical it may be, i.e. in this case, is)

 

[Burninator]

In real life fighting, though, a miss with a sword can hurt you - for instance because in avoiding the sword you are wrongfooted and fall; or because in moving your weapon/shield to parry one blow, you open yourself for another.

In other words, combat between two warriors has nothing in common with a set of whizzing propellor blades.

Now how do we model these elements of combat dynamism and prowess? The game has a range of ways, just as it has multiple ways of modelling barbarian's toughness (ie both hit points and +CON to AC). One of those ways is damage on a miss.

Ya but not every single time, on command, without fail.

Damage on a miss is impossible to narrate using casual english, it forces you to ignore the proper english meaning of "miss" in order to do "damage with a sword"

How can you not see this? You're running around in circles justifying the unjustifiable requiring all kinds of rhetorical obfuscation of simple sentences : " I with with my sword and do damage", or "I miss with my sword and don't hurt you, darn" are the way D&D has always been played. It's the classic, default, simple way the game core should support.

This mechanic prevents that from happening. When the guy with the big sword is saying "I miss with my sword but do damage with my sword" says that for the umpteenth time, he will just start saying "I do X damage". That's all he needs to say. Hit and miss become meaningless distinctions without a difference, except one of scale.

When you add up all those damage bonuses you found (thanks, by the way), that stack with this mechanic and trigger on it, pretty soon your W weapon damage die will mean less and less, and you'll be killing stuff at-will without the W added in.

At which point there is literally no point in EVER rolling a D20. E.g. the paladin just walks through the graveyard and kills X skeletons per round, no attack rolls needed. It's too god-like an ability, sorry.

 

[Weather Report]

I definitely think damage on a miss will not be default for GWF, thank god.

The pro-damage on a miss folk seem to think (and exclaim) that only 9 or so people do not like it, but it seems the same 9 (actually, less) or so on here and on other boards really dig it.

Hmm, yeah, I think it will go (or be a Feat, like Tactical Warrior).