D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[billd91]

But that doesn't tell me why, in the fiction, my blade swooshed by the target. Was it because I sucked? Because they dodged? Some other reason?

If it was because I sucked, then what set of rolls corresponds to the defender dodging?

With an ability to do damage on a miss, the situation isn't improved. I'd even say it's made worse. With a hit, you could always attribute damage levels that don't kill the target to bruising, minor injuries, or fatigue from avoiding a worse blow and a miss meant a totally ineffective attack. Now, you lose that last option because even a failure on the die roll causes that bruising, minor injury, or fatigue. You can never really say that it was because I sucked - I simply can't.

But I have to say that I totally get where MJS is coming from. When you've got an attack roll, you could say "Well, that's a miss but it would have hit were it not for his armor/shield/whatever" because you can see that he would have hit the target's AC without the modifiers those elements provided. That's not officially in the rules, but I've seen it on and off for more than 20 years. So it's not like it's an alien idea by a long shot.

I'd be much happier with a power like this if a 1 is still a miss (no damage at all) and the effect of inflicting damage on a miss either required the attacker to pay something (like trading his own hit points to inflict a second-chance hit) or it only activated if the attack missed by a little bit (by under 5 or maybe missing by only 2).

 

[TwoSix]

<snip>
So damage on a miss simply provides a character with a permission that others don't have. The 'plausibility' is added, after the fact, by the people at the table, exactly the same as a fireball saving throw. Obviously with varying degress of success.

That sounds like dirty storygaming, which will never soil MY gaming table.

No truck with it, I tell you! NO TRUCK!

Seriously though, good explanation.

 

[Imaro]

As an aside - the d20 would change the game state if it changed the outcome of damage rolls or defence... so if the difference between my roll and the target number were a) multiplied by 2 and added to damage and/or b) multiplied by 1 and added to my AC (a miss would be a negative number and so reduce AC and damage) then the d20 on its own would tell us something. That would actually be a pretty good house rule, I think.

Doesn't a critical hit in various editions do exactly this? Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[pemerton]

With an ability to do damage on a miss, the situation isn't improved. I'd even say it's made worse. With a hit, you could always attribute damage levels that don't kill the target to bruising, minor injuries, or fatigue from avoiding a worse blow and a miss meant a totally ineffective attack. Now, you lose that last option because even a failure on the die roll causes that bruising, minor injury, or fatigue. You can never really say that it was because I sucked - I simply can't.

But that's the point - by choosing this option, I'm estabishing a minimum level of non-suckage for my PC. (As [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] said, by choosing this option I gain a permission that, by default, others lack, to always narrate a minimum degree of success ie STR damage on an attack.)

When you've got an attack roll, you could say "Well, that's a miss but it would have hit were it not for his armor/shield/whatever" because you can see that he would have hit the target's AC without the modifiers those elements provided.

I discussed this a bit upthread (or on one of the other threads). It entails that a shield matters to about one-quarter of misses (which seems pretty improbable to me) and that no one with a DEX of 11 or less ever dodged a blow (likewise).

It misses more noticeably because it was a low roll. You get to narrate why any way you want.

That's my whole point. You can narrate as you please around the mechanical constraint.

Likewise with auto-damage. The mechanical constraint is "at least STR damage". Now narrate around that.

 

[MJS]

I read it and quoted it:



But that doesn't tell me why, in the fiction, my blade swooshed by the target. Was it because I sucked? Because they dodged? Some other reason?

If it was because I sucked, then what set of rolls corresponds to the defender dodging?

I'm telling you what the basic conventions are, because you're stuck in your head on this. A grossly low roll is most often said to be a complete miss. It's what people do. Most of the time.
So, if we are now having an awesome swing on a 1, it doesn't jive. You do understand this, and I'm done playing this game with you.

 

[Burninator]

When I miss with the greatest artifact level Greatsword, I do the same damage with this ability as with a tree branch I just picked up, so long as I hold with with two hands.

Bug #8.

I should re-phrase it in my list, to use what I wrote above.

Bug #23 : This allows you to never miss your target when you throw a spear or trident, since those are versatile+thrown weapons. It makes even less sense that a spear could never miss.

They will have to keep adding more and more exceptions to this mechanic to prevent its abuse. Another sign something's wrong. How many other areas of the game have to be tweaked to prevent this ability? Or to prevent stacking with this ability

Bug #24 : To prevent stacking, all instances (currently at least 6 in the final packet) of damage bonuses in the game must be reworded carefully to prevent use with GWF : "when you deal damage" must be changed to "when you roll damage". Furthermore, that type of "gotcha" complicates the game, leads to arguments, slowing/stopping the game to look up QAs on the topic, and the subsequent errata for when they miss this requirement for legalese jargon (and they certainly will, especially with 3PP). It makes understanding the rules require rules lawyers, and require system mastery to play the game correctly. E.g. a paladin with a holy avenger just needs to walk around and stuff dies automatically, no to-hit roll required, since the damage boost is written in a straightforward way.

This puts IMO excessive restrictions on the game design and terminology of other modules. Since damage boosts are the primary way they said they will show character level progression rather than accuracy (due to bounded accuracy), this problem will manifest itself in strange ways. Anything that triggers on damage taken will be triggered by this. It's a nightmare waiting to happen.

 

[Cyberen]

When I miss with the greatest artifact level Greatsword, I do the same damage with this ability as with a tree branch I just picked up, so long as I hold with with two hands.

Bug #22.

Oh wait, sorry, I already had that one. I should re-phrase it in my list, to use what I wrote above.

Sorry, but this is more a feature than a bug.
Fighting is not less about maneuvering, feinting, positioning... than trading actual blows. If something must die in a fire, it's the "Damage die by weapon" rule. Even if you want to use those funny polyhedrals (by the way, they make cool modrons minis), having a damage die per class and fighting style is far better than the traditional binary proficiency nonsense.

 

[Weather Report]

Why are people still trying to compare damage on a miss to making a reactionary roll to take less damage?

 

[billd91]

Bug #24 : To prevent stacking, all instances (currently at least 6 in the final packet) of damage bonuses in the game must be reworded carefully to prevent use with GWF : "when you deal damage" must be changed to "when you roll damage". Furthermore, that type of "gotcha" complicates the game, leads to arguments, slowing/stopping the game to look up QAs on the topic, and the subsequent errata for when they miss this requirement for legalese jargon (and they certainly will, especially with 3PP). It makes understanding the rules require rules lawyers, and require system mastery to play the game correctly. E.g. a paladin with a holy avenger just needs to walk around and stuff dies automatically, no to-hit roll required, since the damage boost is written in a straightforward way.

This puts IMO excessive restrictions on the game design and terminology of other modules. Since damage boosts are the primary way they said they will show character level progression rather than accuracy (due to bounded accuracy), this problem will manifest itself in strange ways. Anything that triggers on damage taken will be triggered by this. It's a nightmare waiting to happen.

I don't know if it's a nightmare, but it certainly could be an annoyance. I had thought of the issue before and, to be more parsimonious, I expect that any barring of knock on effects from damage would be handled in the description of the GWF ability. I would hope they don't open the door to the add on effects like the flame tongue doing its 2d6 extra damage on a miss. But as currently worded, it does. Now, a lot of the magic weapons in the play test documents are written based on hitting or rolling damage rather than dealing damage, so it appears they're at least partly on top of this.

I'd also be concerned that this particular ability feeds the cult of the offense in the game, something I think has been a problem through much of 3e and optimization strategy. It's no real surprise that a very strong strategy in games like D&D is to focus on the offensive power of the PCs. After all, one of the best defenses you can have is not to have to rely on one because you've already stopped the opposition from taking its action through your own offensive abilities. Defensive options need to be a lot better than the Defense fighting style to compensate for the attraction of taking the enemy down faster (and to compensate for them being severely undermined whenever facing an opponent with GWF).

The power also complicates calculations of expected damage because it's not truly like rolling a 0 on a 1d12 with a 13th value on it. Depending on what that fighter needed to hit in the first place, that tail could be pretty long (big impact) or short (smaller impact).

 

[bogmad]

That's my whole point. You can narrate as you please around the mechanical constraint.

Likewise with auto-damage. The mechanical constraint is "at least STR damage". Now narrate around that.

Except I can't narrate as I please. YOU can narrate however you want if a miss doesn't have any numerical impact -and I can pretend that a miss on a 1 is worse than on a 12 with no repurcussions.

But with auto damage I always have to either narrate an impact of some sort or - if not the reason given by the developers (i.e. brunt force through armor)- I have to try and rationalize an even more improbable reason that I've sapped his stamina or whatever it is that lowers his hp the equivalent of my strength mod.

Does that at all help demonstrate why your argument is less conducive to the "let anyone play the game as they want" that most of us will agree is a good goal for this new edition?