D&D 5E Q&A 10/17/13 - Crits, Damage on Miss, Wildshape

[Celebrim]

Yes. The presence of damage on a miss is not an obstacle to my immersion in the game. It supports it, by reinforcing the key fiction around the PC in question - namely, a relentless dreadnought.

But its just lousy and creating that fiction. Nothing about 'relentless dreadnought' first causes me to think, "He does damage even on a miss." Moreover, 'relentless dreadnought' isn't even the color it's given by its own flavor and mechanics, which has nothing to do with being relentless and everything to do with simply hitting hard - so hard that even parried, blocked, or the blow fails to penetrate armor it still does damage.

(It's the fact that this mechanic gives no consideration to an active or passive 'dodge' that is creating all the problems.)

I'm not sure what 'relentless dreadnought' implies to you, but to me it doesn't imply 'never misses'. Maybe 'never stops', but certainly not 'never misses'. It more implies bounces attacks of its own armor, doesn't tire, impervious to fear, attacks ruthless ferocity, none of which immediately make me think, "doesn't miss". Rather, I think that you are coming to this from the other direction, "I have an attack that doesn't miss. What does it imply? How can I make this work."

And to the extent that it ever occurred to me to model 'relentless' as 'just keeps attacking', the concept would probably be more like the concept of Remise, which might have a mechanic like, "Once per round, if an attack misses you may reroll the attack applying a -3 penalty to hit.", or in my game a similar idea, "Once per round, if you missed an attack and you are not in an offensive fighting stance, you may shift to an offensive fighting stance and reroll the attack." Here the flavor is clear, "You missed but you simply won't yield the offensive." That's relentless. Damage on a miss is not even by flavor.

 

[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).

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not sure what 'relentless dreadnought' implies to you, but to me it doesn't imply 'never misses'. Maybe 'never stops', but certainly not 'never misses'. It more implies bounces attacks of its own armor, doesn't tire, impervious to fear, attacks ruthless ferocity, none of which immediately make me think, "doesn't miss". Rather, I think that you are coming to this from the other direction, "I have an attack that doesn't miss. What does it imply? How can I make this work."

I find taking mechanics and weaving them into a coherent narrative to be great fun. I think it usually gets classified as "reskinning."

 

[Weather Report]

I find taking mechanics and weaving them into a coherent narrative to be great fun. I think it usually gets classified as "reskinning."

And some find it contrived garbage to justify.

 

[urLordy]

I find taking mechanics and weaving them into a coherent narrative to be great fun. I think it usually gets classified as "reskinning."

Nitpick: Reskinning is to weave a narrative around mechanics that didn't originally account for that narrative. A coherent narrative is reskinning that is liked by whomever you care to please.

 

[TwoSix]

Nitpick: Reskinning is to weave a narrative around mechanics that didn't originally account for that narrative. A coherent narrative is reskinning that is liked by whomever you care to please.

Fair enough. I like mechanics as a skeleton, putting on the skin is part of the fun. But I also enjoy when people dress up the skeleton in a pretty skin for me to enjoy.

I feel slightly creepy.

 

[pemerton]

Are you immersed in 1st person / in-character, or immersed in the story in author/director stance?

<snip>

nothing I've ever read from your posts would give me any indication you don't have to "pop in" and "pop out" of immersion in order to play the game, esp. during combat.

Short answer (long answer somewhere in the current fighter vs wizard thread):

When I play the sort of immersion I want to experience is; and when I GM the sort of immersion I want to engnder is: the player undergoing the same sort of emotional and decision experience as the character.

For instance, if the fiction is that the character is desperate, and grasping at his/her last reserves, then I want the mechanics to engender desperation in the players, as they scrabble around and scour their sheets looking to see what resources they might have left.

This is why I don't like (for instance) encumberance mechanics, because these engender an experience in the player (one of accountancy) that has no correlation to what the character is undergoing.

If you wantd a slogan, it would be the "fewer adjectives, more verbs" school of immersion.

Nothing about 'relentless dreadnought' first causes me to think, "He does damage even on a miss." Moreover, 'relentless dreadnought' isn't even the color it's given by its own flavor and mechanics, which has nothing to do with being relentless and everything to do with simply hitting hard - so hard that even parried, blocked, or the blow fails to penetrate armor it still does damage.

<snip>

I'm not sure what 'relentless dreadnought' implies to you, but to me it doesn't imply 'never misses'.

<snip>

attacks ruthless ferocity

<snip>

"Once per round, if an attack misses you may reroll the attack applying a -3 penalty to hit."

Auto-damage seems to me one way to express "attacking with ruthless ferocity". As someone who plays a game with quite a bit of damage-on-a-miss and quite a bit of rerolling, they are different mechanics with different feels at the table.

The reroll, for me at least, engders a feel of "luck" or "skill", whereas the auto-damage engenders a feel of "getting on with things without fuss or hesitation". I think it is a better expression of relentlessness.

 

[Weather Report]

Short answer (long answer somewhere in the current fighter vs wizard thread):

Short answer: I hope people such as yourself do not like this game, and eventually you and yours sort fade into the background, much like 4th Ed, become some distant, horrid aberration that we all forget about, nothing personal.

 

[urLordy]

Short answer: I hope people such as yourself do not like this game, and eventually you and yours sort fade into the background, much like 4th Ed, become some distant, horrid aberration that we all forget about, nothing personal.

C'mon, that's not cool.

 

[Celebrim]

The reroll, for me at least, engders a feel of "luck" or "skill", whereas the auto-damage engenders a feel of "getting on with things without fuss or hesitation". I think it is a better expression of relentlessness.

Well, then we are going to have to agree to disagree, because I see this as the exact opposite. Not being able to miss expresses uncommon luck or skill. Immediately following up with a second attack when one fails expresses, "getting on with things without hesitation". You can see this in the interactions it has with the rest of the fiction. Not being able to completely miss no matter how much more skilled the defender is than you are, implies you have uncommon luck or precision in your attacks. Whereas, not yielding the offensive and pouring on the attacks - even if they may be futile - implies relentlessness.

Earlier you say something interesting about encumbrance and immersion. Is not the emotional and decision experience of packing loads and planning logistics the experience of being burdened (with accounting)? I know backpackers that spend hours preparing their packs and thinking in terms of fractions of an ounce of weight carried. And isn't the experience of carrying a load the experience of being burdened with your load? If you don't track encumbrance, how do you ever create the experience of being overburdened? Or, conversely, if you don't track encumbrance, how do you ever create the experience of need - thing wanted, not found? I find that if you don't pay at least an occasional attention to the logistics of burdens, then no player ever imagines himself burdened no matter how much gear he ladens himself with, and no player ever finds himself in need because over time the entire contents of the equipment list finds itself into the character's mundane backpack.

"Food? Sure, I've got food. Rope? Torches. Tool kit. Grappling hook. Crowbar. Polearm. Two crossbows. Sledgehammer. Six large sacks, currently stuffed with assorted coins and art objects. Soap. Bag of salt. Bag of lemons. Three wineskins. Hooded lantern. Spikes. Hammer. 10' pole. portable battering ram. Five potions of healing. That tome we found in the old chapel. What, mule? Why would I need a mule?"

I bet it's a lengthy process scouring those sheets to see what options they have. I've done equipment checks before and found 10 str characters shouldering 150lb back packs. That's an experience that needs to be imagined.

What's your suggestion here for simulating the experience of too many things carried (or too little carried because the player was saving on weight or had to abandon his baggage) if encumbrance isn't it?