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

[Imaro]

One approach to handling this - not the whole of an approach, but a start - would be for the rulebooks to talk a bit more frankly than traditionally they have about what these mechanics are for, and how they distribute authority around the table.

I actually think that the first step is for the designers to identify what the division should be in the core rules. Traditionally D&D has not been a game about distributing authority around the table, so I'm not sure if the base rules should be mixing in mechanics like these from the start. It seems more like fodder for optional modules where these type of abilities can be introduced equally to all classes and enough space can be devoted to a frank discussion about their effect on game play, how to narrate them, etc.. this seems like a much better solution than throwing a few in here or there and then having to devote the necessary space to explain the few that exist.

 

[Halivar]

I'm curious... for those claiming this can be rolled into the abstract nature of combat by narrating a miss as something other than a hit (mis-step, fatigue, etc.), how do you narrate a kill by miss damage and do you or do you not think that this type of mechanic has the potential to create some pretty anti-climactic situations where a PC doesn't even have to hit to take the BBEG out.

As a DM I wouldn't allow this to happen. Flat out would not. Just as I currently fudge to prevent a BBEG from dying to some rinky-dink damage-over-time or whatnot. I want a real player action to do the deed, if only for cinema's sake.

 

[Imaro]

As a DM I wouldn't allow this to happen. Flat out would not. Just as I currently fudge to prevent a BBEG from dying to some rinky-dink damage-over-time or whatnot. I want a real player action to do the deed, if only for cinema's sake.

So why include a mechanic that you would dis-empower once the player chose it? You're basically saying, it only works when you, as DM, want it to work. IMO, that seems to suggest a problem mechanic.

NOTE: This is exactly the problem I ran into with 13th AGE's miss mechanic in the campaign I am currently running... and yeah I ended up house ruling that misses can't actually kill... but it's kind of a clunky fix.

 

[Halivar]

So why include a mechanic that you would dis-empower once the player chose it? You're basically saying, it only works when you, as DM, want it to work. IMO, that seems to suggest a problem mechanic.

All rules work when I as DM want them to work. I do my level best to make sure the player the most narrative control possible, with the least amount of capriciousness on my part. I sometimes step in when a mechanic of any sort would cause a disappointing anti-climax. There are many ways this can happen; the 3 extra damage from this ability might cause it to happen once or twice in a campaign.

Since I think this would be a completely outlying event, I am comfortable with handling these edge cases as they happen.

 

[herrozerro]

So why include a mechanic that you would dis-empower once the player chose it? You're basically saying, it only works when you, as DM, want it to work. IMO, that seems to suggest a problem mechanic.

So you are saying that you never overrule any other players ever? Because unless you are fine with all other mechanics all the time, this happens to other players and mechanics all the time.

 

[Wicht]

Halivar and I are on the same page here.

And as for "never, ever missing"? Not at all: just being able to reliably where down an opponent at least a little bit every 6 seconds of melee. (Ie it's only "never misses" if you assume that there is only one attempt to hit per 6 seconds - which seems pretty un-verisimilitudinous to me!)

Well, again, the actual mechanic does not seem to purporte to mirror your mental interpretation of it, otherwise it would rely upon something other than brute strength and a two handed weapon.

But let me reword: with this mechanic, the PC (or NPC) is guaranteed at least 1 "hit" every 6 seconds. Within a round of combat, they always "hit" something, within whatever definition of "hit" you choose to use. They never actually "miss" within the context of a game round. That is, within the context of combat, they cannot have an unproductive round.

Looking at it from the DM side, it strikes me that if I give this to a group of monsters, especially at low levels, then PCs are very likely going to get creamed a good percentage of the time. It doesn't matter how quick, well, armored, or magically protected the PCs are, after a couple of rounds of combat, if they don't take the NPCs out, they, as a group are going to be badly hurt. Or is that not the case?

 

[herrozerro]

Looking at it from the DM side, it strikes me that if I give this to a group of monsters, especially at low levels, then PCs are very likely going to get creamed a good percentage of the time. It doesn't matter how quick, well, armored, or magically protected the PCs are, after a couple of rounds of combat, if they don't take the NPCs out, they, as a group are going to be badly hurt. Or is that not the case?

Yes, this can happen. But it can also happen if you pit them against a bunch of mages with magic missile, the mages could do it at range as well. just because a mechanic can be abused by the DM doesn't make it bad.

 

[Weather Report]

The only problem I have with damage on a miss is: "Damn, I missed!" "No, you still did 3 points of damage, and hey, its dead!"

That Reaper feat in the 1st packet was a bit niggling.

 

[Halivar]

That is, within the context of combat, they cannot have an unproductive round.

As long as it requires forgoing an equally good martial option, I am okay with this. If the player has a high enough attack bonus, it is a wasted option. If their attack bonus is in the gutter, this can help mitigate the gimpage.

 

[Imaro]

All rules work when I as DM want them to work. I do my level best to make sure the player the most narrative control possible, with the least amount of capriciousness on my part. I sometimes step in when a mechanic of any sort would cause a disappointing anti-climax. There are many ways this can happen; the 3 extra damage from this ability might cause it to happen once or twice in a campaign.

Since I think this would be a completely outlying event, I am comfortable with handling these edge cases as they happen.

I'm curious... why do you as DM decide whether something is anti-climatic or not?

Honestly I see this happening a bit more than twice over an entire campaign that spans the full range of levels, though admittedly it would depend on how much combat took place in said campaign. I'm also wondering would it be ok if you did that and then a PC was killed because of the extra round the monster had (even though technically it should have been killed)? Or even if a TPK happened because you decided that miss damage couldn't kill a monster? Finally would you be upfront with the player that you would never allow this ability to actually kill anything or would that be something you took care of behind the scenes without his knowledge.

Now admittedly this arises in 13th Age much more because everyone is set up to do damage on a miss... but the baove are some of the ramifications I've thought about since instigating my house rule.

EDIT : I find it hard, though I guess not impossible, that a DM can both... only allow rules to work when they want them too, and ...give players the most narrative control possible. Or are you saying that the mechanics do not factor into the narrative that the players control?