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

[Imaro]

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.

Just because I am willing to do something... doesn't mean I want the frequency in which I must do it to increase. So no, logically it doesn't follow that unless I am fine with all other mechanics all the time I should be ok with adding more mechanics I have to over rule in certain situations.

 

[pemerton]

It models a Fighter as a very taxing opponent, because his training makes him a reliable dreadnought. Even when he's not displaying tremendous shows of swordplay, his carefully honed practice enables him to win some ground

<snip>

I think it would be a good match for the Warrior subclass, moreso than the actual option of doing more spiky damage, as it builds a good model of a fighter with military training. I am not sure it should be tied to GWF.
The more showy "master at arms" and his improved criticals can remain the default, Basic, subclass.

This all makes sense to me.

 

[Weather Report]

This all makes sense to me.

Of course, anything to further the cause!

 

[pemerton]

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.

I agree with this (except I see it as the player rather than the PC who has the ability.) The inabiity to have an unprodcutive round is what the player is getting in exchange for not taking some other option, like better defence.

Looking at it from the DM side, it strikes me that if I give this to a group of monsters, eespecially at low levels, then PCs are very likely going to get creamed a good percentage of the time.

This is just about average DPR.

If the survival of the PCs depends upon them getting very lucky and being missed more often than is likely, then this ability will undermine that - but is there any reason to think that this is typical of D&Dnext?

The other way it would matter is if the ability is mechanically balanced around typical player probabilities of hitting NPCs/monsters, and those probabilities are very different for NPCs/monsters attacking PCs - meaning that this ability makes a bigger difference to the expected DPR of one category than it does for the other. But is that the case? I haven't read the Bestiary closely enough.

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.

The game has always had a lot of auto-damage options for mages. Does it hurt the game to give fighters those auto damage options? And how often will they come up?

It hasn't been an issue for me in 4e, but 4e has big hit point totals and wide damage ranges, and 4e is designed (with its action economy, emphasis on terrain etc) to make the getting of the attack potentially interesting in itself. Is it an issue in 13th Age? And how easy is it, in Next, to ensure you have the ability to make that attack which will deal auto-damage?

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

At a minimum, don't the action resolution rules confer some authority on the players? For instance, I can make it true in the fiction that my PC is drawing a sword, and attacking with it, and rolling an 18 to hit with it, and dealing (say) 6 damage on that hit. Can'

 

[Imaro]

It models a Fighter as a very taxing opponent, because his training makes him a reliable dreadnought. Even when he's not displaying tremendous shows of swordplay, his carefully honed practice enables him to win some ground (his opponent is getting tired/getting bruised/is put in a suboptimal position/over extends himself/ makes a mistep/ one of many possible narratives).

It doesn't though, unless you're going with 4e's paradigm of "all damage is neither lethal nor non-lethal until the final blow is struck". For the majority of editions there has been a difference between the damage caused by things like fatigue (subdual, non-lethal, etc.) and that done by weapons.

 

[Weather Report]

This is just about average DPR.

Some don't want to approach the game on those terms (thank god).

 

[herrozerro]

It doesn't though, unless you're going with 4e's paradigm of "all damage is neither lethal nor non-lethal until the final blow is struck". For the majority of editions there has been a difference between the damage caused by things like fatigue (subdual, non-lethal, etc.) and that done by weapons.

You mean 4e and 5e. 5e damage works the same way with no difference between subdual and lethal damage. So it is quite easy.

 

[Halivar]

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

You have to know your players. I have a player that I think would very much enjoy whittling down an enemy piece by piece. Most though would find a BBEG dying without a proper dispatch a crushing disappointment; doubly so if it was a fight they were eager for.

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?

Good question. If I fudge for the monster, I am going to take that into account before I screw a player over it. When a creature is down to 3 hit-points, we're in the stages where I like to get more cinematic. Crushing a player can happen, and I allow it if and only if it adds to the tension and ramps up excitement. BUT, again, you HAVE to know your players! There are some people I don't think I could do this to. I have one player in particular I know I can; if she's not dyin', she's not tryin'.

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.

I think if I told them I would be robbing them. The GM's in our group do not reveal the DM magic to the players.

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?

I hope I haven't painted an image of myself as an overly capricious DM. I think a DM should have the lightest touch on how the narrative plays out. I want my role to be as facilitative as possible. It is for this reason alone that I may step in and fudge a mechanic.

 

[Weather Report]

Fudging is fact.

 

[TwoSix]

It doesn't though, unless you're going with 4e's paradigm of "all damage is neither lethal nor non-lethal until the final blow is struck". For the majority of editions there has been a difference between the damage caused by things like fatigue (subdual, non-lethal, etc.) and that done by weapons.

Which is a necessary concession in a HP system. Otherwise you get the "dude with five axe blows who's fine, but then collapses from the small dagger scratch". You can't narrate attacks based on the attacker's rolls. You have to look at the result to the target. Even if it's a crit with a greataxe that does 90 damage, if you hit a guy with 150 HP it didn't cleave him in half. That's why I only narrate the hit that drops someone below half HP and the hit that drops them below 0 as consequential hits. It's just not realistic otherwise!