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

[urLordy]

Its difficult for me to parse.

This has become a very interesting question to me. Not because I think I could provide the answer to your satisfaction. But for the opposite reason.

Like I think I sort of understand the narrativist playstyle but I don't understand the prioritizing of it, because anything anyone ever says about D&D tends to be filtered through my understanding of the game. Even if I spent hours and hours and pages and pages on arguing and clarification, none of that changes the difference in mindset that's the obstacle in the first place.

Like if my wife loves to clean and I hate to clean or vice versa. I could say that "it's difficult for me to parse" why she loves to clean, but I think that voicing that just misses the point because rationalizations from a certain mindset leads to asking the "wrong" questions that become in themselves obstacles to a true understanding of why someone puts such high priority on cleaning. There's got to be a simpler way to articulate that, but I can't put my finger on it.

 

[Mistwell]

But who wouldn't choose to hit all the time if they could do so? Is choosing to be successful all the time really an appropriate play style choice for a reasonably fair and balanced game? The difference between a miss here and a hit could be significant (as significant as the difference between rolling high on the damage die and rolling low) but it could also be as little as 1 point of damage. That's quite an option there, to be able to do almost as much damage on a miss as rolling low on damage for a hit. Frankly, it's feeling increasingly munchkinny to me.

Let's be real clear here, it's a weak option given the alternatives, for most games. Given how bounded accuracy works in 5e, the other two options (Defense, and Protection) are more "powerful" than this option we're discussing. Monster hit points go up on a regular basis as they go up in levels, but their ACs do not follow that same scaling. Your PC's AC also does not scale, but your PCs hit points do go up with level. Choosing the option that causes disadvantage on an attack every single round, or an increase to AC every single round, will objectively serve you MUCH MUCH BETTER over the course of most campaigns than being able to do your strength damage on a miss. Because, eventually, that small amount of damage will be almost meaningless - a rounding error even. But the AC or disadvantage, that will be just as important or even more important as you gain levels.

So short answer as to who wouldn't choose to hit all the time if they could? Most people who figure out that AC and disadvantage is more powerful than doing your strength damage on a miss.

I've even seen this ability described as a "trap" option for new players. Which is ironic, given the angst over it and claims about balance and fairness.

The munchkin option is to NOT take this option. This option is the most non-munchkin of the three choices.

I remember this happening at the very beginning of 3e. Some people saw feats and their initial reactions were "that's broken" or "that's overpowered" or "that's munchkin", and sometimes it turned out those were the least powerful feat choices (like toughness).

You figure this stuff out pretty quick once you play however. We have one fighter with Protection, and another fighter with Great Weapon Fighting, in our playtest group. It became extremely obvious that Protection was the more powerful ability, within a matter of a couple of sessions.

 

[Herschel]

Yeah, Toughness sure looked good at first level, then by fifth you were thinking "Why the heck did I take that?!?!?!?!"

 

[Weather Report]

I seems to be a bit of this mollycoddling in modern games and children, as George Carlin said "...you were the last winner..."

 

[billd91]

Let's be real clear here, it's a weak option given the alternatives, for most games. Given how bounded accuracy works in 5e, the other two options (Defense, and Protection) are more "powerful" than this option we're discussing. Monster hit points go up on a regular basis as they go up in levels, but their ACs do not follow that same scaling. Your PC's AC also does not scale, but your PCs hit points do go up with level. Choosing the option that causes disadvantage on an attack every single round, or an increase to AC every single round, will objectively serve you MUCH MUCH BETTER over the course of most campaigns than being able to do your strength damage on a miss. Because, eventually, that small amount of damage will be almost meaningless - a rounding error even. But the AC or disadvantage, that will be just as important or even more important as you gain levels.

Well that depends on a whole lot of factors we don't yet know, doesn't it? What's the final math going to look like? Will the damage scaling be on anything that does damage or just hits? Will there be a lot of add-ons to weapon damage that are limited to actual hits rather than activating when the weapon simply does damage? How often will fighter types be hitting? Those will all affect the payoff for this particular fighting style.

 

[Mistwell]

Well that depends on a whole lot of factors we don't yet know, doesn't it? What's the final math going to look like?

It's a basic principal of 5e, Bounded Accuracy. The math tweaks they are making should not impact that philosophy in any appreciable way - they entire playtest has depended on it's use throughout and despite changed with each new playtest package they never altered that basic principal. So no, I don't really think it's going to change.

Will the damage scaling be on anything that does damage or just hits?

Just hits, but it's basically the same math every level for that, with only the slightest variation. But the targets hit points are going up, and your hits are doing more damage going up, such that eventually that 3-5 damage on a miss is fairly meaningless, at least relative to applying disadvantage or an AC boost. Your strength bonus does not scale - it maxes out at +5, even if you are 20th level.

Will there be a lot of add-ons to weapon damage that are limited to actual hits rather than activating when the weapon simply does damage?

We don't have anything like that right now, so we can only talk about what we do have. And of what we do have, this option is mechanically the weaker option. You called it potentially munchkin-like, and it's fair I think for me to be questioning that given it's the weakest option of what we have in the game right now.

How often will fighter types be hitting? Those will all affect the payoff for this particular fighting style.

They must be hitting on a fairly regular basis, or the game will be back to 2-4 hour battles real quick. You're not going to wear down a mid to high level creature at 3 to 5hp/round very quick. For example, in my playtest just last week one of our fighters hit for 23 hp damage at second level.

I really do think it's fair to say, based on what we know, that this is not a "powerful" option, of the choices. It's trading weaker consistency for greater average effectiveness.

 

[MJS]

Damage on a piss should be next. Fighters specially trained can still do damage equal to their Dex bonus while pissing. Males can only do this with a 1-handed weapon.

 

[Mistwell]

We also need damage on a Bris. Though perhaps that's already taken care of.

 

[Halivar]

Damage on a piss should be next. Fighters specially trained can still do damage equal to their Dex bonus while pissing. Males can only do this with a 1-handed weapon.

Eric's Grandma!!! Eric's Grandma!!!

I can't unread this...

 

[pemerton]

But who wouldn't choose to hit all the time if they could do so?[/QUOTE [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] already answered this.

Here is a mathematical take: assuming a 60% hit ratio (which is what 4e aims for), which means that you miss 2/3 as often as you hit, STR on a miss is statistically equivalent to 2*STR/3 as a damage bonus. With 16 STR, that's +2 to damage. With 20 STR, that's +3.

The ability is strongest, I think, at low levels against goblins, kobolds and the like. But even then protection is not bad either, because you can keep the party mage alive with that and then let the mage auto-kill the fodder, plus do other useful stuff down the track too.

I don't know that I ever tried to argue it was not a choice to include this power in the game or for a player to include this ability in their character's abilities. I just don't think its a good choice to include it in the game, because it does inherently have playstyle implications. It is the sort of ability that reduces playstyle choices rather than broadens them.

I don't really understand how it reduces playstyle choices. If you would be happy with the game in all respects but for this one class feature, you just don't take the feature!

There's also an implication in your comment that taking it out does not narrow playstyle choices. Whereas of course it does!

What a great idea! Next time the whole fighter vs. wizards debate comes around, I am just going to tell people that "Pemerton doesn't see why you can't just ignore it. Suppose the rules were published without this spell, and you went about using them in a truly satisfactory manner. How does it change all the other spells, and their truly satisfactory nature, to also include this as an optional spell?"

Right. If the issue was about Wish, or Evard's, that would be good advice.

A comparison using 4e: I don't use Martial Practices in my game, basically because I think they unduly narrow the default scope of skills. That's not a big deal - it's ignoring one subsystem in an optional book.

But the idea that you could play 4e ignoring healing surges would be a completely different proposition - almost nonsenical.

You're reacting to this ability, it seems to me, as if it was 13th Age, where everyone gets it. But it's just one class feature that you can ignore. It wold be like ignoring "Persistent Spell" in 3E.

To put it another way - what do you think an optional module is going to look like, if not this?

Damage on a miss is apparently important to some people, because of their playstyle. But what that style is, or why this one small-niche mechanic is essential to it, is at the moment a mystery.

<snip>

If someone says their playstyle requires damage on a miss because someone took that ability and liked it, that doesn't mean much of anything.

I just think people should stop throwing the playstyle argument around any time they have no rational case to make.

The playstyle is not that mysterious. It's one in which a player can choose a fiat option to play a relentless dreadnought of a fighter.

Mystery dispelled!