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

[Imaro]

I'm curious how those who are approaching this from a "narrative" viewpoint deal with the fact that this mechanic basically invalidates another narrative... that of the graceful dodger? Since this mechanic can never have a narrative where it misses... what happens when these mechanics for this narrative of a relentless fighter interact with a monster, NPC or even another PC who has the narrative of being so quick and light on their feet that they are rarely, if ever, hit? I'm not sure a mechanic that can totally invalidate a pretty common fantasy narrative like the graceful dodger is a good mechanic.

 

[Hussar]

Again, though, Imaro, how much are we actually negating here? How often, at the table, is the GWF interacting with the Graceful Dodger? Additionally, how often is the GWF missing? That's a pretty darn narrow slice of narrative that's being lost when you're gaining narrative space for rolling a miss on every other opponent.

After all, there's really only two narratives on a miss - you either clean miss (whiff) or clang off it's protective shell (armor, thick hide, shield, etc). That's it.

With this, you lose those two options, but gain "Your attacks batter the opponent". So, from a narrative standpoint, it's pretty much a wash. You lose some, you gain some.

 

[pemerton]

Why is it not a feat?

Functionally, it is a feat - a fighter, paladin and ranger-only feat.

Why can't it be a generalized playstyle rule that applies to all martial attacks? If it's such a fun mechanic then why does it have to be restricted to one class build in particular?

If having your prayers answered by the gods is a fun mechanic, why do we restrict it to clerics and paladins? In a class-based game, you have to give something to classes. In doing so, you establish the baseline fiction for the game.

In D&D there are a distinct group of characters whose prayers are apt to be answered by the gods. (Contrast Runequest, where this is not the case.)

In D&Dnext as per current iteration, there are a distinct group of characters - the great weapon wielding fighters, paladins and rangers - who are apt to be relentless when in combat with two-handed weapons.

Exactly what does it do that is meaningful?

It gives the player of the character a fiat ability - by declaring an attack in accordance with the action economy rules of the game, the player is able to bring it about that an enemy of his/her PC is worn down, to some extent, regardless of dice rolls. This is an ability that players of magic-users have had for many versions of the game. It's an ability, as has been pointed out upthread, that throwers of grenade like missiles have in 3E/PF.

There is nothing inherent to the fiction of casting spells, or of throwing grenades, that makes it especially relevant to give those players such an ability. In the real world, someone might fail to be splashed by burning oil. Or - perhaps due to the armour they're wearing, or their ability to dodge - fail to be hurt by a fireball. And there are fantasy RPGs that have mechanics that allow for these possibilities (eg Rolemaster). The design decision to handle fireball and alchmical fire as auto-damage is not mandated by the fiction being modelled - it is a meta-level decision to give players of those sorts of characters fiat abilities.

Giving comparable fiat abilities to those who play fighters is meaningful.

Abatement is an action, and to abate something is to make a conscious choice to do so

This isn't true. My anger can abate without my choosing that it do so - it's called "calming down" as opposed to "calming oneself down". The strength of my attack can abate not because I choose to relent, but because I get tired and so my muscles stop working with the same power that they were beforehand. And that's before we even get on to examples of natural phenomena, like a storm abating.

In characterising relentlessness as an attitude, you seem to be focusing on other nuances of possible meaning, like the definition you quoted "remaining strict or determined", which has synonyms such as "dogged", "ruthless" and "single-minded". That is not the sense of "relentless" that I had in mind in characterising the great weapon fighter as such.

Attitudes are mental states. "To show or promise no abatement of severity, intensity, strengh or pace" isn't to think anything. It's to do (or not do) something (in the sense of "doing" whereby "doing" contrasts with mere "thinking"). For instance, someone who attacked ferociously for hours without showing an sign of tiring would be relentless - not because of their state of mind but because, in keeping up their tireless attack for that period of time, they "show or promise no abatement of severity, intensity, strength or pace". We could also say that such a person is "continuing without becoming weaker, less severe" - this meaning of relentless, the first of those you quoted, is not particularly about desire, or attitude, but rather is about actual physical manifestations of capability.

Synomys for "relentless" used in this sense include "inexorable" or "unstoppable". Neither the relentless march of time, nor the relentless march of an army of ants, nor the relentless assaults of a D&Dnext great weapon fighter, is an attitudinal phenomenon!

 

[pemerton]

You don't see me quoting Gygax or referring to D&D history much. Does anyone else?

the existence of the damage on a miss mechanic is symptomatic of the designers apparently not understanding the basic d20 paradigm of hits and misses.

You seem to think you have a better handle than the WotC designers on what falls within and without "the basic d20 paradigm".

 

[pemerton]

I'm curious how those who are approaching this from a "narrative" viewpoint deal with the fact that this mechanic basically invalidates another narrative... that of the graceful dodger? Since this mechanic can never have a narrative where it misses... what happens when these mechanics for this narrative of a relentless fighter interact with a monster, NPC or even another PC who has the narrative of being so quick and light on their feet that they are rarely, if ever, hit? I'm not sure a mechanic that can totally invalidate a pretty common fantasy narrative like the graceful dodger is a good mechanic.

How does 3E handle this with respect to fireball spells and grenade-like missiles? For the latter, I don't know that it does. For fireball spells, via Evasion and Improved Evasion, which are inherited and slightly generalised from the AD&D monk.

Presumably something similar could be done in D&Dnext. One or more posters upthread - perhaps [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]? - have suggested that the "dodging pixie" might get a DEX save to avoid damage dealt on a miss. An alternativ would be for it to be able to ignore the first X hp of miss damage. (This sort of approach would have the advantage of also dealing with the auto-damage from spells issue.)

Another way that the game currently handles this sort of thing is via its movement rules - eg the rogue's cunning action.

And yet another option would be simply to incorporate the dodge capability into hit points - the reason the pixie has so many hit points isn't because it's meaty, but because it dodges a lot. Though I think that would be less popular than some version of active defence for dodgers.

 

[Mistwell]

Even if I wanted DoaM in the game I certainly wouldn't be happy with the version in the playtest. Why should only the GWFs have access to it? Why is it not a feat? Why can't it be a generalized playstyle rule that applies to all martial attacks? If it's such a fun mechanic then why does it have to be restricted to one class build in particular?

Psst. It's available to three martial classes. Check the Paladin, and the Ranger. Yeah, I didn't realize that until someone else pointed it out as well. And I assume it's not a feat because feats are optional and not part of the basic game.

 

[bogmad]

Again, though, Imaro, how much are we actually negating here? How often, at the table, is the GWF interacting with the Graceful Dodger? Additionally, how often is the GWF missing? That's a pretty darn narrow slice of narrative that's being lost when you're gaining narrative space for rolling a miss on every other opponent.

After all, there's really only two narratives on a miss - you either clean miss (whiff) or clang off it's protective shell (armor, thick hide, shield, etc). That's it.

With this, you lose those two options, but gain "Your attacks batter the opponent". So, from a narrative standpoint, it's pretty much a wash. You lose some, you gain some.

As far as I can tell "Your attacks batter the opponent" is basically the same as "clang off it's protective shell." The only difference is that it's a "hard clang" that still does damage, which was an option that was already there. So I'm not seeing you gaining any new options, but still losing one.

 

[bogmad]

It gives the player of the character a fiat ability - by declaring an attack in accordance with the action economy rules of the game, the player is able to bring it about that an enemy of his/her PC is worn down, to some extent, regardless of dice rolls. This is an ability that players of magic-users have had for many versions of the game. It's an ability, as has been pointed out upthread, that throwers of grenade like missiles have in 3E/PF.

There is nothing inherent to the fiction of casting spells, or of throwing grenades, that makes it especially relevant to give those players such an ability. In the real world, someone might fail to be splashed by burning oil. Or - perhaps due to the armour they're wearing, or their ability to dodge - fail to be hurt by a fireball. And there are fantasy RPGs that have mechanics that allow for these possibilities (eg Rolemaster). The design decision to handle fireball and alchmical fire as auto-damage is not mandated by the fiction being modelled - it is a meta-level decision to give players of those sorts of characters fiat abilities.

Giving comparable fiat abilities to those who play fighters is meaningful.

I don't think the fact that mages use magic is a "fiat ability" to everyone in the same manner it is to you. It's not a "my character's will trumps base game reality" type effect at core. I think magic mimics some sort of in-world physics or reality and not this meta, player driven "fiat." Explosions and spells that explode have a certain amount of in game physics that can be simulated by different rules. They're just different rules than what simulate a weapon swing. You've claimed upthread that grenades and spells are these special "fiat" cases, but I have not been convinced by any means. These different effects have different rules to simulate them. Not perfect but better than attack rolls. Why do you think rules for explosions were created if not to simulate something? The idea in their creation was to imbue meta "fiat abilities"? Sorry, I just don't buy that. I think the reason a fireball works how it does is thatit was more "how does a guy avoid something that is attacking all the space around him, not him in particular" Armor might mitigate damage, but it gets so hot that a guy is going to be hurt anyways. You might be able to dodge or deflect the worst of the blast, but you can't not get burnt entirely if you're within the space of an explosion. Now things did work differntly in 4e, but that's because there were no saving throws and instead had your reflex, fort, and will defenses. In those cases you needed damage on a miss but not especially to service this great "fiat"
And I don't agree that great weapon fighters are in the game in order to grant fiat abilities to anyone either. "Being apt to be relentless" is not a good reason to to install these "fiat" abilities.

There are games that are more flexible with this "fiat" term I'm sure. I've probably played and enjoyed many of them. Honestly though, I've seen the term "fiat" thrown around so much I've lost a lot of what it's supposed to mean other than "because I say so."

If it means "I can dictate whatever I want within the mechanical framework of the rules" then fine, I have no problem with it.
But if it means "I don't really have to worry about creating coherent or mechanically consistent rules" I have more issue.

 

[pemerton]

I think magic mimics some sort of in-world physics or reality and not this meta, player driven "fiat." Explosions and spells that explode have a certain amount of in game physics that can be simulated by different rules. They're just different rules than what simulate a weapon swing. You've claimed upthread that grenades and spells are these special "fiat" cases, but I have not been convinced by any means. These different effects have different rules to simulate them. Not perfect but better than attack rolls. Why do you think rules for explosions were created if not to simulate something?

<snip>

I think the reason a fireball works how it does is thatit was more "how does a guy avoid something that is attacking all the space around him, not him in particular" Armor might mitigate damage, but it gets so hot that a guy is going to be hurt anyways.

A fireball creates an explosion that does 6d6 damage, half on a failed save. That's a mininimum 3 hp of damage to any target caught in it, and on an average roll a minimum of 10 hp of damage.

In the bestiary a human commoner has 4 hp, a goblin 3 hp and a kobold 2 hp. These NPCs cannot survive being caught in a typical fireball. Even human warriors, hobgoblins and orcs (with 11 hp each) are going to be auto-killed by many fireballs (or rendered auto-unconscious, depending on whether or not the GM is doing "What most DMs do" per p 23 of "How to Play").

When you say this is "simulating an explosion", what does that mean? Why not just have the caster roll an attack vs every target, just as 4e does it? That would "simulate an explosion" to the same degree of adequacy - and if you think the attack is particulary dangerous, give a bonus to hit! If you think armour won't help, attack touch AC.

The actual origin of the saving throw rules I don't know without my books in front of me, but I wouldn't be surprised if it goes back to Chainmail, and helps me keep more of my figures alive if those within the targeted AoE make their save.

The idea in their creation was to imbue meta "fiat abilities"? Sorry, I just don't buy that.

I wasn't talking about design intent so much as design consequence. Whatever was intended, as a matter of fact some players have access to these fiat abilities. They can change the fictional state of their enemies - in many cases render them dead - simply by declaring an action.

The play of the game then reflects the presence of that sort of ability - for instance in classic D&D, where the Sleep spell is a fiat ability of this sort, we see it gives the MU the role (in low level play) of being the "save the party from swarm of goblins" guy. I imagine that Sleep plays a bit like that in Next too, given it has no save. Auto-damage gives the player of the great weapon fighter the opportunity to fill a niche of that sort.

In the end these are all just mechanical conventions. In 3E, for instance, Sleep grants a saving throw. In pre-Essentials 4e, Magic Missile required an attack roll. In many RPGs, including 4e, AoEs are resolved using attack rolls rather than classic D&D's "saving throw" convention. We can change the conventions without dramatically changing the underlying fiction of the magic - does anyone really feel that 3E was a dramatic departure, in fantasy fiction, from AD&D (or Next) just because Sleep granted a saving throw? Would it be a dramatic change to the fiction of Ice Storm (as opposed to its mechanics) to require a to hit roll (perhaps vs some sort of non-AC based defence) in order to deal damage (say like the 4e spell Icy Terrain)?

What the fiat abilities contribute to, in my view, is not the fiction of the magic but the fiction of the character - they make him/her implacable in a certain sense. The player can, via his/her PC, impose his/her will upon the fiction. This is what is appealing to me about an auto-damage ability. It lets a player play a comparably implacable warrior.

"I've seen the term "fiat" thrown around so much I've lost a lot of what it's supposed to mean other than "because I say so."

That is its meaning. The player of a wizard can kill any goblin within the fireball, or send to sleep any of that group of kobolds, because s/he says so, even though - within the fiction - we know that people can survive explosions and resist mind magic.

"Being apt to be relentless" is not a good reason to to install these "fiat" abilities.

Well, that's your view. No doubt a sincere one. I'm not here to persuade you to change your mind. I'm here only to make the point that other people have a coherent reason for liking the ability.

If it means "I can dictate whatever I want within the mechanical framework of the rules" then fine, I have no problem with it.
But if it means "I don't really have to worry about creating coherent or mechanically consistent rules" I have more issue.

Well, great weapon fighting is part of the rules. And coherent, as I've explained. And serving a purpose, as I've explained. I get that you don't like it. I'm puzzled, though, why you think it's absurd or incoherent for someone to enjoy different things in an RPG from what you enjoy.

 

[bogmad]

When you say this is "simulating an explosion", what does that mean? Why not just have the caster roll an attack vs every target, just as 4e does it? That would "simulate an explosion" to the same degree of adequacy - and if you think the attack is particulary dangerous, give a bonus to hit! If you think armour won't help, attack touch AC.

The actual origin of the saving throw rules I don't know without my books in front of me, but I wouldn't be surprised if it goes back to Chainmail, and helps me keep more of my figures alive if those within the targeted AoE make their save.

I'm wouldn't doubt it goes back to chainmail either. Like you said, it was probably simulating an AoE. I said in my post what how a fireball simulated an explosion: it stems from the question "How does a guy avoid something that is attacking all the space around him, not him in particular"

I also know that 4e changed the convention. And it also added half damage on miss with daily spells like fireballs, partly to mimic the effect of saving throws, arguably. Why not have a caster roll against every enemy? Maybe because some folks liked saving throws and the idea that they mechanically worked differently to simulate an attack covering an entire area? Because it's automatically hitting everything in that area? (also because every player rolling his own saving throw can work quicker than the DM rolling the same die repeatedly). I'm guessing somebody liked saving throws better than individualized attack rolls for everyone in an area, because they're back in the rules.
I liked just fine how AoE attacks such as fireball worked in 4e, but they work differently in the new edition, and to say they're really the same thing as attacking multiple defenses and saving throws are only there as a "sacred cow" is to detract from those that like what they model. You don't "miss" anything in the area of a AoE. You hit everything and characters have the ability to save and mitigate the damage.

That's all I have time to address. Why I'm still up right now is beyond me.