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

[Imaro]

Fair enough. I'll try to see if I understand better.

Cool.

Okay. If I may - you seem to be inserting absolutes that look unfounded to me.

Yes, if he attacks, you're taking at least some damage. But:

1) That does not seem to imply that you "will *never* have narrative control" - in a turn-based system, you pretty much only have narrative control on your own turn - you didn't have narrative when the GWF is attacking, whether or not he uses damage on a miss!

True but whether your narrative asserts itself is iffy... the GWF's always asserts itself.

2) I just don't agree that taking damage on a miss means you'll *never* look at cool as that GWF. If you beat the GWF despite that damage on a miss, you look cool. If the GWF beats you, but you die defending the Prince/Princess, you look cool. "Looking cool" is not directly related to whether or not you take damage on a particular round.

We aren't speaking to looking cool in general, I am saying being cool by asserting the narrative of a graceful dodger which my character is based on. The GWF auto-succeeds in asserting his narrative but I do not. Thus his narrative is active 100% of the time, I on the other hand may never be able to assert mine as a graceful dodger. according to the original point raised about narratives, the mechanics should help me realize my concept if they don't they aren't good mechanics and I don't look cool dodging blows and avoiding strikes... I look like I'm a failure at dodging gracefully as I take more and more damage.

3) I don't buy the basic logic of "there's *one* kind of opponent I have difficulty with, and therefore the entire thing must be scrapped". If it turns out that damage on a miss is a very common thing throughout the game, you might have an argument. But I reiterate that having chosen a specific style, you are *supposed* to have weaknesses!

This definitely isn't what I'm saying, again it's about why should a GWF always succeed at damaging me because his narrative is based around relentlessness... but I have no chance to avoid the damage when I want a character whose narrative is based around avoiding damage.

Dice and player choices still play a role! I will repeat - damage on a miss doesn't mean the Graceful Dodger automatically loses the entire fight! It just makes the situation riskier, more difficult for him or her. Damage on a miss means the GD is taking some damage, but not necessarily tons. If the GD has good AC, that may be the only damage the GD takes, and maybe the GD dishes out enough of his or her own to win! If the GD finds other tactics to use beyond "stand and deliver toe-to-toe for many rounds", the GD may still win!

One power does not an entire fight make!

I still don't think you're really getting the whole narrative thing here. it's not about what makes the entire fight but rather whose narrative is being mechanically realized and whose isn't.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am saying being cool by asserting the narrative of a graceful dodger which my character is based on. The GWF auto-succeeds in asserting his narrative but I do not.

At the very least, making all GWF automatically do damage on a miss (instead of locating it in some optional maneuver or feat) makes it inevitable that some 5e equivalent of "evasion" is created where you than CAN negate damage on a miss.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that damage on a miss means that a chance to be awesome is stolen from the one who could have been *missed* and given instead to the one doing the attacking. If part of what is awesome about your character or villain is that you are nigh-untouchable but with low HP (a viable mechanical trade-off, up to a certain degree), seeing this pop up against you is going to screw with that vibe pretty hard. "Oh, I guess I'm *not* actually that dodgy..." A dodgy character might have other ways to negate hits, but negating a miss is kind of nonsense in plain language. This is in a way that damage-on-a-successful-save isn't, since AC is a passive defense, while saving is an active defense: when someone else attacks you, you as a player can't do much to stop that in the moment. When you get to make a saving throw, that's something you're actively doing, so enhancing a success and punishing a failure with that makes more contextual sense.

Or, to put it another way, damage against you is a punishment, damage you get to do to others is a reward. It's generally OK to not reduce your punishment entirely (if you make a save, you still take some damage). It's less OK to give someone a prize "just for trying" (if you miss your attack, have a cookie instead of a dozen cookies!). It starts to get into messy psychological "fail forward" territory and doesn't jibe comfortably with a lot of playstyles.

To represent better the character that cannot miss, perhaps it makes more sense to allow them to hit up to a certain AC without a roll, for instance. Or we can go back to the "Damage on a near miss" idea, which is some extra accounting, but it still retains the value of having a high AC.

I even think that in moderation, it can be OK. It's OK to present the high AC character once in a while with a monster that doesn't care about your high AC. But it should be kind of a big, unique event, like a monster that can kill you outright, and not a basic game mechanic.

 

[Umbran]

True but whether your narrative asserts itself is iffy... the GWF's always asserts itself.

You don't actually know that yet, which is a problem about discussing this as a lone power, outside of context of the rest of the game. We don't know what powers are ultimately supporting the Graceful Dodger, do we? It is just a generic archetype, while the GWF's archetype is being discussed with a power.

As currently discussed, the GWF's narrative only asserts itself in the very narrow context of toe-to-toe, stand and deliver melee combat, which, honestly, is outside the style of the Graceful Dodger anyway, isn't it? The GD is a light, mobile duelist-type, not a "hold the line" type. So, yeah, if you refuse to stay within (or are forced out of) your narrative, your narrative isn't asserted. Interesting, that.

We aren't speaking to looking cool in general, I am saying being cool by asserting the narrative of a graceful dodger which my character is based on. The GWF auto-succeeds in asserting his narrative but I do not. Thus his narrative is active 100% of the time, I on the other hand may never be able to assert mine as a graceful dodger.

May never? One power and now it is may never? That's the creeping absolute again.

And no, his narrative is *not* active 100% of the time. It is active, again, in that toe-to-toe scenario. Against a Ranged Combatant, he's kind of stuck, now isn't he?

according to the original point raised about narratives, the mechanics should help me realize my concept if they don't they aren't good mechanics and I don't look cool dodging blows and avoiding strikes... I look like I'm a failure at dodging gracefully as I take more and more damage.

No narrative can be predominant 100% of the time, because that brings us into the "immovable object, unstoppable force" arena, where we end up with two narratives that are mutually exclusive.

but I have no chance to avoid the damage when I want a character whose narrative is based around avoiding damage.

You can't have "I avoid all damage" as your narrative, from a game design standpoint. So, some damage must be possible. So, now we are left with quibbling over exactly when that is.

 

[pemerton]

I'm sympathetic to the idea that damage on a miss means that a chance to be awesome is stolen from the one who could have been *missed* and given instead to the one doing the attacking.

My puzzlement arises from the fact that we've coped with this for years when mages and dragons are involved - often with the auto damage being well into double digits - but as soon as a fighter gets single-digit auto-damage it's a crisis!

As currently discussed, the GWF's narrative only asserts itself in the very narrow context of toe-to-toe, stand and deliver melee combat, which, honestly, is outside the style of the Graceful Dodger anyway, isn't it? The GD is a light, mobile duelist-type, not a "hold the line" type. So, yeah, if you refuse to stay within (or are forced out of) your narrative, your narrative isn't asserted. Interesting, that.

Yes. This point has been made on one or other of these threads with reference to the rogue's Cunning Action and the fighter's Spring Away.

 

[billd91]

My puzzlement arises from the fact that we've coped with this for years when mages and dragons are involved - often with the auto damage being well into double digits - but as soon as a fighter gets single-digit auto-damage it's a crisis!

At the risk of really being repetitive (when faced with a repetitive question), there's a difference between an area attack and one that's not. And there's a difference between an attack and a saving throw - something 4e muddied the hell out of so it's no wonder we're tending to see the old divide between earlier edition fans and the 4e fans in this debate.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My puzzlement arises from the fact that we've coped with this for years when mages and dragons are involved - often with the auto damage being well into double digits - but as soon as a fighter gets single-digit auto-damage it's a crisis!

Well, given the existence of things like Evasion (even pre 3e) it doesn't seem like we're even THAT comfortable when mages and dragons are involved.

But even though it's mathematically identical, the two things are very different psychologically, in ways that have nothing really to do with the fluff difference of a magic spell and a sword strike. A die roll to lessen a strong punishment that is supposed to happen a few times in an adventure? Sure. A die roll to enhance an automatic reward every turn? More open to debate.

First, Fighters swing their swords more often than a dragon's breath or a fireball is launched. Second, as long as we make saving throws against the latter and use AC for the former, having some punishment inflicted on the PC regardless of their defense is going to be more palatable than having some reward given to the PC regardless of their offense.

Some possible thought experiments to get at what I'm talking about:

• For someone who doesn't like damage on a miss, is it more or less acceptable to have damage on a miss when the PC rolls their defense against each attack?
• For someone who doesn't like damage on a miss, if the fighter had the option of getting a free magic sword that, X per day, could damage on a miss, would it be more or less acceptable? (we're side-stepping the question of martial dailies here, but it's essentially the same scenario)
• The experimenter gives the subject a coin flip: heads they get $5, tails they get $10. Alternately, the experimenter gives the subject $15, and tells them they are going to flip a coin: heads, they lose $10, tails they lose $5. Would the subjects be more willing to do one of these experiments over the other?

There's some key differences that the mathematical similarities may elide.

 

[Weather Report]

Cool.

That was the buzzword for 4th Ed: your character is cool, they can do cool things every round because they're cool, and they can do cool things, because it's cool, add infinitum.

 

[Weather Report]

At the risk of really being repetitive (when faced with a repetitive question), there's a difference between an area attack and one that's not.

They know there is, it's now devolved into a defensive spasmodic reaction, pay no attention.

 

[pemerton]

there's a difference between an area attack and one that's not. And there's a difference between an attack and a saving throw

In real life people survive explosions from time to time. In D&D it is impossible for a kobold to survive a fireball, and a human commoner has a greater than 99.98% chance of being auto-killed (there is a 7 in 6 ^ 6 chance that the damage roll is 7 or less, which on a save will do only 3 hp damage, leaving the commoner alive). What is this modellilng, other than a mechanical convention? (Also - the "saving throw" for these characters seems inaptly named.)

As [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] has also pointed out, in 3E no one can avoid being splashed by alchemical fire no matter how graceful a dodger they are, nor how thick their layers of armour and/or cover.

I don't see why this is such a big deal for the great weapon fighter but a non-issue for the grenadier.

 

[Weather Report]

I don't see why this is such a big deal for the great weapon fighter but a non-issue for the grenadier.

...yeah, chomping at the bit it seems...you appear to not even know what you're "fighting" for at this point; but no, damage-on-a-miss has become a thing, a controversial one at that.