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

[Imaro]

Swimming a ways back upthread for this one.

Do you have similar problems with a high level fighter? After all, my 10th level human fighter can have more hit points than a giant or an ogre, things that are obviously much more tough than I am.

If it's okay for a high level fighter's ability to be a graceful dodger (which is basically what this is) why can't the pixie have extra hit points in exactly the same way? How is that lazy?

The only way I can see this as lazy is if you insist on only one definition of what hit points represent, which has never been true in any edition of D&D. Hit points combine all sorts of things, one of which being a graceful dodger. So, why can't a pixie have 50 hit points instead of an insanely high AC? It achieves exactly the same result.

If you are fine with no mechanical distinction between the Juggernaut and Gambit then fine this was more of a philosophy in 4e where there were fewer (none) subsystems than in other editions. For me aesthetically it feels lazy and, besides me as DM describing it in different ways, doesn't in any way mechanically differentiate between the two. I mean if it's a relentless fighter were looking for let's stick him in the hit points category too, instead of doing auto-damage let's give him extra hit points each round so he keeps on going... now that's relentless. In fact let's model everything with hit points, it's simpler (though it will probably make for a more boring game because there is little mechanical differentiation in my choices)... See it's not about whether something can or can't be modeled a certain way, it really just boils down to whether any individual likes or doesn't like it and I personally don't like modelling Quicksilver, or Gambit in the same way as Juggernaut and the Blob.

As to why I don't like the feel of the "more hit points" mechanic to model quick dodges and parries... again, we have powers like the GWF auto-damge on a miss, so it doesn't feel like you're actually dodging anything against foes like that, it feels like you are being whittled down regardless of how the DM dresses it up. Regardless of what some believe in my experience how mechanics are presented and constructed affect the feel of the game... regardless of how you dress the fiction up.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This doesn't explain why it's OK for a fireball to be auto-kill against low level characters who, in the fiction, should have a chance of avoiding death.

I don't see that they necessarily should. It's entirely possible that a person might have no chance of avoiding an explosion that goes off right next to them. In that case, evasion is stretching reality, not automatic damage. Conversely, it's absurd to think that a person (with varying levels of defensive capability) would have no chance whatsoever of avoiding a sword from a moderately skilled warrior.

 

[Hussar]

If you are fine with no mechanical distinction between the Juggernaut and Gambit then fine this was more of a philosophy in 4e where there were fewer (none) subsystems than in other editions. For me aesthetically it feels lazy and, besides me as DM describing it in different ways, doesn't in any way mechanically differentiate between the two. I mean if it's a relentless fighter were looking for let's stick him in the hit points category too, instead of doing auto-damage let's give him extra hit points each round so he keeps on going... now that's relentless. In fact let's model everything with hit points, it's simpler (though it will probably make for a more boring game because there is little mechanical differentiation in my choices)... See it's not about whether something can or can't be modeled a certain way, it really just boils down to whether any individual likes or doesn't like it and I personally don't like modelling Quicksilver, or Gambit in the same way as Juggernaut and the Blob.

As to why I don't like the feel of the "more hit points" mechanic to model quick dodges and parries... again, we have powers like the GWF auto-damge on a miss, so it doesn't feel like you're actually dodging anything against foes like that, it feels like you are being whittled down regardless of how the DM dresses it up. Regardless of what some believe in my experience how mechanics are presented and constructed affect the feel of the game... regardless of how you dress the fiction up.

I know that it's knee jerk to automatically reference 4e as a counter to any point, but, it's not what I'm talking about here.

In every edition of D&D, a PC gains hit points as they go up levels. A PC with 10 HP takes on average, three whacks with a long sword to go down. A PC with 100 HP take 23 of the exact same hits to go down. Again, on average (just going by straight up 4.5 HP damage/hit - average for a longsword). Now, has the skin on my character become seven times tougher as I went up levels? Did I suddenly gain 400 pounds of muscle? No, of course not. Physically, there is nothing to differentiate my 1st level fighter with 10 HP and my 10th level fighter with 100 HP. Side by side, they are identical.

Yet, my higher level character takes 20 more hits to drop. So, what's changed? Isn't the reason that I take 20 more hits that I'm now much more experienced and can avoid damaging blows much better? Doesn't that qualify me as being a more graceful dodger?

Just to be clear, this is not an edition specific thing at all. Earlier editions did not model the graceful dodger in any way other than hit points. That's the only narrative that makes sense for higher level characters.

Unless you believe that going up in levels somehow physically transforms your character into The Blob or Juggernaut.

 

[Imaro]

I know that it's knee jerk to automatically reference 4e as a counter to any point, but, it's not what I'm talking about here.

In every edition of D&D, a PC gains hit points as they go up levels. A PC with 10 HP takes on average, three whacks with a long sword to go down. A PC with 100 HP take 23 of the exact same hits to go down. Again, on average (just going by straight up 4.5 HP damage/hit - average for a longsword). Now, has the skin on my character become seven times tougher as I went up levels? Did I suddenly gain 400 pounds of muscle? No, of course not. Physically, there is nothing to differentiate my 1st level fighter with 10 HP and my 10th level fighter with 100 HP. Side by side, they are identical.

Yet, my higher level character takes 20 more hits to drop. So, what's changed? Isn't the reason that I take 20 more hits that I'm now much more experienced and can avoid damaging blows much better? Doesn't that qualify me as being a more graceful dodger?

Just to be clear, this is not an edition specific thing at all. Earlier editions did not model the graceful dodger in any way other than hit points. That's the only narrative that makes sense for higher level characters.

Unless you believe that going up in levels somehow physically transforms your character into The Blob or Juggernaut.

Wait so the graceful dodger wasn't modeled by feats like dodge, improved feint, mobility and/or class abilities like evasion, uncanny dodge, etc. in 3.x?
I'll tell you what didn't take place in any edition... a character getting extra hit points because he was more dexterous than another character... but he did get them for a higher constitution.

Oh and your 10th level fighter (at least in 3e and 4e) is physically, through skill ranks, the raising of attributes, etc. different from your 1st level fighter beyond hit points... so there is the precedence for at least some physical changes taking place as you level up...

 

[Weather Report]

I know that it's knee jerk to automatically reference 4e as a counter to any point, but, it's not what I'm talking about here.

In every edition of D&D, a PC gains hit points as they go up levels. A PC with 10 HP takes on average, three whacks with a long sword to go down. A PC with 100 HP take 23 of the exact same hits to go down. Again, on average (just going by straight up 4.5 HP damage/hit - average for a longsword). Now, has the skin on my character become seven times tougher as I went up levels? Did I suddenly gain 400 pounds of muscle? No, of course not. Physically, there is nothing to differentiate my 1st level fighter with 10 HP and my 10th level fighter with 100 HP. Side by side, they are identical.

Yet, my higher level character takes 20 more hits to drop. So, what's changed? Isn't the reason that I take 20 more hits that I'm now much more experienced and can avoid damaging blows much better? Doesn't that qualify me as being a more graceful dodger?

Just to be clear, this is not an edition specific thing at all. Earlier editions did not model the graceful dodger in any way other than hit points. That's the only narrative that makes sense for higher level characters.

Unless you believe that going up in levels somehow physically transforms your character into The Blob or Juggernaut.

Defensive (and for good reason).

 

[Wicht]

I know. Which is why I said, "If the range is 5'...".

It is, coincidentally, the same range we're talking about for a typical melee weapon.

Can the melee fighter set himself on fire if he misses?

 

[Wicht]

And in terms of balance and fairness, this option is just as balanced and fair, or even more balanced and fair, than the splash weapon that is already-accepted.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. If you can't see the difference between burning off a resource, and taking a chance on setting yourself and your friends on fire vs. not expending a consumable resource and not setting yourself or your friends on fire, then I don't know what I can say to make you understand the difference.

 

[Wicht]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] covers this above - as a model for an explosion it has the "pixie dodge" problem, the "ignore AC/cover" problem, and so on all as badly or worse than GWF.

I don't think they are quite analogous, but you can fix those issues by allowing a DC 15 reflex save to take no damage. Problem solved. I would not use the one set of "problems" to justify making a multitude of others.

Mistwell also covers the balance issues.

ymmv

Hence my puzzlement as to why the grenadier fiat is regarded as OK but the GWF fiat as impersmissible.

If there was a class which could, for free, throw an alchemist fire each round without expending consumable resources or using up a slot in some manner, then I would have a problem with that class as well, especially if it was a 1st level ability.

But as the "grenadier" has to consume a resource for each explosion, I have no problem with it (besides the other balancing mechanics).

 

[Hussar]

Wait so the graceful dodger wasn't modeled by feats like dodge, improved feint, mobility and/or class abilities like evasion, uncanny dodge, etc. in 3.x?

Evasion and uncanny dodge have nothing to do with melee combat, I'd point out. They allow you to avoid area of effect attacks. Improved Feint allowed you to make an opponent flat footed, which allowed you to hit him better, but, did nothing to protect you. So, we've got Dodge and mobility. Not a whole lot of modeling going on here. +1 AC vs a single target and +4 AC against AOO's.

I'll tell you what didn't take place in any edition... a character getting extra hit points because he was more dexterous than another character... but he did get them for a higher constitution.

Yup. Which is exactly my point. The rules never modeled a graceful dodger particularly well. You got extra hit points for gaining levels. But, for some reason, your defenses never went up. Only your HP. You never became harder to hit, no matter what level you were. But, you sure can take a lot more hits when you're higher level.

Oh and your 10th level fighter (at least in 3e and 4e) is physically, through skill ranks, the raising of attributes, etc. different from your 1st level fighter beyond hit points... so there is the precedence for at least some physical changes taking place as you level up...

Oh, please. Hrm, at best, in 3e, I've gained a +1 Str in ten levels. And how does a higher jump check translate to making me physically resist damage better? You're telling me that a 10th level character goes from being a bit tougher than a normal human to able to take blows that would outright kill a grizzly bear because he's undergone physical changes that would make him tougher than a bear?

You're seriously going to suggest that?

 

[Wicht]

If it's okay for a high level fighter's ability to be a graceful dodger (which is basically what this is) why can't the pixie have extra hit points in exactly the same way? How is that lazy?

The only way I can see this as lazy is if you insist on only one definition of what hit points represent, which has never been true in any edition of D&D. Hit points combine all sorts of things, one of which being a graceful dodger. So, why can't a pixie have 50 hit points instead of an insanely high AC? It achieves exactly the same result.

Thinking like a designer for a moment... if you solve the problem of the graceful dodger being affected by the juggernaut by giving said dodger more hp what you are doing is extending the duration of the conflict, in effect creating more grind in fights. You are essentially making a new set of problems. (and I do seem to recall that one of the goals was to avoid "grind")

Which gets to another reason the damage on a "miss" is problematic. It creates a series of necessary additional changes to keep the modeling the same. But each additional "fix" is going to add that much more unnecessary complexity to the game. Which is another reason to scrap it and go back to the drawing board for a better mechanic.