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

[Bluenose]

...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.

Considering you've started two threads about it and keep bringing it up, are you surprised that it's "become a thing"?

 

[Imaro]

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.

I have the playtest packet and I know what is in those rules, that is what I am discussing and basing my statements off of, it is all any of us have... and there is no auto-power to support the narrative of the graceful dodger. Or is this argument that because we don't have the entirety of the rules yet we can't judge based off what is in the playtest packet they have given us to look over... because that doesn't make sense.

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.

Of course it can only assert itself in a melee context (and I'd argue that melee combat isn't that "narrow" of a context in a game like D&D), I thought that was a given since the narrative itself is based around melee combat, does that really need to be stated or should it just be assumed??

And I'm sorry but no it isn't outside the style of the graceful dodger, think of Bruce Lee or Jet Li they are graceful dodgers and in their movies tend to go head-to-head with much bigger opponents (even opponents with much greater reach like in Game of Death) and are usually so quick and fast that they are able to beat them by dodging and/or parrying their blows continuously and then striking. You seem to only be taking into consideration the graceful dodger as epitomized by someone like Jackie Chan who continuously runs around, uses objects and terrain to supplement his own ability to dodge and parry, etc. In other words you're artificially narrowing the narrative.

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

I'm sorry but I thought auto-miss damage was a 100% always on way to reflect the GWF as relentless combatant?? Is this wrong?

Now that said what 100% always on power is in the playtest to represent the graceful dodger... if there isn't one then there is a chance his narrative will not assert itself, right? Which in turn means there may be a combat where he is unable to pull off his graceful dodge stuff but the GWF will always be able to pull of his relentless shtick because it is always on and does auto-damage even on a miss

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?

How does this stop his narrative as a relentless fighter?? He may not be mechanically effective against an archer... but by virtue of being a relentless melee combatant that too is part of his narrative... and the fact that an archer can shoot him with an arrow does not change the fact that he is a relentless fighter.

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.

Then maybe there shouldn't be attacks that auto-succeed?? Maybe that's what rolling the dice is for to see which wins out this time.

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.

Who asked for "avoid all damage". Show me where I said this or please stop attributing things to me I didn't say. A graceful dodger can still be hit but by virtue of his narrative being just as valid as relentless fighter, he should be able to have some type of auto-ability to avoid damage just as the GWF always has the possibility of inflicting damage regardless of his rolls...

 

[Imaro]

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 @Mistwell 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.

You do realize @Mistwell 's entire example was wrong... don't you?

EDIT: Ok, after clarification I get Mistwell's point... if you set up an attack with alchemical fire in just the right way, it can't miss. So there is an inherent chance (since the player doesn't control all of said variables) that this will fail but technically if we can get all these things to line up correctly, your target will take damage).

 

[Ahnehnois]

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!

There are many things for which this is true. Mages have had mind control for years, but Diplomancy/knight's challenges/CaGI is a crisis. Clerics and various other classes have had healing for years but healing surges and martial healing were a crisis.

If some effect was previously only available with certain types of magic, I think it's fair to assume there was probably a reason for that.

 

[Weather Report]

In real life

...oh, is this real life, marvellous, tell me about real life...?

 

[billd91]

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.)

People do survive explosions - depending on where they are in relation to the primary blast and a whole host of factors. They're pretty much always hurt, however, even if they survive. They may not always be bleeding from shrapnel, but they've all been affected in a negative way. Ears ringing, hearing damaged, brain injuries, and so on. But just because people can survive an explosion in real life doesn't mean that they average person in D&D should survive a fireball even if they mitigate some of the damage with a saving throw. As the 1st edition DMG puts it:

So a character manages to avoid the full blast of the fireball, or averts his or her gaze from the basilisk or medusa, or the poisonous stinger of the giant scorpion misses or fails somehow to inject its venom. Whatever the rationale, the character is saved to go on. Of course, some saves result in the death of the character anyway, as partial damage causes him or her to meet death. But at least the character had some hope, and he or she fought until the very end. Stories will be told of it at the inn, and songs sung of the battle when warriors gather around the campfire. Almost, almost he managed to reach the bend in the passage where the fell breath of the blue dragon Razisiz could not reach, but at the last moment his toe struck a protrusion, and as he stumbled the dragon slew him!

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

Well, you know the old saying, "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades."

 

[Herschel]

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.

Actually, GWF is basically an area attack, just a smaller area. The GWF knows they may not hit an "exposed" or "vital" area but they're swinging at the target's area hard enough that even if they don't hit a joint/crease that armor isn't going to absorb the whole blow. It doesn't require a precision thrust of a rapier or dagger to have an effect due to the pure force of the blow.

 

[Weather Report]

Actually, GWF is basically an area attack

...a spell...?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...oh, is this real life, marvellous, tell me about real life...?

Are you trying out a new "Summon Mod" spell? Chill, dude!

 

[Weather Report]

Are you trying out a new "Summon Mod" spell? Chill, dude!

Stop it, now.