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

[Sunseeker]

Now in all fairness, compared to some of the other combat systems out there, D&D's cimbat system is a bit second rate in my opinion.

I agree with this. It's clunky and doesn't lend itsself well to fast-paced combats.

 

[pemerton]

Now in all fairness, compared to some of the other combat systems out there, D&D's combat system is a bit second rate in my opinion.

ForeverSlayer, do you know HARP? You might like it. (It is a noticeably light version of Rolemaster. It certainly doesn't have damage on a miss!)

 

[dmgorgon]

I won't quit over one rule no. I won't play with that rule though. And if a DM, declares that rule as valid at his table, I won't play at that table. I play martial characters almost exclusively myself though I admit I DM more than anything.

I agree, and what these folks don't understand is that you'll also have to replace every DoaM mechanic in the game. If at some point if DoaM becomes pervasive throughout the entire system that task becomes difficult and likely unmanageable. At that point the end result is that you won't play the game anymore

 

[Mistwell]

I agree, and what these folks don't understand is that you'll also have to replace every DoaM mechanic in the game. It at some point if DoaM becomes pervasive throughout the entire system that task becomes difficult and likely unmanageable. At that point the end result is that you won't play the game anymore

Or you could just houserule it to say it always does +1/2 [mainstat] bonus damage on a hit, instead of [mainstat] damage on a miss.

 

[dmgorgon]

Or you could just houserule it to say it always does +1/2 [mainstat] bonus damage on a hit, instead of [mainstat] damage on a miss.

There are countless house rules that I could use to correct the problem of DoaM. At the moment, my solution will be Contact AC. That changes it from DoaM to damage on Contact, which is exactly how the designers have described it.


I just hope the designers do recognize in an official way via the PHB or DMG that there are some mechanics that don't fit with some playstyles. A short optional section or even a side bar is all we really need. That way everyone gets options that are fully tested and no playstyle is excluded from using GWF or spells like Melf's Acid Arrow.

 

[Hussar]

I agree, and what these folks don't understand is that you'll also have to replace every DoaM mechanic in the game. If at some point if DoaM becomes pervasive throughout the entire system that task becomes difficult and likely unmanageable. At that point the end result is that you won't play the game anymore

But, what evidence is there that DoaM is pervasive? It's the same argument that was used about non-magical compulsions in 4e. People endlessly kvetched about things like Come and Get It, making exactly the same argument - that it's pervasive, the tip of the iceburg, etc.

However, the reality is, across 4 martial classes in the 4e PHB, with some 300 powers, you have only 4 non-magical compulsions. That's it. About 1% of the powers available, and, even at the levels where those four appear, there are at least three other choices for each class. It is entirely possible to play 4e without having a single non-magical compulsion appear in the game. In fact, it's very, very easy for it to never appear.

The same applies here. We're talking a single build option for fighter types. And, there is no evidence that all GWF will be forced to use this mechanic. It is entirely possible that this will one of several possible choices.

In other words, this is a mechanic that is there for those who like it and easily ignored by those who don't.

But, I get the feeling that it won't be criticised that way. It will be endlessly kvetched about until it's either stripped from the game, errata'd or otherwise excised. Same as the powers in 4e. Because, hey, we must ensure that the game only has options that appeal to the loudest critics, those that like the option be damned.

 

[Dausuul]

This is a very long thread, so maybe I missed it, but what is the affirmative argument for having this mechanic? There is obviously a strong sentiment against. I have seen a lot of complaints, and a lot of refutations of those complaints, and refutations of the refutations. What I haven't seen is anyone saying "I really want this mechanic in the game and here's why."

 

[pemerton]

what is the affirmative argument for having this mechanic?

<SNIP>

What I haven't seen is anyone saying "I really want this mechanic in the game and here's why."

I thought I had explained this in one of the several threads.

This is a fiat mechanic for players of martial PCs that lets them establish a story element ("My guy is the relentless dreadnought fighter") and a mechanical element ("I never do less than X damage per round of engagement"). It therefore fills somewhat same niche as Hammer Rhythm in 4e, but because there is no rule against killing minions on a miss, it is actually better against goblins, kobolds and the like.

These are reasons why I want this sort of mechanic to be available. It allows that particular conception of the aggressive fighter to be realised in the game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is a very long thread, so maybe I missed it, but what is the affirmative argument for having this mechanic? There is obviously a strong sentiment against. I have seen a lot of complaints, and a lot of refutations of those complaints, and refutations of the refutations. What I haven't seen is anyone saying "I really want this mechanic in the game and here's why."

I asked that several times and never got a substantive answer.

 

[Imaro]

This is a very long thread, so maybe I missed it, but what is the affirmative argument for having this mechanic? There is obviously a strong sentiment against. I have seen a lot of complaints, and a lot of refutations of those complaints, and refutations of the refutations. What I haven't seen is anyone saying "I really want this mechanic in the game and here's why."

Yeah I asked this question in the other thread before it got closed. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] gave the same answer he gave here (which brought up a tangent centered on how this mechanic, as it stands now in Next eliminates other narratives that some may want to play), but I haven't seen anyone else do anything but speak to why others shouldn't have a dislike for it as opposed to what makes this mechanic a must have.