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

[herrozerro]

I like it because I do. I played with it a whole lot in 4e and several of it's variants like ultramodern and amethyst. For me, I like that for larger attacks a miss is never just nothing. (or in the case of some martial abilities with reliable are not expended instead.)

For the most part with the current GWF I could see some limitations being added. Maybe put a choice in there for the opponent like lose your reaction or take damage.

What I would like though is a fighter or other martial character with encounter abilities that might have damage on a miss or are reliable. I like the idea of big maneuvers or attacks that are just more than a melee basic attack.

 

[urLordy]

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.

No it doesn't apply to my mind. If you want to understand the "kvetching", you have to ask the right questions -- what is the other side kvetching about? Is it about the number of non-magical compulsions? Did you ever hear anyone say they didn't like 4E and played PF instead because of the number of non-magical compulsions? The conclusion of your point is probably a fair one, and I don't know that there's a "right or wrong" answer, but none of the above applies to the way that I (for one) think about how all these elements relate to each other.

 

[The Human Target]

I want this power in 5e because it seems like fun and I,d rather not return to the days when fighter types had few meaningful abilities.

I have DMed plenty of 4e and know that DoaM does absolutely nothing harmful to the game and in fact makes it more fun.

I know their are faction of players to whom the f-word I've used is a dirty one.

But its my main concern as a player and DM.

 

[dmgorgon]

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.

At this point we have a few examples of this mechanic in the Playtest which is enough to cause concern. The greater concern is that it might become much more pervasive and that's a huge issue for my playstyle.

The idea that it can just be ignored is also false. At the moment, there are no other options for the GWF or for Melf's Acid Arrow. DM's are forced to house rule a fix for them. Now, you are correct that there is no evidence that there won't be options, but that might just be wishful thinking.

It's very important not to confuse playstyle options with class build options. IMO, all build options should be usable by all playstyles. If there is a conflict then the devs need to provide optional rules. That way every playstyle is officially supported and not simply a ghettoized to a bunch of house rules.

I also haven't seen anyone here arguing that the options should be removed at the expense of those who like it. All we are saying is that we want options for everyone.

 

[dmgorgon]

I want this power in 5e because it seems like fun and I,d rather not return to the days when fighter types had few meaningful abilities.

I have DMed plenty of 4e and know that DoaM does absolutely nothing harmful to the game and in fact makes it more fun.

I know their are faction of players to whom the f-word I've used is a dirty one.

But its my main concern as a player and DM.

Yes, you should have options for fighter that supports your playstyle.

 

[The Human Target]

Yes, you should have options for fighter that supports your playstyle.

I'm just not sure One Game to Rule Them All is entirely possible, especially at launch or anytime soon after that.

 

[urLordy]

mechanics like this make me want to walk away from the game because it will spawn more like minded mechanics into the game.

Ah, yes. Domino theory, as applied to game design.

@Umbran, the latter was your quote from the other thread that was cancelled. The statement sounds to me like dismissive sarcasm (sorry, that's how it reads to me, given lack of other cues). Is it an acknowledgement or a critique, about the veracity of the prediction, or about the validity of the worry over the potential direction of the game design/philosophy. I didn't understand what information you were trying to convey and I had wanted to ask but is now pertinent (again) to the last several posts of this thread.

 

[herrozerro]

The idea that it can just be ignored is also false. At the moment, there are no other options for the GWF or for Melf's Acid Arrow. DM's are forced to house rule a fix for them. Now, you are correct that there is no evidence that there won't be options, but that might just be wishful thinking.

I still don't understand why each and every element of the game needs to have options for everyone. You either play the game as a whole, remove elements you do not like or houserule them to be acceptable. Why does every single element need to have some kind of clean element for each playstyle?

 

[Halivar]

At this point we have a few examples of this mechanic in the Playtest which is enough to cause concern. The greater concern is that it might become much more pervasive and that's a huge issue for my playstyle.

I asked earlier in the thread (or the other thread) for other examples, but none have been forthcoming.

 

[Emerikol]

Narrative is the right word. It is offending the simulationists as it should. I believe that WOTC has abandoned the simulationists. The only reason we don't see more narrative stuff is that they have a checklist of things people hated from 4e. They still don't understand though why they hated those things and are likely doomed to make the same mistakes when introducing future mechanics.

I am tired of the constant arguing I admit. I have concluded though that WOTC has no one representing me on the dev staff. They are trying to accommodate everyone but they have no one that thinks the same way. If they had even one guy on the staff that way, I'd have hope. They just shoot in the dark and treat every single element as an individual thing with no relationship to any other element. Thus by sheer attrition they will get their narrative game elements. The result will likely be the same as 4e. They will likely have more people that actually like it but the initial burst of people that got fooled isn't going to be there like it was in 4e.