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

[Ahnehnois]

I take it that my answer in the post immediately above yours does not count as a "substantive" one.

Not really. I read a very broad adjective used to describe a character, that you've very tenuously tried to tie to the mechanic under discussion. The same rationale would be a better argument for why all fighters should have fast healing 10, or for that matter why they should just be immune to damage (then they'd really be "relentless", wouldn't they?).

If, outside of the context of this thread, a player tells me they want to make a fighter who is a "relentless dreadnought" the concept of damage on a miss would not occur to me. After reading this thread, it still wouldn't. If anything, I'd look to some very conventional defensive abilities that actually do relate to the concept of relentlessness. The fighter somehow having the ability to drain the opponent's health without "hitting" in the common language sense of the word, an ability that in fact works only when the fighter misses (his damage on a hit is still the same after selecting this ability as it was before), is simply nonsense. Other than you having put the two ideas in the same sentence, I see no connection between them.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.

Want to explain how it's actually meaningful?

 

[Hussar]

Want to explain how it's actually meaningful?

I'll take a stab at that if [MENTION=22574]The Human Target[/MENTION] doesn't mind.

Go back to 3e D&D. What distinguished a GWF from, say, sword and board fighters? A larger damage die and extra damage on a hit (from the 1.5 Str bonus, and possibly the x2 bonus for Power Attack). So, the difference was damage. The GWF didn't hit more often, and, with Power Attack, actually hit less often. I'm ignoring crit damage here, for the moment, since that's a bit of math I really don't have the brain power to deal with right now.

But, because the GWF hit less often, the extra damage was generally a wash overall. Sure, you might really tag something, but, because you were less reliable, you aren't actually accomplishing much of anything.

Now, with this mechanic, the character always deals damage. Not a lot of damage (and personally, I'd rather this be more of an "aura" power where you deal damage to everything adjacent to you on a miss), but, at least damage. The other options do different things. Your character is now mechanically differentiated from another character, even of the same class, with a difference that isn't just a wash at the end of the day. You actually are a damage dealing machine.

At least, that's what the mechanics should be doing. Again, as Mistwell has pointed out, it's a bit of a weak sauce option, so, it could use a bit of oomph. Maybe Str+Level on a miss - that would at least keep it scaling with the hit points of the opponents you will be facing.

Although, and just thinking out loud, part of Next is the idea that you don't automatically graduate to bigger monsters each level. Like in AD&D, you might be facing orcs at 5th level or at 8th level. Just a lot more of them. So, this power might not be so weak as that, depending on how adventure design works. In a 3e or 4e model, where the monsters ratchet up significantly between levels, a flat damage is pretty weak. In an AD&D model, where you frequently see low level monsters at every level of the game, then this remains more useful.

 

[Mistwell]

Want to explain how it's actually meaningful?

Lots of people have. For example, the guy earlier who said his brother got a lot more personal satisfaction out of playing the game in a way where he never missed, but his total damage output was lower on average than taking another route. Because he just got really frustrated with making no difference in the game for a turn. That is meaningful to that player. It's a playstyle that some people enjoy.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Because he just got really frustrated with making no difference in the game for a turn. That is meaningful to that player.

I imagine it's also meaningful to a player if his character dies. That doesn't mean that there should be a feat that makes the character immune to dying.

It's a playstyle that some people enjoy.

This approach to it makes me think of video games where you can tweak the settings (or apply cheat codes) to make failure impossible. Some people do enjoy playing Madden and simply waltzing through the defense and scoring a touchdown every time, or storming through the hallways of Quake with invincibility mode and a rocket launcher.

That is a playstyle. However, the playstyle where you can't fail is a whole game that the DM runs (called a "monty haul" in a D&D context), not one fighter ability placed side by side with the others.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Lots of people have. For example, the guy earlier who said his brother got a lot more personal satisfaction out of playing the game in a way where he never missed, but his total damage output was lower on average than taking another route. Because he just got really frustrated with making no difference in the game for a turn. That is meaningful to that player. It's a playstyle that some people enjoy.

In all fairness, if you get discouraged after missing once then games like D&D are just not for you. The problem is trying to fit the word "playstyle" into everything. Never missing is not a playstyle, it's just a preference which is not the same thing. D&D has never catered to that type of player and shouldn't start now. It is a game at the end of the day and not story time.

 

[Mistwell]

I imagine it's also meaningful to a player if his character dies. That doesn't mean that there should be a feat that makes the character immune to dying.

The question I was answering was, "Want to explain how it's actually meaningful?" So I answered why it was meaningful. I do not think it's a fair analogy to compare this damage on a miss with immunity to death.

This approach to it makes me think of video games where you can tweak the settings (or apply cheat codes) to make failure impossible. Some people do enjoy playing Madden and simply waltzing through the defense and scoring a touchdown every time, or storming through the hallways of Quake with invincibility mode and a rocket launcher.

That is a playstyle. However, the playstyle where you can't fail is a whole game that the DM runs (called a "monty haul" in a D&D context), not one fighter ability placed side by side with the others.

You can fail, and we've detailed elsewhere how you can fail (mostly by moving out of the way before you can be hit, including through the use of a readied action to move, something everyone in the game can do). We've also been over how other classes can damage on a miss and you don't refer to the as monty-haul like or cheat-code video-game like, because "magic". At this point, I am not seeing how a comparison to video game cheat codes and calling it a monty haul game is helpful. In fact, I think it's a sure way to simply piss people off without actually making a meaningful point.

To me, it looks like you're saying that you don't like that playstyle, therefore if others do like that playstyle it's badwrongfun.

 

[Mistwell]

In all fairness, if you get discouraged after missing once then games like D&D are just not for you.

Obviously it isn't "once" and neither I, nor the person who reported that issue, said or implied it was once.

The problem is trying to fit the word "playstyle" into everything. Never missing is not a playstyle, it's just a preference which is not the same thing. D&D has never catered to that type of player and shouldn't start now. It is a game at the end of the day and not story time.

Why is it not a playstyle, and isn't a playstyle simply a set of preferences? It is a playstyle, D&D has in fact catered to that type of player with 4th edition, and they're simply continuing with one option for three classes now. It's a game, indeed - the objection to the option is that it's too gamist in fact, so it would follow that you're retort of "It is a game at the end of the day" should answer your question as to why some people like this option for the game.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
That is a playstyle. However, the playstyle where you can't fail is a whole game that the DM runs (called a "monty haul" in a D&D context), not one fighter ability placed side by side with the others.

Just as a point, this is not Monty Haul. That has never been what Monty Haul means in D&D. Monty Haul campaigns refer to campaigns where the DM has given out far too much treasure for far too little risk. Getting a Vorpal Sword from the corpse of a Kobold is Monty Haul.

Not being able to fail has nothing whatsoever to do with Monty Haul.

For more information See here

 

[Aenghus]

People vary a lot in their preferences as regards to swinginess or reliability. Generally, when there are options in this area, it's the choice somewhere on the sliding scale between more consistent but lower damage to less consistent but higher damage.

Now, some people prefer gambling and high swinginess, others prefer reliability - this isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of taste.

Damage on a Miss or autodamage mechanics are more reliable than hit or miss effects, typically at the cost of lower overall effectiveness. I personally don't discriminate between magical and non-magical means of implementing such mechanics, trying to judge them on their own merits. Since I don't ascribe to the hit points as meat viewpoint, I have no issue in that regard either.