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

[Dausuul]

One thing I take away from all this is that if it must be in the game, "damage on a miss" should be a feat rather than a fighter build option. Putting it in the GWF is bad all around. For those opposed, it means you lose access to the offensive GWF specialty (and come on, GWF is by nature offensive, if you wanted to play a defensive fighter you'd use a shield). For those in favor, it means you're confined to playing a GWF! If you want to play a dual-wielding swashbuckler type whose shtick is "I never miss," too bad.

If such abilities were confined to feats, they would be easier to exclude at tables that don't want them, and more widely available at tables that do.

 

[TwoSix]

I shouldn't have to. I asked to have it explained to me. Either someone will explain it in a way that makes sense to me, or they won't. Explanations for "damage on a miss" that rely on redefining or ignoring the word "miss" are unproductive and don't address the question, to say the least.

If you find clarifying that by "Miss" some of us are talking about a roll on a d20 that doesn't meet the target AC, as opposed to "no contact made on a target", then yes, you'll probably get little out of this conversation.

I don't think a low roll on an attack needs to model anything. I prefer to just apply the effect that a low roll calls for, whether that be no damage, little damage, or something else. I look at the effect, I look at the target's HP, and I make up a story (or have the player make up a story, if they're inclined) for why that effect happened to that target.

I know you hate that. That's cool. But do you really have no understanding of how it works, even if you can't wrap your head around why I prefer it?

The goalposts have shifted so much from why it's okay to have damage on a miss, to why it isn't a miss, to why it isn't damage, to why it doesn't matter, I hardly think it's my fault if I haven't gleaned anything coherent from the posts on this issue.

It's hard to argue goalpost shifting when you're arguing with like 10 other people, all of whom have their idiosyncratic way of using or not using said mechanic. I don't play exactly like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], or anyone else.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that D&D being like a video game was an obvious pejorative, just that one feature reminded him of a video game feature. That's pretty fair, video games are close to a lingua franca for TTRPGers.

I don't know where that whole tangent came from. I was considering rpging as being analogous to video gaming and explaining why some people might want to mod/hack their games to create a desired experience that removes negative outcomes. There's nothing remotely pejorative in it.

In truth, there should be a rule that if you twist my words into something confrontational and uncivil and strawman-y that doesn't resemble what I said, you go on ignore. Oh wait, there is.

Also, the argument seems to present a model where character death is inherently good, and not wishing to see your character be constantly at risk means you're not a real D&D tough guy.

I don't know about inherently good, simply inherently part of the game. In most games it's possible to fail and/or lose in some meaningful way. That doesn't mean that failure is "good" it's simply part of the experience. It creates stakes, and establishes a dynamic between success and failure.

It's certainly possible to play D&D in a way that abrogates that sense of goal-directed dynamic task resolution. In fact, there are probably quite a few ways, of which the Monty Haul style where the players just waltz through encounters accumulating cool stuff and never experience any adversity is one, and the narrativist "fail forward" approach is another. However, as I said I don't think it's appropriate for one character ability to so radically change the scope of the game. If the mentality is "fail forward" or otherwise that characters can't fail, that's something the DM and possibly the players choose, and it characterizes the game as a whole.

 

[herrozerro]

It's certainly possible to play D&D in a way that abrogates that sense of goal-directed dynamic task resolution. In fact, there are probably quite a few ways, of which the Monty Haul style where the players just waltz through encounters accumulating cool stuff and never experience any adversity is one, and the narrativist "fail forward" approach is another. However, as I said I don't think it's appropriate for one character ability to so radically change the scope of the game. If the mentality is "fail forward" or otherwise that characters can't fail, that's something the DM and possibly the players choose, and it characterizes the game as a whole.

My take on "fail forward" was to not dead end the game with failure. Failure is a setback so the game doesn't come to a grinding halt. Not that they cannot fail, but rather that failure presents another goal or conflict to resolve.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you find clarifying that by "Miss" some of us are talking about a roll on a d20 that doesn't meet the target AC, as opposed to "no contact made on a target", then yes, you'll probably get little out of this conversation.

I think that's what all of us are talking about. I don't see any good rationale for an ability that only works when that occurs.

Oddly enough, I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] 's example a while back of an "aura" that just deals damage in the area actually is much more logical and sensible, albeit still not one I would be jumping out of my seat to implement.

I don't think a low roll on an attack needs to model anything.

Well, that one's going to be kind of a problem for me.

I know you hate that. That's cool. But do you really have no understanding of how it works, even if you can't wrap your head around why I prefer it?

Trying to imagine a game where one character functions as an abstract reality simulator and another does not literally gives me a headache. Unless you're making the case that none of them do at all.

It's hard to argue goalpost shifting when you're arguing with like 10 other people, all of whom have their idiosyncratic way of using or not using said mechanic. I don't play exactly like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], or anyone else.

Even if I just follow one person and ignore the others, there's been some serious shifting.

 

[dmgorgon]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, because I'm not 100% sure what the alternative is. Eg in no version of D&D can I narrate "I chop the orc's head off" until after the mechanical process of rolling an attack, rolling damage if the attack hits, and then subtracting hit points from the orc, has been completed.

It's not good to make false statements.

In 2e you can make a called shot. Of course, a death blow is a loaded example, but I have played with DM's who have house rules for it. Alternatively, you can use the 2e combat and tactics critical hit system to make a called shot for which decapitation is possible.

It's actually more likely the player will say something like, "I want to try and disarm the Orc". At that point the DM looks up the rules for disarm.

Improvised play is a big part of my playstyle. The player declares what he is going to do first and then the action is resolved with mechanics that match the action. In fact, that's even how 2e initiative works. You first declare the action and use mechanics to resolve it. We don't play through the mechanics and then try to interpret the mechanics to form an unknown and undeclared narrative.

btw, contrary to your declaration regarding all editions of D&D the 2e DMG has this bit of advice.

Too many rules slow down play (taking away from the real adventure) and restrict imagination. How much fun is it when a character, ready to try an amazing and heroic deed, is told, "You can't do that because it's against the rules."
Players should be allowed to try whatever they want--especially if what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement. Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.
To have the most fun playing the AD&D game, don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him. And a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.

In other words, the mechanics don't dictate the heroic deeds the character can perform. Players tell the DM what they want their character to do first.

 

[herrozerro]

Trying to imagine a game where one character functions as an abstract reality simulator and another does not literally gives me a headache. Unless you're making the case that none of them do at all.

I feel the same way, magic users seem to be playing their own game that is not what the more mundane characters play.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My take on "fail forward" was to not dead end the game with failure. Failure is a setback so the game doesn't come to a grinding halt. Not that they cannot fail, but rather that failure presents another goal or conflict to resolve.

Which is fine in and of itself. But I can't see a game where one fighter who selects damage on a miss lives in a "fail forward" reality, and another that doesn't can stand right next to him and live in a different reality.

Now if instead of a damage on a miss ability built into a PC class, you go into the DMG and put in a "fail forward" module wherein there's a list of outcomes for the whole game wherein failure on a check of any sort by any character is replaced with some sort of qualified success, and a failed attack roll dealing a small amount of damage is part of that, then I say fine. The DMs with players who can't stand nonproductive actions can use that. The DMs who have a narrativist agenda themselves and want the rules to support a fail forward mentality can use that. I probably wouldn't (though an experiment wouldn't be out of the question), but then, that's what modularity is about.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I feel the same way, magic users seem to be playing their own game that is not what the more mundane characters play.

Perhaps a low magic game is for you?

That being said, as I've noted before if someone created a d20 magic system where everything was a skill and casters rolled for success like everyone else, I wouldn't complain (I even do that myself with psionics). It's only when you go the other way (making the normal characters select discretized abilities and track spell slots) that I start having a problem.

 

[herrozerro]

Which is fine in and of itself. But I can't see a game where one fighter who selects damage on a miss lives in a "fail forward" reality, and another that doesn't can stand right next to him and live in a different reality.

Now if instead of a damage on a miss ability built into a PC class, you go into the DMG and put in a "fail forward" module wherein there's a list of outcomes for the whole game wherein failure on a check of any sort by any character is replaced with some sort of qualified success, and a failed attack roll dealing a small amount of damage is part of that, then I say fine. The DMs with players who can't stand nonproductive actions can use that. The DMs who have a narrativist agenda themselves and want the rules to support a fail forward mentalitu can use that. I probably wouldn't (though an experiment wouldn't be out of the question), but then, that's what modularity is about.

I don't see anything that makes each fighter live in a different reality. Do you think that fighters with different feats live in different realities? When two of the same class choose two different features and neither can ever have access to the other, are they different realities?

No, the simple answer is that GWF represents specialized training, so specialized in fact that taking it eschews all others. Much like any of the other styles, likewise, they are specialized so that they cannot do more than one at once.