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

[urLordy]

(By the way, in case you're not aware: the D&Dnext rules in their current iteration say that hit point loss does not manifest as visible physical injury until a target drops below half hit points.

Huh! So bloodied is literal? Not sure how I feel about that. Does that solve any problems for either playstyle, I don't think so.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You seem to be equating "cogent explanation" with "explanation that persuades you".

Lacking an independent and unbiased arbiter, I struggle to see what distinction between the two could exist.

But anyway, here it is: this ability ensures that a fighter, in any given 6 seconds of engaging a foe, will wear that foe down.

Unless, of course, he hits, in which case this extra damage disappears.

Because they want a guarantee of effectiveness is one reason - a more-or-less mechanical reason.

So damage on a miss is good, because it gives one permutation of the fighter class a paradigm shift from the notion of how an attack roll works to grant this guarantee, whilst leaving it unattainable for everyone else?

Because they want a PC who is relentless in their prosecution of their attacks - a more-or-less story reason.

So, they want a character who is infallible. What level is this character again?

Perhaps those reasons don't move you

Not much there, no.

Again, both of those rationales would apply equally well to an ability that made the character invincible. "Guarantee of effectiveness" and "infallibility" simply aren't within the scope of appropriate character abilities.

Obviously people who like the mechanic don't accept that the game is as you assert it to be given. If you're not even going to acknowledge that, why are you posting?

They can see it however they like. That's not the point.

The point is that if I ask you why Chinese people like tofu, and you tell me to go live in China for a year, you haven't answered my question.

(By the way, in case you're not aware: the D&Dnext rules in their current iteration say that hit point loss does not manifest as visible physical injury until a target drops below half hit points. Which opens up yet another possible permutation of this ability: damage on a miss, but not to drop hp below one-half.)

That would be odd.

 

[Hussar]

Well. I wasn't talking about video games, but you might want to talk to Mike Mearls about that because it wasn't long ago that he admitted to that approach for 4e design.

Anyway, when some says to me that you can't narrate anything without first iterating through the mechanics they are wrong. The player can declare his actions first and then you can use mechanics to resolve them. In order for that to happen you need mechanics that match the narrative.

btw, pg 42 is nothing new.

This is flat out wrong. In D&D, in any edition, you can never, ever narrate the results of any mechanically determined action without first going through the mechanics. You simply can't.

Player: "I climb the wall" *Rolls* ((Fail))
DM: No, you actually don't. You try to climb it but scrabble ineffectually at the bottom.

Player: "I climb the wall" *Rolls* ((Success))
DM: Ok, you make it about fifteen feet up the wall, and hang precariously.

But, note, in both those examples, the PC did not move an inch until that die hit the table. You can declare anything you want, but, until the mechanics are engaged, any declaration you make is subject to that die roll. "I cut off the orc's head" cannot ever be narrated until after you make an attack and deal damage. And that's true in any edition.

 

[Hussar]

The point is that if I ask you why Chinese people like tofu, and you tell me to go live in China for a year, you haven't answered my question.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...mage-on-a-miss-quot-poll/page84#ixzz2l96SiMqm

Sure it has. The answer is wrapped up in cultural aspects that would be extremely difficult to explain to you since you lack the cultural context with which to understand them. Without experiencing the culture you are asking about, you lack the ability to actually understand any answer given to you. It's no different than trying to explain the colour purple to a blind person who has never seen.

And, unless that blind person is willing to accept alternative interpretations, you never, ever can explain it to him.

 

[urLordy]

This is flat out wrong. In D&D, in any edition, you can never, ever narrate the results of any mechanically determined action without first going through the mechanics. You simply can't.

I'm confused. Isn't this circular logic? I think it is, but I'm not sure.

(BTW I assume you're only talking about cases where mechanics are called upon. For example, a DM could assess, "Sure you climb the wall" without asking for a climb check.)

But, note, in both those examples, the PC did not move an inch until that die hit the table. You can declare anything you want, but, until the mechanics are engaged, any declaration you make is subject to that die roll. "I cut off the orc's head" cannot ever be narrated until after you make an attack and deal damage. And that's true in any edition.

A player in-character does not (effectively) narrate what is out of the character's control. A player might narrate "I try to cut off the orc's head" where "I cut off the orc's head" is either shorthand or a presumption of likelihood.

In that case, the character's intent is NOT subject to the die roll. Only the result. Just like in real life, if I tried to cut off a combatant's head, then my intent is not subject to any external jurisdiction. But I can't declare that heads will roll, as I can't control the universe or predict the future.

(Obviously, player fiat rules are different.) And I'm not sure what the above has to do with whatever dmgorgon was saying.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, sure, you can state intent all you like. "I want to climb the wall" "I want to cut off the orc's head" etc. No problems.

But, at that point, what has happened in the game world? Nothing, as far as I can see. All you've done is state an intent. There is nothing to narrate at that point. Until such time as you engage the mechanics, then there never can be anything to narrate.
[MENTION=6750373]dmgorgon[/MENTION]'s point is contradictory. He states that "when some says to me that you can't narrate anything without first iterating through the mechanics they are wrong". And then goes on to say that you have to go through the mechanics in order to narrate anything.

Note, I'm only speaking about mechanically determined outcomes. Obviously you can state, "I walk across the street" since that's not mechanically determined. Fair enough. But, in any event where there is an unknown result, you cannot actually narrate that event until the mechanics resolve that event. At best, you can simply engage the mechanics.

 

[urLordy]

But, at that point, what has happened in the game world? Nothing, as far as I can see. All you've done is state an intent. There is nothing to narrate at that point. Until such time as you engage the mechanics, then there never can be anything to narrate.

To me, declaring intent IS narration. An important part of narration in fact. In my case, I'm usually not narrating the events, but the character's point of view. This might be confusion over definitions. Anyway, I'm sure dmgorgon can clarify further.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sure it has. The answer is wrapped up in cultural aspects that would be extremely difficult to explain to you since you lack the cultural context with which to understand them. Without experiencing the culture you are asking about, you lack the ability to actually understand any answer given to you.

That doesn't mean that someone couldn't compose a rational answer about the acculturation of taste or talk about umami receptors or make me some and show me. Obviously, living the experience would be more informative, but it isn't the only answer, nor the one that most people asking that question are going to be looking for.

 

[Hussar]

That doesn't mean that someone couldn't compose a rational answer about the acculturation of taste or talk about umami receptors or make me some and show me. Obviously, living the experience would be more informative, but it isn't the only answer, nor the one that most people asking that question are going to be looking for.

Fair enough. But, "I don't like your answer" isn't quite the same as "You're not answering my question."

You've asked, you've been answered. You claim not to understand the answer, and then further claim the exclusive right to define the terms used in the answer (a miss must mean X, a hit must mean Y). When explanations cannot be made because of your insistence on specific definitions, there's simply no way forward.

 

[Ahnehnois]

When explanations cannot be made because of your insistence on specific definitions, there's simply no way forward.

In the absence of specific definitions, we aren't talking about anything.

It says right there in the thread title "damage on a miss", and the discussion keeps going to how it isn't really a miss or it isn't really damage, which is beyond moving goalposts, it's redefining the entire field. We're discussing a damage on a miss ability, not a never miss ability or a fatigue your opponent ability. It's damage, and it happens on a miss.

I don't think I'd have any trouble explaining any of the character abilities I like to anyone in this thread without going off on lengthy tangents about trying to redefine simple common language words. But then again, I don't really like any that are particularly controversial in this arena, that I'm aware of.