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

[Wicht]

Are yo saying that it's obnoxious to you that, in my game, if a fighter kills an enemy with damage dealt on a failed attack roll that I would narrate that as a killing blow? If so, I'm puzzle - why do you care what happens in my game?

Or are you simply saying that you don't want to play a game which opens up that possibility? In which case, don't use the GWF ability. Or Melf's Acid Arrow.

Clearly its the second. I have already said you can play the game you want to play. But the point, at this point, is that allowing damage on a miss from routine melee attacks makes 5e a game far less appealing to me than it might otherwise be. I would rather it be excised now rather than me being forced, if I were to play the game, from doing it later. But too many things like this and chances decrease exponentially that I just won't give the game much of a chance.

I would gobsmacked if more than a fraction of GM's narrated a 15 hp blow to a dragon with 200 hp remaining, and a 15 hp blow to an orc with 3 hp remaining, the same way. To the extent that you play this way, I do not personally feel that you are typical.

Nothing I have ever read or experienced in over 30 years of playing D&D makes me think that narrating things in such a way is traditional.

I would also be surprised if that was the case. Fortunately that is not what I said. You should perhaps be more charitable in your interpretation of comments, rather than trying to twist words into the silliest of possibilities.

I said I based the severity of the hit based on the amount of damage rolled. That does not preclude different creatures, with different hit-points being affected differently. A blow of 15 hp to an Orc with 3 is a killing blow that lays the anemic orc open. A blow of 15 to a dragon with 200 hp would be a slice that draws blood. Conversely, a hit of 50 hps to the same dragon would be a gash that shatters scales and bears muscles underneath. In my style of play, the manner and extent of the wound is a manipulation, narratively, of the number rolled on the d20 and the amount of damage dealt.

I do think that narrating in this way is typical. If you have not experiences that sort of narration I will accept your word for it. Though I suspect you have and rather meant you had not experienced the rather nonsensical example you tried to accuse me of.

 

[Imaro]

I said I based the severity of the hit based on the amount of damage rolled. That does not preclude different creatures, with different hit-points being affected differently. A blow of 15 hp to an Orc with 3 is a killing blow that lays the anemic orc open. A blow of 15 to a dragon with 200 hp would be a slice that draws blood. Conversely, a hit of 50 hps to the same dragon would be a gash that shatters scales and bears muscles underneath. In my style of play, the manner and extent of the wound is a manipulation, narratively, of the number rolled on the d20 and the amount of damage dealt.

I do think that narrating in this way is typical. If you have not experiences that sort of narration I will accept your word for it. Though I suspect you have and rather meant you had not experienced the rather nonsensical example you tried to accuse me of.

Yep, that's pretty much how me and my group do it... and I also think that's pretty typical of the way most groups have narrated attacks and damage across numerous editions of D&D.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If we had a Wall of steel or Flurry of attacks which allowed a fighter to create an area of effect doing slashing damage with a save for half damage we would have the same threads and people asserting its not "traditional" not "realistic" or not in keeping with the paradigm of building up to a single attack opportunity... or some other goo.

We would?

There's certainly plenty of room to botch the implementation of those types of things. But I doubt we'd see the same level of opposition. If anything, having a greataxe swing through several squares and deal area damage makes more sense that having it make rapid attacks against a single target. In this case, the ability would actually specifically represent two-handed weapons (unlike DoaM). And if you deal it as area damage with a save for half, you abrogate the possibility of crits, which helps a lot from a balance perspective.

This is part of the problem with things like DoaM: when better approaches are actively neglected because the designers got fixated on this one for some reason.

I think if we did that, what we'd have is people complaining that fighters still don't have "fiat".

 

[Wicht]

Where do the rules say Dead in relation to being reduced to 0 hit points? Unless you're making the argument that people collapsing in the course of battle from a cause other than physical injury is impossible to imagine...

Heh. Talk about shifting goalposts (the danger of too many participants). 0 hp is not dead in my game, even for monsters, though several posters already argued with me that it was too much work to do it that way. I use "dead" loosely in the quote you quoted. But regardless, the ability of a miss to render an opponent out of action in any capacity would be obnoxious to me in any game in which I participated. I would feel cheated as both a player and a DM.

 

[Hussar]

Does it really matter? What matters is the character failed to ablate his target's hit points. The lack of mechanical specificity means the GM and the players have freedom to narrate how they like - to use that to differentiate between an air elemental's swift dodging and nebulous body and a dragon's thick scales and awe inspiring toughness. The same, by the way, holds with a hit. Did it find a weak spot between armored scales or hit the scales hard enough to cause injury anyway? Who cares as long as it sounds good.

But, isn't this the entire point?

If it doesn't matter, and the GM and the players have the freedom to narrate how they like, then how is damage on a miss changing this?

As you say, the mechanics in no way actually inform the narration, therefore, you are still perfectly free to narrate damage on a miss exactly the same way. As long as it sounds good, who cares? Your massive blows force the bad guy to twist out of the way. If you kill the baddy, then you actually didn't miss. Again, so long as it sounds good, what's the problem?

 

[Wicht]

Again, so long as it sounds good, what's the problem?

It removes the possibility of zero. It removes the ability to dodge. It removes the narrative possibility of the target getting out of the way without taking damage through sheer reflexes.

 

[ImperatorK]

It removes the possibility of zero. It removes the ability to dodge. It removes the narrative possibility of the target getting out of the way without taking damage through sheer reflexes.

If you have the ability. No one is forcing you to have it.

 

[Garthanos]

It removes the ability to dodge. It removes the narrative possibility of the target getting out of the way without taking damage through sheer reflexes.

Negative.. no such thing. It might be seen as removing the possibility of "effortless" dodge without special ability (such as damage resistance including temp hit points).
Because remember hit points do mean its entirely possible to get out of the way by skill and not receive a scratch (as per EGG page 81 and 82 of the original DMG) - excepting in the singular case when your hit points are driven to zero.
oops 5e not 1e
Even the top half of hits points in 5e as per the current descriptions make it obvious you can not be injured at all with hit point loss.

Just because you dont like narrating minor hit point loss as desperate last second dodge moves does not invalidate that.

 

[Wicht]

No one is forcing you to have it.

True. And no one is forcing me to play 5e either if this ability is in it. But I still don't like the ability, and I would rather it not be in 5e if WotC is going to try and sell me on 5e. So what I am arguing for is the removal of the ability before 5e goes to market because I don't like the ability, don't find it a good fit for my preferred playstyle and narrative style, don't like the mentality that leads to it, design wise, don't like the mechanics of it, don't like the interpretation of hp that says hp is mostly not health and I don't find it particularly believable.

 

[urLordy]

All I know is that if I were designing a Manual of Escapist Fun and Imaginary Adventure, and there were some people who are Happy to take hit, miss, etc. literally, and some people who are Happy to take it more-or-less literally, and some people who are Happy to take it as mere terminology -- such that attack rolls, hit points and melee damage might as well be called 'combat checks', 'buffer against total defeat' and 'short-range output' respectively -- then (if I were that designer) I would worry somewhat about the more particular opinions because the others could go with either and thus Happy either way, whereas the others are not Happy so much. I would not expect to please everyone, but I would *try* to care to make the Manual of Escapist Fun and Imaginary Adventure as accessible as possible. I would try to be forthright about the aims and goals of the Manual to try to manage Expectations for Happiness for Those Who Care A Lot. And if a contentious item was going to be republished in The Marvelous Guide to Meta or in The Stimulatory Guide to Simulation, and such Valuable Compendiums would not be avaiable for publication until later, I would put out a preview or at least an action plan for Managing Expectations for the Future of Escapist Fun and Imaginary Adventure.

What I would definitely not do is plunk a mechanic that draws primarily from The Marvelous Guide to Meta, walk away, come back for a single Q&A to provide an explanation that neither suits The Marvelous Guide to Meta or The Stimulatory Guide to Simulation, and then run away again.

At least, that's what I do if I were designing a Manual of Escapist Fun and Imaginary Adventure for everyone.