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

[Mistwell]

The other thing about it is, beyond what others have noted, that it works on a hit as well as a miss. So there's some kind of explanation there.

When you do strength damage with a melee attack, any melee attack, that's the portion that is due to you wearing down your foe or banging them around on a glancing blow.

If you hit with or without this ability, it's because in that 6 seconds of attacks you exchanged a series of blows and one of the actually made solid contact with the foe doing damage, and because you hit you were close enough to get in at least one other glancing blow or make them dodge around enough to wear them down.

And if you missed without this ability, then none actually made solid contact and you got no glancing blows and didn't get close enough to make them dodge around so much they got worn down.

But if you missed with this ability, then you got in at least one glancing blow or consistently got close enough in that 6 seconds to really wear them down from all that dodging. Because your attacks were so relentless in nature due to your specialized training in this, that you're able to deal that extra damage that other fighters are only able to deal when they manage to make a solid hit.

Strength damage works whether you hit, or you miss, with GWF.

As for limited resources, the fighter expends a HUGE limited resource to do this. They got one choice in their whole career, and they used that choice to get this ability instead of getting a host of other options all of which would have been of more benefit over the course of their career. I'd say expending a single-use resource for this is about as limited a resource as you can get - it's so limited I think some people are forgetting they even expended that resource to get to this point.

 

[Wicht]

I figure people might have some experience with it.

I don't have gunslingers in my games. So no direct experience with it.

 

[sheadunne]

I don't have gunslingers in my games. So no direct experience with it.

I have only seen one player play one, and I wasn't DMing. I plan on running Skull and Shackles in a month or so, so it'll be the first time I let gunslingers into a game I run (they're usually not my preference for a fantasy game, but this AP is sorta geared in that direction).

I'll be curious to see how it plays out if anyone plays that particular archetype. It'll be interesting because I don't particular like guns in fantasy and I haven't use DoaM in a game before (aside from very limited experience with 4e at launch). It's already got a few negatives to overcome. My guess is that it'll be hardly noticeable during play because it's so limited and the damage, even at higher levels, will only be a graze. It'll also be interesting to see how the other players react.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Although it appears that you don't even have to be aiming or anywhere near the target (although I would guess that you need to be within the range limits of the weapon). You could just fire the gun into the air, roll the die, and deal 1d3 damage to whoever you named as a target.

Whoever wrote it probably assumed that it would be used in good faith, but yes, you could try do gown down that road with either GWF or the Close and Deadly thing, and yes, in both cases it's not a good thing that the rules allow that.

Is it logical that a rogue who also aims and misses with his sneak attack rapier thrust (precision damage), should also deal 1/2 damage on a miss? It's not resource management but it is conditional and therefore limited in its use.

Logical? Yes. Believable and balanced? Debatable.

One could argue that attacks should work like skills and that a 1 should not automatically miss, thereby rendering the autohit possible in cases of severe discrepancy between attacker and defender. One can also argue for something like what you're proposing, where there's a damage bonus, and it applies on a miss as well as a hit for some reason.

None of those are quite the same as GWF as constituted.

Beats me. It's just interesting to see an actual ability out there that is currently being played in a 3x/pf game. I wonder what the Paizo boards say about it.

It is an interesting example. The gunslinger is controversial for a lot of reasons, so my assumption would be that this one archetype doesn't get a lot of attention by comparison in the community at large, but it would be interesting to hear how that plays.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Strength damage works whether you hit, or you miss, with GWF.

That's a distortion. GWF is dealing damage, which happens to be in the amount of the Strength modifier. It could (and arguably should) be any other amount. Yes, the damage dealt on a hit includes the Strength modifier as well, coincidentally, but the specific character ability GWF does nothing whatsoever on a hit. GWF is a discrete ability, and the damage it adds applies only when the character misses. Which is why it doesn't make sense.

Even if you took the simplest possible variant and said that GWF caused you to deal Str mod bonus damage and that damage applied regardless of hitting or missing (such that you'd deal your Str mod twice on a hit) because of you "relentlessly" pounding on your opponent and wearing them down that would make more sense (though it would still raise balance, plausibility, fairness, tradition, and possibly other concerns).

 

[Mistwell]

That's a distortion.

That's hyperbolic. It does exactly that - deals strength damage on a hit or a miss.

GWF is dealing damage, which happens to be in the amount of the Strength modifier.

Talk about a distortion. It doesn't "happen to be", it is what it does. It's not like it's a coincidence that it adds up to your strength modifier, it IS dealing your strength modifier. It's the exact strength modifier that would have dealt damage on a hit.

It could (and arguably should) be any other amount.

It could be a duck, but what it is, is strength damage. And it's distorting it to pretend it's coincidence or happenstance or could be something else but isn't.

Yes, the damage dealt on a hit includes the Strength modifier as well, coincidentally, but the specific character ability GWF does nothing whatsoever on a hit.

So? That doesn't make it a coincidence that you continue to deal your strength damage on a miss...it's simply using a known existing mechanic and extending that mechanic to a fuller range of events than just a direct hit.

GWF is a discrete ability, and the damage it adds applies only when the character misses. Which is why it doesn't make sense.

It's not an option created in a vacuum, the authors are well aware of the mechanic of strength damage applying on a hit when they wrote that strength damage can also apply on a miss if you have this ability. It makes sense, when you explain it as I explained it. And given it has no fluff text, we're supposed to explain it however we decide to do so.

Even if you took the simplest possible variant and said that GWF caused you to deal Str mod bonus damage and that damage applied regardless of hitting or missing (such that you'd deal your Str mod twice on a hit) because of you "relentlessly" pounding on your opponent and wearing them down that would make more sense (though it would still raise balance, plausibility, fairness, tradition, and possibly other concerns).

The way I described it is just as plausible, and more balanced. If you hit them, you're already in a position to deal those other wear-down and glancing-type damage from your strength modifier. And if you miss them but have this special training, you're are already in a position to deal that as well. How is that not plausible?

 

[Ahnehnois]

The way I described it is just as plausible, and more balanced. If you hit them, you're already in a position to deal those other wear-down and glancing-type damage from your strength modifier. And if you miss them but have this special training, you're are already in a position to deal that as well. How is that not plausible?

It's implausible because I can't see any justification for explaining what special training would have this effect and only this effect. Are we to assume that even a 20th level fighter with boatloads of other skills deals no damage every time he misses, regardless of the strength of the target (an outcome that occurs at least 5% of the time in all cases), but that a fighter of modest overall skill but one special ability never, ever has this happen? What kind of education could possibly produce such a far-reaching outcome, one that overrides the notion that skill in causing damage is represented by the attack bonus?

 

[Wicht]

A quick question, for those that like damage on a miss as a constant ability: If the designers removed this feature from the game would you be less likely to pick up the edition?

 

[TwoSix]

It is an interesting example. The gunslinger is controversial for a lot of reasons, so my assumption would be that this one archetype doesn't get a lot of attention by comparison in the community at large, but it would be interesting to hear how that plays.

Possibly. While gunslinger is controversial (and banned at a lot of tables for that reason, although it's not banned for PFS), the pistolero is one of the more popular archetypes for it. (Along with the musket master.)

 

[TwoSix]

A quick question, for those that like damage on a miss as a constant ability: If the designers removed this feature from the game would you be less likely to pick up the edition?

Nah. My concerns for Next aren't really grounded in how well it supports narrativist play, as I have other games for that. (13th Age/4e homebrew/FATE). I would really only play 5e with my group that prefers the DM-plotted abstract sim of Pathfinder, so it's fine for me if Next stays "traditional".