I disagree.
You can still have hit points be what ever you want. Damage on a miss never made sense to start with. Missing something but killing it anyway makes people just shake their heads, swallow it and try not to wrap their brains around it.
D&D 5E Now that "damage on a miss" is most likely out of the picture, are you happy?
I disagree.
You can still have hit points be what ever you want. Damage on a miss never made sense to start with. Missing something but killing it anyway makes people just shake their heads, swallow it and try not to wrap their brains around it.
Argyle King
Legend
I was never sure where I stood on the issue. A brief summary...
In the beginning, I was marginally against the idea due to arguments/positions held by some other posters which managed to convince me it might be bad.
However, I wasn't entirely opposed to the idea of damage on a 'miss,' because the concept of 'blunt force trauma' is something I am familiar with both from other rpgs and actual real life experience. Being hit by a weapon can still hurt even if your armor absorbs the strike. With that in mind, the idea of damage on a 'miss' didn't bother me because what exactly a hit or a miss is in D&D is abstract enough that it could easily be made to make sense.
Then I considered that it was possible to kill someone by missing in 5th Edition. While that's not exactly unheard of in light of what I mentioned above, it still seemed unusual compared to the rest of the game. I think part of my thinking here was skewed by abilities which were able to auto-kill minions in 4th; something about that bothered me.
On the other hand, it's not entirely clear what HP represent in D&D; if they aren't injury per se, then I suppose the concepts of hit and miss would be hazy as well, and maybe 'hit' and 'miss' don't mean the same thing in D&D that I typically understand the words to mean. (This line of thinking lead me to be roughly neutral on the subject because it supported the idea of damage on a miss being valid, but it brought up the idea that D&D is using language in such a way that what they mean is not obvious or intuitive -something I strongly dislike.)
I suppose, in the end, I just looked at the game and compared damage on a miss to the style of the game being made while also comparing the option to other options. A little bit of damage on a miss for one specific option of one specific class doesn't seem out of hand, and it's most certainly not broken when compared to other options; even other options from the same class. I'd say it's a touch weak when compared to many of the other options. So, overall, I support the idea of damage on a miss, but in very very small doses. I'm fine with one specific fighting style and maybe 4-5 abilities throughout the game which allow it when it seems thematically appropriate. I do not want it to be a general assumed part of the game overall though.
In the beginning, I was marginally against the idea due to arguments/positions held by some other posters which managed to convince me it might be bad.
However, I wasn't entirely opposed to the idea of damage on a 'miss,' because the concept of 'blunt force trauma' is something I am familiar with both from other rpgs and actual real life experience. Being hit by a weapon can still hurt even if your armor absorbs the strike. With that in mind, the idea of damage on a 'miss' didn't bother me because what exactly a hit or a miss is in D&D is abstract enough that it could easily be made to make sense.
Then I considered that it was possible to kill someone by missing in 5th Edition. While that's not exactly unheard of in light of what I mentioned above, it still seemed unusual compared to the rest of the game. I think part of my thinking here was skewed by abilities which were able to auto-kill minions in 4th; something about that bothered me.
On the other hand, it's not entirely clear what HP represent in D&D; if they aren't injury per se, then I suppose the concepts of hit and miss would be hazy as well, and maybe 'hit' and 'miss' don't mean the same thing in D&D that I typically understand the words to mean. (This line of thinking lead me to be roughly neutral on the subject because it supported the idea of damage on a miss being valid, but it brought up the idea that D&D is using language in such a way that what they mean is not obvious or intuitive -something I strongly dislike.)
I suppose, in the end, I just looked at the game and compared damage on a miss to the style of the game being made while also comparing the option to other options. A little bit of damage on a miss for one specific option of one specific class doesn't seem out of hand, and it's most certainly not broken when compared to other options; even other options from the same class. I'd say it's a touch weak when compared to many of the other options. So, overall, I support the idea of damage on a miss, but in very very small doses. I'm fine with one specific fighting style and maybe 4-5 abilities throughout the game which allow it when it seems thematically appropriate. I do not want it to be a general assumed part of the game overall though.
I approve of Damage On A Light Graze.
Well when something causes a lot of questions about how stuff interacts at the table then it's safe to say there is a good chance it's going, especially by the head designer.
So why can't a 'hit' that deals a small amount of damage be considered taking a jarring hit but your amour absorbs it?
and maybe
Would that be "damage on a miss that would have hit for a touch attack"? (That sounds like it could be annoying to keep track of.)
Actually the tweet sounds more that damage on a miss will stay in.
It sounds like the will be a rules clarification on both attack targeting (you must be able to reach the target to attack it) and a minimim roll (no damage on a 1).
Remember, Mearls wants DoaM to stand in as pity damage for Great weapon users since they can miss and do jack squat for many turns while Weapon and Shield gets defence and Two Weapon fighting has a second attack.
So I hope it stays on I get some other benefit for greataxes. Because they are no fun at low levels, man.
It sounds like the will be a rules clarification on both attack targeting (you must be able to reach the target to attack it) and a minimim roll (no damage on a 1).
Remember, Mearls wants DoaM to stand in as pity damage for Great weapon users since they can miss and do jack squat for many turns while Weapon and Shield gets defence and Two Weapon fighting has a second attack.
So I hope it stays on I get some other benefit for greataxes. Because they are no fun at low levels, man.
But my amour can absorb anything - the game just wouldn't be fair!
Again, that's a very wild leap of (il)logic. Reading much of anything in to a single tweet is ridiculous.
You also said "now that it's been removed", which it hasn't.
Want to make a wager it goes adios?
Similar Threads
- Poll
