D&D 5E Now that "damage on a miss" is most likely out of the picture, are you happy?

[Obryn]

My point earlier was that I find it hard to believe that a removal of DoaM will substantively affect anyone's enthusiasm to play the game. Because there will always be one more thing that's the next deal-breaker. If one feature of one type of fighter caused this much of an uproar, we're past the point where it's a discussion of the game and more a wrestling match about the True Soul of D&D.

 

[Cybit]

<whistles innocently>

 

[Sound of Azure]

So why can't a 'hit' that deals a small amount of damage be considered taking a jarring hit but your amour absorbs it?

Saved by the power of love?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

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.

Actually, the concepts of "hit" and "miss" were defined until 4th edition came along. It was 4th edition that introduced the concept of doing damage on a miss outside of explosions and magic. The meaning of those two words began to blur.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

My point earlier was that I find it hard to believe that a removal of DoaM will substantively affect anyone's enthusiasm to play the game. Because there will always be one more thing that's the next deal-breaker. If one feature of one type of fighter caused this much of an uproar, we're past the point where it's a discussion of the game and more a wrestling match about the True Soul of D&D.

It does for me because I believe, had it been popular, it wouldn't have stopped there. I feel we would have seej more and more of these kinds of mechanics creep into the system.

 

[Li Shenron]

I prefer not to have "damage on a miss" in the game, but I'm not going to rip my hair out if it's there at the end.

 

[Obryn]

It does for me because I believe, had it been popular, it wouldn't have stopped there. I feel we would have seej more and more of these kinds of mechanics creep into the system.

So I take it that all the pew-pew stuff on the at will thread, etc. is now irrelevant?

That's what I mean by "always one more thing."

 

[TwoSix]

Saved by the power of love?

When the sword hits your eye
But you don't immediately die
That's amore!

 

[ExploderWizard]

When the sword hits your eye
But you don't immediately die
That's amore!

More like (DoaM version):

When the sword whiffs your eye
and you still drop and die
That's Amore!!!

 

[Ichneumon]

When the sword hits your eye
But you don't immediately die
That's amore!

When the orc rolled a two
But your spirit still flew
That's DoaMore!