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

[Argyle King]

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

In a lot of other rpgs, that's exactly how it works. In those rpgs, armor doesn't make you harder to hit; it makes you harder to hurt. So, someone in full plate might actually be easier to hit in some of those games due to being less able to dodge or move quickly, but it takes a lot more damage to actually punch through the armor and damage the guy inside.

D&D (typically) uses AC and static defenses, so the majority of what would actually be going on during a defense against an attack is just abstracted into a d20 roll versus a number.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I never really had a problem with it. Fireballs do damage on a miss all the time. Yes, I know: limited resource, area effect, how could you get out of the way, yada, yada, yada. But 3rd edition Rogues got out of the way just fine. You could fireball a Rogue with Improved Evasion in a 5' room, and he would at most take half damage. If you I can buy that, I can buy that the guy with the big honkin' sword does a few points of damage when I only "mostly" get out of the way

 

[Emerikol]

My take

I believe that in the past D&D mostly supported a variety of views on hit points. I believe that 4e took a very strong stand and made a lot of people, including myself, very unhappy. I admit though that 4e did a lot of other things unrelated to hit points so it's not all hit points.

Now, even though I believe D&D "mostly" supported a variety of views, I think more could be done to make themselves more neutral. So I'd avoid mechanics that take sides in the debate. By default in the core book, no power would exist that would not make sense whatever view of hit points you have. I might have some modules that more directly support a particular view.

Since healing and recovery are so tied to your view on these issues, I would not set a particular approach as default. I'd explain the issues and provide several solid modules on how hit points are recovered. I might even make those more fine grained so that people can opt in as they choose on different subjects.


Because if D&D makes it hard to play using a conception of hit points that I've used consistently throughout D&D prior to 4e, then I just won't play D&D. Abandoning my view on hit points for a more narrative one, is not something I even consider. I'll play C&C or some older version of D&D if that is my only choice. So my advice to the dev team is avoid taking sides.

 

[froth]

What a childish, petty little thread. Is this the kind of discussion encouraged here these days? "Nanny nanny boo boo". Pathetic.

 

[Talath]

What a childish, petty little thread. Is this the kind of discussion encouraged here these days? "Nanny nanny boo boo". Pathetic.

I'm not sure if this response will fly, but I'm not a mod. It wouldn't hurt to tone it back a bit.

 

[froth]

Are u implying that I am the one out of line in a thread whose purpose is only to troll? If they feel that way please permaban me.

 

[Talath]

Are u implying that I am the one out of line in a thread whose purpose is only to troll? If they feel that way please permaban me.

I'm not implying you're the only one, but I believe the people who were out of line have stopped, and therefore there is no need to stir the pot anymore.

 

[Ashkelon]

I wonder if this means they will get rid of other forms of auto-damage and damage on a miss?

Magic missile? Fireball? The level 5 evoker class feature? Inflict Wounds? Blade Barrier? Melf's Acid Arrorw? Feeblemind?

 

[Jester David]

I voted "yes" but I'm not really happy as I know the removal means other people are unhappy, and that brings me no joy.
I can claim victory but I cannot claim triumph.

 

[Marshall]

Want to make a wager it goes adios?

Absolutely!

Fireball!

Pay up.

Your position has NEVER made sense. That the Devs might (have) listen(ed) to you says more about the devs competence than your logic.