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

[Minigiant]

I'm not sure why great weapon fighters are singled out as needing a bone here. You can "swing, miss, end turn" just as well with sword-and-board, ranged attacks, and dual wielding. (Dual wielders encounter the phenomenon less often, but "swing, miss, swing, miss, end turn" still happens--and remember that great weapon fighters get multiple attacks too!)

If the goal is to address the "swing, miss, end turn" phenomenon generally, there are lots of things a fighter could get that don't require rolls. One option would be "taclord" abilities that let you move your allies around and grant them bonuses on the same turn you make an attack. Another would be "Hobson's choice" abilities, where you put your foe in a no-win situation; for instance, you angle yourself so that the enemy must either move where you want it to move or get stabbed. If you miss, the enemy is forced to move a short distance. (Make it clear that enemies who really want to avoid the forced movement can allow you an automatic hit.)

It is more that two handers dont have things like AC from shields or range.

So you swing, miss, no orcs die, and the orcs can now surrondd you and axe you to death.

And great weapons are damage weapons. So the design team wants them to deal MOAR DAMAEG! And damage is simple so that fits another goal. Fun and simple.

So do we change the rules to make it more fun and simpler or do we stick to tradition?

 

[billd91]

Absolutely. Then we switch the argument to "fighters shouldn't have dailies."

Well, they shouldn't - at least not in the way 4e designed them (special upgrades of encounter powers that were regained on a daily schedule, maybe).

For me, turning it around to a saving throw (which I prefer for resisting effects anyway because I prefer the 3.5 action points to 4e's implementation) doesn't change the argument. I'm not a fan of individual weapons using area attack mechanics. Too many conceptual cans of worms get opened. The kind of cost accounting that works for area-effect spells (limits on casting) or splash weapons (finite ammo) in D&D don't work very well for melee weapon effects. Nor does D&D include the sort of cost accounting you see in point-buy games like Champions or Mutants and Masterminds in which the area effect powers, which may be unlimited in use, are considerably more expensive than single target powers. I suppose something like that could be accomplished if the ability to make the area attack cost about twice what a single target attack power would cost and I would accept it.

One reason I've grown leery of area-effect abilities is my experience with Star Wars Saga Edition. It's very easy for lowly stormtroopers to munch through heroes as long as they're using auto-fire on an area. And though their chances to hit are lower (a good attempt at a trade-off), a miss just means half damage. And though the extra ammo costs are there, they're still very cheap. The increased defensive abilities of the heroic characters may keep them receiving little more than half damage, but half damage from a half-dozen stormtroopers mounts up very fast. Heroic characters could all multiclass as scout to gain the evasion ability, but that's a lame solution. This is a principle that must be kept in mind with any area effect abilities that are too easy to frequently deploy - such as any that would reasonably come from a wide sweep of a scything sword attack.

 

[TwoSix]

For me, turning it around to a saving throw (which I prefer for resisting effects anyway because I prefer the 3.5 action points to 4e's implementation) doesn't change the argument. I'm not a fan of individual weapons using area attack mechanics. Too many conceptual cans of worms get opened. The kind of cost accounting that works for area-effect spells (limits on casting) or splash weapons (finite ammo) in D&D don't work very well for melee weapon effects. Nor does D&D include the sort of cost accounting you see in point-buy games like Champions or Mutants and Masterminds in which the area effect powers, which may be unlimited in use, are considerably more expensive than single target powers. I suppose something like that could be accomplished if the ability to make the area attack cost about twice what a single target attack power would cost and I would accept it.

I think there's a not immediately obvious balance to melee area attacks; to use them, you need to put yourself in melee range of multiple enemies. Ranged area attacks do, I think, need more constraints on their use, as otherwise they become obviously tactically optimal.

 

[Minigiant]

That is the other reason why I said no. Remove DOAM andyou will have to replace it with something really good.

otherwise no one with tactical sense would weild a Two handed mele weapon until they get a second attack.

 

[Mistwell]

It's to do with the way I, personally, and we, as a group, have always envisaged weapons. Fireball is fine because it's an area of effect so potentially you could get lucky and leap out of the way taking half damage. A weapon however has always been visualized as either it hits or it doesn't and if it doesn't then it shouldn't do damage.

It was never that easy though. You had linear spells like lightening bolt that still did half damage. You had abilities like evasion which made no sense at all in some situations, where the guy with that ability took zero damage even if there was no cover anywhere in a narrow corridor, but the guy with the highest dexterity and reflex save on the planet who happened to be standing besides cover still takes half damage. You had spells like Fire Seeds which required an attack roll but still did half damage. And then you had the alchemist weapons, which splashed for some damage even if you were surrounded by a force field that would stop the blow of high level magic weapons from striking you, but somehow a bit of fire from a first level item gets through.

The mechanic never truly made as much sense as "well spells are an area of attack". There were always lots of situations where people mostly just didn't think too much about how it all was supposed to work. And those who did dwell on it came up with an increasingly unlikely set of explanations that, while they might apply in the right circumstances, could never apply universally to all situations.

I was always fine with that, as I just considered it all an abstraction, both combat and hit points. Which made a sword doing some damage despite missing the target acceptable to me as well - though cheesy to my players.

 

[Cybit]

That is the other reason why I said no. Remove DOAM andyou will have to replace it with something really good.

otherwise no one with tactical sense would weild a Two handed mele weapon until they get a second attack.

One possible solution could be that they just deal more damage when they do hit, beyond just the die upgrade. Or maybe get a check to see if they would hit any adjacent targets, and if they would have done so, they deal STR damage to that target (great sweep like ability).

My only issue with DoaM was that it seemed so...anti-climactic. Like, yay, I deal 3 damage or whatever. Woo. People wanna HIT something.

 

[Uller]

I've never had a problem with damage on a miss. I don't see it as any different than taking damage on a successful save. The attack mechanic and the save mechanic are essentially the same mechanic. IMO, saves are best used for effects that don't involve armor (where ability scores are the primary defense). Some attacks might deal some sort of damage no matter what (these should always be very limited use attacks...such as spells, rechargeable attacks or attacks usable only in very narrow circumstances).

However, a miss or a successful save should never reduce a character to 0 hp. It just seems somewhat anti-climatic that a wizard can auto-kill with a damaging spell a character that only has a few hp left. If he misses (or the target makes the save...whatever mechanic is used), the target should remain in the fight...IMO.

 

[Ashkelon]

I think that missed attacks and successfully saved spells should not be able to drop a creature below 1 HP.

I also think a nat 1 attack and a nat 20 save should never cause any damage.

 

[tuxgeo]

I didn't vote. I think this poll is premature because we don't have the actual game released yet. Overall, I'm hopeful that it will be rather good.
(I also didn't vote "Couldn't give a toss" because the issue of whether I'm a tosser or not has nothing to do with damage on a miss.) (And a Happy Lemon Curry to you.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

One possible solution could be that they just deal more damage when they do hit, beyond just the die upgrade. Or maybe get a check to see if they would hit any adjacent targets, and if they would have done so, they deal STR damage to that target (great sweep like ability).

My only issue with DoaM was that it seemed so...anti-climactic. Like, yay, I deal 3 damage or whatever. Woo. People wanna HIT something.

I agree with 100% of the things in this post.

"Here, have another d8 of damage."

Or "Also, hit this other guy" (a la Cleave).

I like these better, and they can be big effects. And they're a lot more engaging psychologically than the "Have a cookie because you failed to be awesome" of damage-on-a-miss.

And I'm not someone who had a major problem with it being in. Both of those things are big improvements in my eyes!