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

[TwoSix]

And I'll second the "brutal" suggestion. That feels much more in keeping with the great weapon fighter concept:

I always found brutal a little boring, honestly. It's a (0.5* number of dice) damage increase per brutal point, and it just lowers the variance of the possible results.

I prefer advantage, because it minimizes the chances of whiffs and increases the chance of seeing max damage by almost double. Plus, it favors rolling bigger dice, which makes it even more fun.

 

[Uller]

If it goes, the next gripe target will be along the lines of move speeds, at-will spells, healing rates, etc. It was/is so piddling that there's apparently no bottom to this rabbit hole.

This is why you don't design your game around the desires of your loudest objectors.

WotC should put up an article saying they have decided to continue using dice to resolve tasks but state that due to playtest feedback they had considered removing the use of dice from the game...I'm sure someone would loudly protest the inclusion of dice....players figure out the odds and metagame you so it gets in the way of emersion....

 

[Dausuul]

I always found brutal a little boring, honestly. It's a (0.5* number of dice) damage increase per brutal point, and it just lowers the variance of the possible results.

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Damage on a miss is also a way of lowering the variance of possible results.

And I agree that it's boring, but we're talking about the "simple fighter" option (which is what DoaM was). One way or another, it's going to be a way of granting Moar Damage. Damage on a miss; minimum damage on a hit; advantage on the attack roll; advantage on the damage roll; expanded crit range; flat damage bonus... they're all variations on the Moar Damage theme, and they're all fundamentally boring.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Damage on a miss is also a way of lowering the variance of possible results.

And I agree that it's boring, but we're talking about the "simple fighter" option (which is what DoaM was). One way or another, it's going to be a way of granting Moar Damage. Damage on a miss; minimum damage on a hit; advantage on the attack roll; advantage on the damage roll; expanded crit range; flat damage bonus... they're all variations on the Moar Damage theme, and they're all fundamentally boring.

True, but I would also say there are levels of boring. I mean, a super-boring but workable option would be to replace the damage die roll with a flat number (say, instead of 1d10+Str, you do 8+Str). But, it's not 100% boring because it does change your tactics somewhat.

The least boring options would obviously be the ones that grant more tactical options to the attack, but that might not be desirable for simple fighters. I think the biggest division between options is whether you want the bonus to provide consistency or increase explosiveness. My personal preference would be to provide more consistency but also favor higher results, which is why like advantage on damage dice.
(if it helps anyone who wants to do some math on it, average result of a [2dN keep highest 1], which is advantage on damage dice, is (N+1)(4N-1)/6N.)

 

[Herschel]

A natural consequence of regular attacks and magical effects all being treated as powers. There is no functional difference between how a wizard uses a spell and a warrior swings an axe.

There never has been. It's Declare an Action, Roll some dice for resolution. General Rule #1 for D&D: People like rolling dice. Attacker always rolling is great, it lets the player roll more and makes the DM have to roll less so he/she/I can look at other things.

 

[billd91]

There never has been. It's Declare an Action, Roll some dice for resolution.

If you're going to summarize things like that, of course you're not going to see any difference. But then you might as well also write everybody's biography as "This person was born, lived, and died" and reflect that there's never been any difference between Sid Vicious and Eleanor Roosevelt.

 

[Herschel]

Except we're talking about related game resolution mechanics. It's like in most board games it's simply a variation of aquire some commodities, build some stuff regardless if it's Alhambra, Galaxy Trucker, Trailer Park Wars, Lords of Waterdeep, Smallworld, Agricola, whatever. Everything else is window dressing.

 

[darjr]

How about the gwf gets to spend his reaction to try and hit his target again on a miss? It isn't advantage, so advantage would be helpful. It isn't such a good thing it's cheesy like doam. And it's a proactive choice by the player, it's empowering. Plus it'd be for full damage dice.

or does a different fighter type already have this?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Except we're talking about related game resolution mechanics. It's like in most board games it's simply a variation of aquire some commodities, build some stuff regardless if it's Alhambra, Galaxy Trucker, Trailer Park Wars, Lords of Waterdeep, Smallworld, Agricola, whatever. Everything else is window dressing.

In a game powered by imagination "window dressing" is the meat and potatoes of play. If mechanics are in the forefront then the game has already failed.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

How about increasing the damage dice of a weapon in the hands of a GWF?

Maybe grant him an extra square of speed since he has trained to use the momentum of the sword to carry him aling?