D&D 5E Replacing Damage-On-A-Miss

[Minigiant]

By whom? Seems to me that there are plenty of games where failure is the norm. I don't see why any particular failure rate that isn't right at 0% or 100% would present a problem.

But is failure a cornerstone of this game like a Horror game? Are we expecting to lose to Lovecraftian horrors?

Because the fighter in this game called this game "cow poo" because he rolled low in three turns, died, and the party wiped on a "beatable" orc fight.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But is failure a cornerstone of this game like a Horror game? Are we expecting to lose to Lovecraftian horrors?

Because the fighter in this game called this game "cow poo" because he rolled low in three turns, died, and the party wiped on a "beatable" orc fight.

Failure isn't the same thing as difficulty in an rpg, as long as the PCs and their opponents are equally subject to it.

 

[Minigiant]

Failure isn't the same thing as difficulty in an rpg, as long as the PCs and their opponents are equally subject to it.

The chance of failure created the difficulty.
When the orc warriors rolled low a couple times, they were massacred.
When the party warriors rolled low a couple times, they were wiped.

Is low level D&D supposed to be a game of coin flips where you attempt to never roll anything and avoid everything?

 

[Ahnehnois]

The chance of failure created the difficulty.
When the orc warriors rolled low a couple times, they were massacred.
When the party warriors rolled low a couple times, they were wiped.

Is low level D&D supposed to be a game of coin flips where you attempt to never roll anything and avoid everything?

It sounds to me like the issue you have is that the orcs are more difficult than you thought they should be, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the base chance of any one creature hitting another. Perhaps the orc stats should simply be adjusted. Everything I've read of 5e monsters has been a mess.

That being said, the description you give sounds like the classic feel of low level D&D to me.
To turn it around, is low level D&D supposed to be a hack and slash romp through monsters that you can't possibly miss or lose to?

 

[Minigiant]

It sounds to me like the issue you have is that the orcs are more difficult than you thought they should be, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the base chance of any one creature hitting another. Perhaps the orc stats should simply be adjusted. Everything I've read of 5e monsters has been a mess.

That being said, the description you give sounds like the classic feel of low level D&D to me.
To turn it around, is low level D&D supposed to be a hack and slash romp through monsters that you can't possibly miss or lose to?

Actually it went both ways. Whichever side went on a bad roll streak first lost.
Is that how low level is supposed to be played? If not, then failure must be reduced or mitigated.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Actually it went both ways. Whichever side went on a bad roll streak first lost.
Is that how low level is supposed to be played? If not, then failure must be reduced or mitigated.

If I were trying to distill out the essence of D&D, I think having characters start out being at the mercy of the dice and then becoming more and more in control of their own fate would definitely be a mandate.

And again, what's the alternative? If a poor streak of dice rolling on one side or a hot streak on the other side doesn't potentially determine the outcome, then why roll the dice at all?

 

[Uchawi]

The first step is to reserve damage on a miss, automatic damage, or automatic hit for class ability, or spells for higher class levels, whether higher skill tolerates that type of ability versus a first level novice. The second step is to avoid those abilities for at-will, and reserve it for abilities that have some type of limited use, whether it is daily spells, encounter, or somewhere in between. As to the damage on a miss, you can make it subdual damage, with is the opposite of temporary hit points. That way subdual damage can still wear an opponent down, but in the same respect is temporary damage and is easier to recover.

So frequency of damage on a miss, automatic damage, or automatic hit is the biggest problem to address. So you can make is common place in every ability, or you implement a system to make it infrequent and/or only available at higher levels.

But what I want more than anything else is consistent application of damage on a miss, automatic damage or automatic hit.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The chance of failure created the difficulty.
When the orc warriors rolled low a couple times, they were massacred.
When the party warriors rolled low a couple times, they were wiped.

Is low level D&D supposed to be a game of coin flips where you attempt to never roll anything and avoid everything?

Sounds like a D&D game as Gygax intended. Looking for fights when the odds are no better than 50/50 is an indication that perhaps other options apart from CHARGE! might be in order. Or, put more to the point- the deaths will continue until play improves.


Put me down as not in favor of any rule designed purely to mitigate stupid players.

 

[Minigiant]

And again, what's the alternative? If a poor streak of dice rolling on one side or a hot streak on the other side doesn't potentially determine the outcome, then why roll the dice at all?

It's not an "either this or that" issue. It is one of how much. Fans complained abour about the hiigh numbers of the recent editions but still wanted traditional numbers. So it created a game where you can miss a lot but cannot afford to be hit a lot.

The question is "Is this fun?" If not, why and what can be done about it. In the group I tested, they will not touch a great weapon without DoaM or EAoaM because the benefits of a heavy shild, bow, or second weapon is too great.

 

[Mistwell]

The actual reason this is even an issue is because people cannot accept failure as part of the fun of playing a game.

If it applied to many different abilities instead of just one of five options for a few fighter-types, you'd be right.

But "people" can accept failure as part of the fun of playing a game just fine, with the ability as it stands in the game.

This is, of course, the identical argument one can apply to any spell spellcasters can cast which does damage on a miss. It is one of the arguments that applies exactly equally to all those spells, and alchemical weapons. And yet, for decades you've never had a complaint about those other spells and types of weapons.

While I think one can argue the difference between spells/splash weapons and these melee weapons with this ability, "don't know how to have fun without failure" is not one of those differences.

I've challenged you before to explain why your argument doesn't apply to, for example, lightning bolt, and you never answer the question directly. Then you wait a week or so, and make the same argument again.

So answer the challenge already. If your argument is sound, why doesn't it apply to half-damage spells, and why didn't you complain all these years about them if it's about people not being able to have fun despite failure?

If a game is only fun when there is success to a greater or lesser degree then we have the issue of good old fashioned poor sportsmanship that no one seems to be willing to look in the eye.

Oh I see now - people who have fun with things which you don't like are now poor sportsmen - unless it's a spell or an alchemical weapon, in which case...crickets.