Uh... since when was this an issue.

[DDNFan]

Really?

Yes, really. I might love beef stew but I'm willing to tolerate zero grams of rat droppings in my stew, and I'm not paying for the privilege of ignoring its foulness or pretending like it's not there.

I already own many 4th edition books, if I wanted Daom I could play that or 13th Age instead.

Either they listened to the controversy this has caused, and put it in a DMG sidebar, or they kept it and flipped the middle finger to me and my playstyle. I can just open my Pathfinder books, and despite all the mechanics issues, at least I can't build a fighter who can't ever miss.

 

[DDNFan]

Really? Out of interest, how do you do that if you've "disbanded" all your groups? How many groups will be disbanded at your command? Can't you just leave all your groups? Or are they forbidden to play D&D after you've left? I curious about this nuclear disbanding option!

I'm the one who rallied my old gamer friends to play 5th edition, to try it out. Now we are playing a full campaign in it using the playtest rules (modified). We all liked it, and I ordered a whole bunch of books on my amazon account. If I cancel it and decide to start DM a Pathfinder campaign because I can't stomach the final 5th ed rules, that's probably what we will play. Or nothing at all. Nobody much cared for 4th edition although we gave it a serious go before rejecting it wholesale. It wouldn't take a lot to convince 3 / 5 of my table to stick to Pathfinder, especially since I will not be paying for a game with Daom baked into it with no way to remove it.

Even if the rest of the game system is solid, I just can't give them my money on principle.

 

[Morrus]

Yes, really. I might love beef stew but I'm willing to tolerate zero grams of rat droppings in my stew, and I'm not paying for the privilege of ignoring its foulness or pretending like it's not there.

I already own many 4th edition books, if I wanted Daom I could play that or 13th Age instead.

Either they listened to the controversy this has caused, and put it in a DMG sidebar, or they kept it and flipped the middle finger to me and my playstyle. I can just open my Pathfinder books, and despite all the mechanics issues, at least I can't build a fighter who can't ever miss.

I gotta say, it must be quite intoxicating to have such multi-group-disbanding power. You didn't answer how many groups you held this power over? I'm definitely curious about this unilateral social dynamic!

Also how do you play Pathfinder if you've disbanded all your groups? Or will you be forming new groups? What happens to the poor disbanded people?

 

[Morrus]

Even if the rest of the game system is solid, I just can't give them my money on principle.

Well, good luck to you! Hopefully you'll enjoy Pathfinder. Though I bet there's a damage on a miss mechanic somewhere in there, too. Then you'll have to play GURPS!

 

[Crothian]

I'm not that familiar with DoaM as my group decided they didn't like 4e so we never had to deal with it. Is it something that all classes and monsters have or is it something limited to only certain characters? Does it apply to all attacks all the time or just certain types of attacks?

To me it kind of sounds like a lot of save for half spells. Is that an accurate comparison? Is the damage on a miss a set amount or does it depend on what the damage for a hit would have been?

It seems that the main argument against it is it is not realistic. Is there a mechanical reason people don't like it for instance is something people saw abused in some way?

 

[Thaumaturge]

I'm not that familiar with DoaM as my group decided they didn't like 4e so we never had to deal with it. Is it something that all classes and monsters have or is it something limited to only certain characters? Does it apply to all attacks all the time or just certain types of attacks?

In 4e just some, specific, powers grant Damage on a Miss, though I understand in 13th Age it's all attacks.

To me it kind of sounds like a lot of save for half spells. Is that an accurate comparison? Is the damage on a miss a set amount or does it depend on what the damage for a hit would have been?

That's a great comparison. Depending on the power it might be a percentage of the damage dealt or a static number.

It seems that the main argument against it is it is not realistic.

I think so.

Is there a mechanical reason people don't like it for instance is something people saw abused in some way?

Not that I know. People just don't like the idea of a player rolling a die, saying his total to-hit, the DM saying "you missed", and the player replying "ok, take 5 damage".

Thaumaturge.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not that familiar with DoaM as my group decided they didn't like 4e so we never had to deal with it. Is it something that all classes and monsters have or is it something limited to only certain characters? Does it apply to all attacks all the time or just certain types of attacks?

To me it kind of sounds like a lot of save for half spells. Is that an accurate comparison? Is the damage on a miss a set amount or does it depend on what the damage for a hit would have been?

It seems that the main argument against it is it is not realistic. Is there a mechanical reason people don't like it for instance is something people saw abused in some way?

These have mostly been covered by [MENTION=1927]Thaumaturge[/MENTION].

In 4e, most daily powers are either Reliable (= not expended on a miss) or have some sort of effect that occurs even on a miss. For many power in the latter category, that effect is half damage. Which, as you say, is 4e's functional equivalent of "save for half", but extended to martial attacks too.

Some wizard encounter powers similarly deal half damage on a miss, but for most other classes it is confined to dailies.

Fighters also have an at-will power - Reaping Strike - that deals STR bonus damage on a miss. And there is a feat that has a CON minimum, and if you take the feat then your attacks with maces and hammes that otherwise would deal no damage on a miss deal CON bonus damage on a miss. These are probably the closest abilities to the 5e GWF DoaM.

Another feature of 4e is that minions never take damage on a miss - so you can't get guaranteed kills against cannon fodder with your DoaM abiliies. There does not seem to be a similar rule in 5e, which would mean that DoaM fighters are quite strong, in 5e, against cannon-fodder opponents like goblins and kobolds.

I haven't come across the suggestion that 4e DoaM is abusive, and certainly haven't encountered it in my own game, but I don't hang out on 4e CharOps boards.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm not that familiar with DoaM as my group decided they didn't like 4e so we never had to deal with it. Is it something that all classes and monsters have or is it something limited to only certain characters? Does it apply to all attacks all the time or just certain types of attacks?

Just a few. Many (most?) dailies deal damage on a miss. The at-will power Reaping Strike (or Reaping Stance for Essentials knights) does damage on a miss, although only a little. There's a slayer (or maybe knight) paragon-level utility encounter power that lets you deal a little damage on a miss. DoaM is pretty rare in 4e. The knight's counterattack also does a little damage on a miss.

To me it kind of sounds like a lot of save for half spells. Is that an accurate comparison? Is the damage on a miss a set amount or does it depend on what the damage for a hit would have been?

In 4e, for the at-will powers with DoaM, it's Strength bonus to damage (sometimes only half this) on a miss. For daily powers, it's usually half damage on a miss, but often less if there's ongoing damage involved, usually half the damage and no ongoing damage. (Flame Strike is pretty unique for this. It deals ongoing damage to all targets, as well as damage on a hit.)

It seems that the main argument against it is it is not realistic. Is there a mechanical reason people don't like it for instance is something people saw abused in some way?

The number of people who really hate on this is really low, but they are very loud. It's not a big part of D&D Next. There were quite a few people who didn't like 4e, but I'm sure the number of people who dropped it due to Reaping Strike is zero.

Damage on a miss isn't any more or less realistic than hit points or many other aspects of D&D, including quite a few that have persisted across the editions.

 

[pemerton]

Characters and monsters die as a result of sustaining multiple wounds.

Like Monty Python's black knight?

I suppose you think a 200 HP dragon is actually parrying all those attacks by the dozen of people attacking it, and it's only when it gets too tired that one guy kill steals it and delivers the killing blow on the dragon's otherwise pristine body.

An NPC, and an NPC dragon at that, is very different from a PC. Roger Musson discussed these issues over 30 years ago in his seminal article "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive", which set out a wound/vitality system about 20 years before WotC came up with it. Musson pointed out that dragons and giant slugs don't interact with a hp/wound pool in the same way that PCs and NPC orcs do.

You're making stuff up to rationalize an irrational view of the action.

I think you'll find that everyone who plays D&D is making stuff up.

And my view of the action is pretty clear to me. And I think to my players.

 

[Crothian]

Thanks for those responses that was very informative.

Damage on a miss isn't any more or less realistic than hit points or many other aspects of D&D, including quite a few that have persisted across the editions.

I agree. I have laughed in people's faces when they argue serious realism in games that have elves, dwarves, and magic.