Uh... since when was this an issue.

[tsadkiel]

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!

Yes, there is.

 

[Morrus]

Yes, there is.

Ouch! Pathfinder's out of the question, then. Well, I guess [MENTION=6776483]DDNFan[/MENTION] needs a new plan of action! Anyone know if GURPS features DoaM?

 

[Tovec]

I wasn't talking about DoaM - I was responding to @DDNFan 's comments about second wind.

I realize your response was predicated upon second wind and not damage on a miss. But as I said last time, it is tangentially related. You view HP as being a "tiring" scale when it is outlined as a damage scale. That informs you views on the subject. As I said last time, I don't see that those views are backed up by the game. We could alter the game, 13th age certainly does (as does many aspects of 4e) but the game that 5e is doesn't work that way. The DoaM mechanic shouldn't exist in the 5e system because it doesn't match. It relates to how you see HP and so I latched onto it, I realize it may have come off as taking your comments out of context but I wrote much more in the way of reply than you did to start me off so I think that both our arguments stand for themselves.

Obviously if you kill someone via DoaM that person has suffered a solid blow (from your weapon, from tripping over and hitting their head on a rock, from . . . - D&D leaves the range of narrative options pretty open in this respect). "Miss" in the phrase "DoaM" doesn't mean "character missed opponent"; it means "player missed target number". DoaM is a rule that allows players of certain characters to have their PCs be (modestly) successful even when rolling poorly; it's not a rule about fighters being able to bizarrely "tire" their enemies to death.

And to this I say, NO it is NOT obvious that is what is happening. In fact it goes counter to everything that the words, the rules, and basically everything except for the (poor) description of the 'power' say they work. The game isn't written in those terms. You can certainly reflavour the heck out of ANYTHING to make it work a different way in the fiction surrounding it but that doesn't change the fact that without a description of what the power does, it wouldn't be described that way by existing terminology.

The fact that you can cause EVERY KOBOLD AND GOBLIN YOU EVER MEET to trip over and kill themselves on a rock on the first round, ON A MISS, doesn't mean the power suddenly makes sense. Those conditions don't make sense. Consistency is a key problem I have with it and it isn't solved by these repeated attempts to reflavour and thus justify the power. That reflavouring isn't there originally and doesn't work.

And YES Miss as in an attack that fails to beat the target's AC does certainly mean MISS and fail to hit that target person. I know this because EVERY OTHER POWER WORKS THIS WAY. However this particular power goes counter to that saying that the fighter never misses. Not one a 1. Not when the miss would instantly defeat the enemy. Not when they aren't wearing armor and thus a miss IS a complete whiff. No, the fighter can't miss and can't fail to kill that kobold .. ever. The fighter without this power can fail to miss and fail to kill the kobold, strange isn't it?

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!

I find this especially dismissive. It doesn't address the arguments of DoaM and basically tells someone to go screw off since they are criticizing a mechanic of a game system you happen to like. If you weren't a Mod I would consider reporting you to one. Wow. Way to attack the content of his character instead of the argument he is making. It doesn't matter if he has the power to disband groups or not, the fact that he finds this mechanic so poisonous should perhaps be discussed instead of just saying 'I'm sure it exists in PF, so go play someone else and be gone.' Wow. This may not have been your intent but it is certainly my inference and even though I'm not DDNFan I'm offended.

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?

The power we are primarily discussing is a fighter power and only one such power. Though the arguments made against it apply to ALL DoaM. I think I'm not alone in the worry that if something like this becomes standard that it will then be used as an argument to put more of it in other places. So while this tumor is relatively small, I believe we should still cut it out.

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 is not an accurate comparison. It isn't calculated the same way. It is a static figure. It is based on the fighter's strength. And the times that spells for save for half allow a save (evasion/uncanny dodge) don't work for saving against the fighter. Further DoaM doesn't target anything, and autohits. And finally spells are limited, magical, and worked under different rules. So, while the "save for half" and "damage on a miss" surface aspects are the same, what is "acceptable" for one doesn't apply to the other - no matter if people wished they were the same.

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?

I think if you want an informed opinion on this that you should go read the many other threads on this subforum. You'll gather some bits here but we've gone over it so much that there is very little else to say. In fact I gather that most people have given up, not through consensus but because no headway was made. So, I recommend you read some of the longer threads to see the common opinions, arguments, counter-arguments and inform your own opinion.

Part of the problem is that it isn't realistic but there are so many more, and better, arguments that I can't give justice in a simple answer here.

My main focus is and has been that the fighter can kill most low level monsters in a single round, on the fist attack, without needing to know the result of the damage, or the result of the die. Refluffing their attack they may as well sneeze and the kobold falls over dead - according to pemerton - having hit his head on a rock and died, or possibly simply died from exhaustion from being in a fight with a first level fighter for a whole fraction of a round. I find that stupid on MANY levels, but yes I also think it is unrealistic and not for the sneeze.

 

[Crothian]

It is not an accurate comparison. It isn't calculated the same way. It is a static figure. It is based on the fighter's strength. And the times that spells for save for half allow a save (evasion/uncanny dodge) don't work for saving against the fighter. Further DoaM doesn't target anything, and autohits. And finally spells are limited, magical, and worked under different rules. So, while the "save for half" and "damage on a miss" surface aspects are the same, what is "acceptable" for one doesn't apply to the other - no matter if people wished they were the same.

For magic it is a saving throw so of course defenses against that don't work against an attack. But attacks have their own defenses like DR. I assume dr will make a doam zero if it does not get through.

With all the complaints of fighters never being as powerful as spell casters it surprises me that giving fighters a small boost like this would upset people. If the doam is equal to strength bonus then is 5 points of damage really that bad? If that is enough to kill something then it was not muc of a threat to begin with.

 

[Tovec]

Didn't see these replies before I started my last response. This thread went and grew legs all of a sudden.

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.

And during 4e's reign it was often criticized that 4e had turned everyone into spellcasters, I wonder why. Also, since Crothian seemed to say his group gave up on 4e I don't know why you would be giving such things as an argument of good things in a 5e thread.

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.

There was a lot of flack over reaping strike too. Just do a google search and you can see them. Many of the arguments about it, even from 4e fans, resembled arguments like we are having now about 5e's DoaM. Hardly a good thing either.

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.

Something that is solely missing in the 5e write up. Not the least of what it is missing mind you, since the power is poorly written and poorly thought out and generally poorly received. But yes, multiple cases of not taking the thing that currently ALWAYS damages people on a MISS? Yeah, that would be an improvement.

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.

Then you either haven't been paying attention or haven't been looking. Go google it. This isn't even a "4e is bad because look its X number of years later and we have 5e." I'm just saying that while it may not have exploded the same way in the 4e days, it was still an issue with a grand number of people - but people who disliked 4e usually disliked it for other reasons too. Goes back to my comments about 13th age - we don't care because we weren't buying it to start with.

I would also point out pemerton, that even if (big IF) it weren't an issue in 4e that means nothing for 5e and its more inclusive attempt to gather a fanbase. What worked for 4e won't necessarily work for 5e. 5e is a different beast entirely. I can't and wouldn't advocate the broken design of 3e, for example - in fact I think that 5e probably hasn't gone far enough in fixing its magic.

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.

Do you have any more information, possibly a link, on this subject? I personally can't respond to Roger Musson's comments from 30 years ago sight unseen. He may have been brilliant or me hay have been talking out of his butt. I can't say and so I don't, personally, find this a compelling argument.

Yes, there is.

Gunslingers in general, and guns in general, aren't very good examples for Pathfinder I'm sorry to say. They are no more similar to damage on a miss than wizard's fireball. Beyond that, I know countless games outright ban them, or modify the system when they do allow guns/lingers. It is the very definition of an optional module to a highly modular game. Given that, if DoaM were modular then it would be far more acceptable. But as far as the mechanic goes (I never said I wouldn't criticize the ability) in order to "damage on a miss" the gunslinger has to spend a resource - unlike the 5e power. This already means they can't do it all day long, already puts it into a category closer to spells, already means that they aren't killing EVERY kobold on a miss. Oh and don't forget the fact that it only does half of what it would have done, so not necessarily killing the kobold every time they miss, but half of what they would have done normally. So, I'd say there are far better and more debatable versions of DoaM in PF. This is a weak example, IMHO.

 

[tsadkiel]

This is a weak example, IMHO.

I wasn't making an argument. The question was, is there damage on a miss in Pathfinder, and the answer is yes. There is.

 

[Tovec]

There is a lot to this two simple paragraphs. I'll try and keep stuff organized as best I can.

For magic it is a saving throw so of course defenses against that don't work against an attack. But attacks have their own defenses like DR. I assume dr will make a doam zero if it does not get through.

There are many ways to negate spells. The ones that allow "save for half" are usually (a) reflex saves, (b) easily defeated by things like evasion, or walls/cover, (c) limited use. So, for (a) the fighter's DoaM doesn't allow a save. Of any kind, ever. The fighter declares he is attacking, the DM might as well just say the creature is dead. It doesn't matter if he is doing total defensive, hiding behind cover, no matter his equipment, nothing will save him. For (b) the spell isn't automatic. I'm assuming you are coming from a 3e base. There is a seldom remembered rule in 3e that says the wizard has to roll to hit a square for a fireball. Even ignoring this rule, those with evasion get out of being damaged more often than not. And getting evasion (or improved) isn't that hard. You can get the effect of it from hiding out of sight - unlike a defense against fighter's DoaM which doesn't exist. As long as you are within melee range of the fighter you die/take damage. Fighter rolls a 1. You take damage. For (c) the wizard can throw a fireball infrequently. It makes sense in that case that they get more bang for their buck, a CHANCE to kill multiple targets and get save for half in the case they don't. A fighter on the other hand can do this against every target they see. Not the same thing and not fair on either end.

I can't remember anymore about DR. We were talking about this pretty heavily back in the day and I brought up a number of things that DoaM bypasses, and I believe one of those is DR. Given the description it is damaging targets through their armor, and thus through most DR as well. But I can't recall at the moment about other forms of DR.

With all the complaints of fighters never being as powerful as spell casters it surprises me that giving fighters a small boost like this would upset people. If the doam is equal to strength bonus then is 5 points of damage really that bad? If that is enough to kill something then it was not muc of a threat to begin with.

"With all the complaints..." I've been saying for years that the solution when attempting to fix LFQW isn't to simply increase the fighters to match. If something is stupid and broken why would you want MORE things stupid and broken? I would think fixing the stupid and broken thing is preferable.

5 points of damage doesn't just kill the weak things. I mean it does, it kills them on the first round, but it also kills the big things in many rounds earlier than they would die normally. This mechanic changes how the game operates. It is giving the wizard teleport a level earlier. It isn't a concern by itself that they can ignore certain obstacles, true, the traveling from point A to point B may not be important but on the other hand it is super important that now it is NEVER important. A kobold group is unlikely to take down a party. But now, the fighter can defeat them each in 1 turn per, without needing to know the result of the dice. On a natural 1 (a normal failure) and minimum damage the kobold dies. That fundamentally changes how the game works. I don't know why I should be okay with that being at my game as a default, ESPECIALLY when it wasn't there before and isn't congruent with what others (including most other two handed fighters) can do. It doesn't make sense and is a rather bitter pill to try and swallow.

 

[Crothian]

It is a new edition. There are going to be things in the game that were not there before. If nothing is new then it really isn't a new edition. Now, if DoaM does ignore DR then that is a problem. It would be possible for a hit to not do enough damage to get through DR but a miss does damage the creature since it ignores DR.

I have never seen a problem with making battles faster. The extra damage on a miss will improve the average damage a fighter does and be very helpful for creatures with high ACs. As for their being no defense against it there is an obvious one. Don't be in melee with the fighter. That is old school tactics that have been in the game forever. Also, total cover should still work and concealment assuming these concepts are still in the game.

The concept that one item will stop people from playing the game is fascinating considering how widely acceptable it is to house rule D&D. It almost seems like people with out house rules of any kind are in the minority.

For me the jury is still out. I learned long ago to play a game first before I completely dismiss it.

 

[Obryn]

I find this especially dismissive. It doesn't address the arguments of DoaM and basically tells someone to go screw off since they are criticizing a mechanic of a game system you happen to like. If you weren't a Mod I would consider reporting you to one. Wow. Way to attack the content of his character instead of the argument he is making. It doesn't matter if he has the power to disband groups or not, the fact that he finds this mechanic so poisonous should perhaps be discussed instead of just saying 'I'm sure it exists in PF, so go play someone else and be gone.' Wow. This may not have been your intent but it is certainly my inference and even though I'm not DDNFan I'm offended.

I don't know how to put this gently. But there's times when, indeed, a "fan" is so toxic, dismissing them is the proper response. RPGs and pc/console gaming both tend to let too much slide, imo.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't know how to put this gently. But there's times when, indeed, a "fan" is so toxic, dismissing them is the proper response. RPGs and pc/console gaming both tend to let too much slide, imo.

I agree. I just added two board members to my ignore list, as they sound exactly like some banned members.