D&D 5E Damage on a Miss: Because otherwise Armour Class makes no sense

[Jester David]

Make great weapon nonbarbarians not suck at low levels.

That was the point in the playtest.

EDIT:
To clarify

Weapon and Shield had better AC and could deal the same damage (Deuling) or protect allies (Protection)

Two Weapon fighting dealt more damage.

Reach weapons had reach.

Ranged weapons had range.

Unless you get a second attack or were a barbarian, great weapons were inferior.

None of that has anything to do with DoaM though. Any increase to damage per round would have the exact same effect.

 

[Minigiant]

None of that has anything to do with DoaM though. Any increase to damage per round would have the exact same effect.

It also had to with "wasted turns"

TWF warrios have two times a turn to have something happen.

Archers, when they miss, can say "at least I'm far away from them"

Shield users have better AC and feel better when enemies miss as they fell the shield did something.

But GWF warriors, if they miss, are up close with the opponent and ready to be hit back hard.

DOAM is a method to make misses feel better. Another option is to allow a Great Weapon use to shove as a bonus action (what I do in my game).

Another use of DOAM is to make use of resources is waste like spells, smites, or power attacks feel better.

Another is if you want to have an even more detailed game.

 

[Jester David]

It also had to with "wasted turns"

DOAM is a method to make misses feel better. Another option is to allow a Great Weapon use to shove as a bonus action (what I do in my game).

Everyone feels like they wasted their turn, not just GW fighters. Why not barbarians? The ranger? The rogue who blows their sneak attack? Or the sword and board fighter?

Before the whole nostalgia thing kicked in and drove 5e, I predicted that the edition after 4e would have no missing, because missing isn't fun. Your attack would just determine how well you hit.

If you want to reduce missing that' shine, but there's other ways. Magic items. Reduced monster ACs. Or a glancing blow optional rule.

 

[Jester David]

I think that is rather biased way of framing the debate.

I never really consider nonlethal damage to weigh heavily on the question of the nature of HP, because I just thought of them as a much needed replacement for vomit-inducing ancient subsystems (dragon subdual and brawling).

At a practical matter, 3e made healing more available for modest cost, because the daily healing rate was increased and it was so easy to have one person in the party dip to gain access to CLW wands.

In terms of play experience, 3e felt somewhere between 1e/2e and 4e/5e. At least to me.

So, naming 3e as the counterbalancing data point to 4e/5e, with 1e/2e implied as near the middle ground seems to undermine your own argument. IMHO.

Nonlethal damage never bugged me either, but it does push hp to the meat end of the spectrum. By declaring there's this separate pool of health that tracks non-threatening injuries and fatigue it implies that regular hit points do not. So while you healed faster than 1e/2e damage was less abstract and more health.

 

[Minigiant]

Everyone feels like they wasted their turn, not just GW fighters. Why not barbarians? The ranger? The rogue who blows their sneak attack? Or the sword and board fighter?

Before the whole nostalgia thing kicked in and drove 5e, I predicted that the edition after 4e would have no missing, because missing isn't fun. Your attack would just determine how well you hit.

If you want to reduce missing that' shine, but there's other ways. Magic items. Reduced monster ACs. Or a glancing blow optional rule.

The barbarian has two easily was to get advantage and thus have lower miss rates. Based one what I saw with 4e avengers when someone misses with advantage, they chalk it up to luck and rarely see it as a character weakness because they rarely have many consecutive turns of missing. Same with two weapon fighters. You don't see the "cursed dice" as you see more of the spread.

With range, reach, and shields, the secondary effect dulls the string of missing. Archers and spearmen get to run away with few consequences. Especially in 5e with its broken up movement.

But with a greataxe, greatsword, or maul, all you got is damage. And it you miss 3 turns in a row, you not only did nothing... you have no special property to fall back on. Imagine if rogue didn't have cunning action? and couldn't TWF. If would be so painful if you rolled bad.

Now DOAM may not be the best solution. But a solution was needed.

 

[Sailor Moon]

You know what? Crap happens when you play a game. Removing miss actually makes the game unfun and a lot of people don't want to play that way.

I don't get this whole "I wasted a turn" nonsense. Okay so you wasted a turn, if you don't like it then use another system. We have dice for a reason.

 

[Minigiant]

You know what? Crap happens when you play a game. Removing miss actually makes the game unfun and a lot of people don't want to play that way.

I don't get this whole "I wasted a turn" nonsense. Okay so you wasted a turn, if you don't like it then use another system. We have dice for a reason.

It's not "I wasted a turn".
It's "Great weapon users wasted a turn."

The issue is that ranged weapons, two weapon fighting, and weapon and shield mitigate misses whereas great weapons don't AND have no advantages at low levels.

 

[Sailor Moon]

It's not "I wasted a turn".
It's "Great weapon users wasted a turn."

The issue is that ranged weapons, two weapon fighting, and weapon and shield mitigate misses whereas great weapons don't AND have no advantages at low levels.

Then don't play one. This edition is not about the stats, it's about playing a class or concept because of what it is. You should have stayed with 4th edition from the sounds of it.

 

[Minigiant]

Then don't play one. This edition is not about the stats, it's about playing a class or concept because of what it is. You should have stayed with 4th edition from the sounds of it.

Until I changed the Great Weapon Fighting style, all my players did drop their great swords.

because "This weapon is butt. I take the most damage and don't even deal the most damage. What is the advantage of this stupid big sword. Die faster?"

 

[BryonD]

My statement presumed nothing. I'm addressing only one of the many mechanisms of 4e and could care less for what "a lot of people dislike". I'm not trying to convince you or them to "like" a system.

You made the assertion that the changes were destructive. I addressed only that point by saying that not providing in the system ways to obviously tweak the dials was what was the main flaw. I'm totally fine with you disagreeing with that. Since I'm not trying to make you like it (the system), or agree (with my assertion).

Not quite. I asserted that many people found it to be destructive. That may seem a minor distinction. But obviously there are people who liked it. Thus, the distinction between it being automatically destructive vs something found destructive by some is important. Which brings us back to your presumption.

That is your prerogative. What I would have liked to have seen was ways for you to keep doing what you liked, and for me to also have what I liked. Instead of arguing only for what I like.

Not sure where anyone is stopping you from arguing for this.

Then why are you commenting on what I'm saying about 4e if you don't want to relive it?

I'm commenting on how 5E is different. I'm not going to relive the part that requires making the case of 4Es pros and cons yet again. Those pros and cons are pretty much a matter of established history. This includes differing opinions of them. But so be it.

In your opinion of course. There might be better options, once again in your opinion.

I'm pretty sure that allowing for differences of opinion has been central to my entire conversation. You are the one who claimed this issue was driven by failure of WotC to adequately educate, rather than respecting that it truly is a valid opinion in its own right.

I meant that there is no accounting for taste, as in the designers provided something and did not take into account for ways of recreating what the system already did or did not do - in essence not accounting for "your" (the general you) taste.

I never assumed everyone shared my tastes, but it is also obvious that not everyone shares yours. So there is no accounting for taste.

Ok. If that is what you meant then wonderful. But in that case you spoke quite poorly. Because the words you typed blame the issue on WotC not making the case for the 4E style. Which is completely different from what you are saying here. And for your new point I'd add that 4E would have needed to be a fundamentally different game to accommodate this desire.