D&D (2024) Not loving weapon mastery with beginners

[Bill Zebub]

Not for me: 20+ years in I still enjoy hitting more than missing!

There's the seed of a new class or subclass idea in there: mechanics that make it more fun to miss than to hit.

 

[Clint_L]

There's the seed of a new class or subclass idea in there: mechanics that make it more fun to miss than to hit.

A veteran player/DM and I were discussing after yesterday's game how much we both got more enjoyment over time from failed rolls as compared to successes. I certainly get more new story beats out of failures than successes, and my characters have changed more because of failures.

Natural 1s are the most exciting roll at the table!

Someone asked which specific masteries are causing the most issues at my table. I had previously mentioned masteries that affect movement, so ones like topple. With beginning players, there are a lot of implications that are hard for them to wrap their heads around while they are still learning the difference between a to hit roll and damage roll, for example. They can't just intuitively visualize how these abstract properties are going to interact, so now someone is explaining that if they do this, then maybe that, and so on.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A veteran player/DM and I were discussing after yesterday's game how much we both got more enjoyment over time from failed rolls as compared to successes. I certainly get more new story beats out of failures than successes, and my characters have changed more because of failures.

Natural 1s are the most exciting roll at the table!

I played The One Ring (1st edition) for a while. It has a mechanic where you can earn a skill advancement point by invoking one of your special traits to narrate a success. We house-ruled that you could also do the same on a critical failure, and trying to come up with reasons why the things that make you unique/special are sometimes liabilities made failing fun.

 

[ezo]

Not for me: 20+ years in I still enjoy hitting more than missing!

In earlier editions when hitting was rarer than missing, I enjoyed hitting, too.

Now it is common and boring. Instead of the old "whiff-fest" from prior editions, you have the "slug-fest" where you're lucky if you miss one in three times instead of the other way round.

Slug-fest, hit point bloat, and damage bloat... "modern" D&D.

But since it works for you, have at it! It's a "hit", right???

 

[abirdcall]

Advantage is much easier to get now so I'm not sure how I will feel about it. I didn't think people hit too much in regular 5e as a baseline but I did not like things like archery fighting style.

2014 kept the base to hit rate fairly constant and then most abilities added damage instead of bonuses to hit which I think worked well.

Still, missing can feel bad esp. for a new player.

I remember introducing a new player and then they failed their Con save against a stinking cloud 4 times in a row and couldn't act that combat. They didn't come back for the next session.

 

[ezo]

Advantage is much easier to get now so I'm not sure how I will feel about it. I didn't think people hit too much in regular 5e as a baseline but I did not like things like archery fighting style.

2014 kept the base to hit rate fairly constant and then most abilities added damage instead of bonuses to hit which I think worked well.

Baseline is basically 65% +/- 5%, which is too high for me.

But yes, throw in advantage, bless, magic in general and the chances creep even higher. Since often these things are commonly employed, the effective rate of success is typically 75-90%!

If the baseline was 45% (+/- 5%) then those things would bring the effective rate up to where most players like them.

Still, missing can feel bad esp. for a new player.

I remember introducing a new player and then they failed their Con save against a stinking cloud 4 times in a row and couldn't act that combat. They didn't come back for the next session.

While I can certainly understand missing doesn't tickle most peoples' fancy, that is an extreme case, and frankly if such a player acted like that at my table I would be glad they were gone. It is a game, bad luck happens, and if a player can't accept that, they shouldn't be playing D&D IMO.

I mean, if all four players make their saves, so the BBEG's "big whammy" flops, should I not show up next time to DM???

 

[abirdcall]

Baseline is basically 65% +/- 5%, which is too high for me.

But yes, throw in advantage, bless, magic in general and the chances creep even higher. Since often these things are commonly employed, the effective rate of success is typically 75-90%!

If the baseline was 45% (+/- 5%) then those things would bring the effective rate up to where most players like them.


While I can certainly understand missing doesn't tickle most peoples' fancy, that is an extreme case, and frankly if such a player acted like that at my table I would be glad they were gone. It is a game, bad luck happens, and if a player can't accept that, they shouldn't be playing D&D IMO.

I mean, if all four players make their saves, so the BBEG's "big whammy" flops, should I not show up next time to DM???

Oh they were nice and pleasant they just chose not to continue the game.

It might not even have been that. It was their first TTRPG experience. Could be the group they didn't like too.

But I have a feeling not getting to act for what was probably 30 minutes (there were multiple new players) wasn't fun for them.

It doesn't happen often but I could see missing most or all attacks for a session at low level might give people an unsatisfactory impression.

I'm happy with hitting 2/3 it's when it creeps up to 9/10 that it is too much.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Now it is common and boring.

Again, if that is your experience I think your group is doing something wrong. Common occurrences, with the correct descriptive flare, need not be boring. And it is easy enough to make hitting / dealing damage less likely too.

 

[ezo]

Oh they were nice and pleasant they just chose not to continue the game.

Well, that is better anyway. From the sounds of your post I thought it was a bit nastier than that. Glad to hear it wasn't.

But I have a feeling not getting to act for what was probably 30 minutes (there were multiple new players) wasn't fun for them.

Sure, that sucks for any player, but it does happen from time to time. I don't know if the other PCs could have helped that PC or not, but was the PC unable to leave the area of effect? I mean stinking cloud isn't that big and they can still move as only their action is restricted...

It doesn't happen often but I could see missing most or all attacks for a session at low level might give people an unsatisfactory impression.

I'm happy with hitting 2/3 it's when it creeps up to 9/10 that it is too much.

But it creeps up to 9/10 too easily and too often IMO.

Again, if that is your experience I think your group is doing something wrong. Common occurrences, with the correct descriptive flare, need not be boring.

When randomness becomes less random, I don't care how you spice it up, it is still boring. Predictability is a poor man's glory (or whatever the saying is...).

And it is easy enough to make hitting / dealing damage less likely too.

Not as easy as it is to increase them, though.

 

[abirdcall]

Well, that is better anyway. From the sounds of your post I thought it was a bit nastier than that. Glad to hear it wasn't.


Sure, that sucks for any player, but it does happen from time to time. I don't know if the other PCs could have helped that PC or not, but was the PC unable to leave the area of effect? I mean stinking cloud isn't that big and they can still move as only their action is restricted...


But it creeps up to 9/10 too easily and too often IMO.


When randomness becomes less random, I don't care how you spice it up, it is still boring. Predictability is a poor man's glory (or whatever the saying is...).


Not as easy as it is to increase them, though.

This was pretty low level. It wasn't the actual spell, it was some sort of toxic gas that came from a spill and the effect used the rules.

I can't remember exactly but I don't think it was a terrible tactical idea to stay where they were considering the close quarters.