D&D 5E Automatic Damage from Features??

[Minigiant]

So, what are peoples' thoughts on auto-damage?

For myself, I don't care for it. IMO everything should have a chance to not-effect a PC or the PC should be able to mitigate it (such as the half damage saves).

The creatures mentioned upthread are ones I've never used or encounter, personally, otherwise I would have broached this subject earlier.

As for spells like magic missile, I am not fond of that aspect of it, but at least it is (typically) a limited resource instead of unlimited.

I'm fine with it on high level or high CR monsters. Beings so strong that aspects of of them are unavoidable if not immune.

Like a Marut. It's a Inevitable and being of pure law. There is no random chance with its slam. It will attack perfectly every time. A marut will not miss. It's up to you to withstand or dodge the blow.

 

[John R Davis]

I quite like them. Keeps the PCs on their toes

 

[billd91]

So, what are peoples' thoughts on auto-damage?

It depends. I'm not too keen on it for PCs unless it's something that's a limited resource or comes up only in certain situations - like a magic missile, spells that don't target AC, invoked auras, etc.

But for monsters? I don't have much of a problem with them. They're part of the challenge of the opponent that players need to overcome.

 

[Stoutstien]

Fire aura with the balor as well.
On an off note small doses of unavoidable damage are an underused feature

 

[DND_Reborn]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts. I'm still not a big supporter of it, but those are good points.

For me, a pet peeve is small damage. The fire type auras and such which deal minor (relatively) damage is a hassle for bookkeeping and a waste of time, period, but I can understand the other side, too.

 

[J-H]

The Avatar of Death you can draw from the Deck of Many Things doesn't make attack rolls either.

 

[Shardstone]

I think ultimately auto-damage is a requirement for high level play, and lets you more evenly design high level monsters. If you put a save vs half for Vecna's damage, you'd either be doing 5 damage (which is not worth doing at high levels, to be honest) or you are doubling it and doing 20 damage with half on a safe (which eats up a lot more power budget).

10 or 15 damage here or there, sometimes 20, I think is a neat way to tell your players that these high level monsters ain't a joke.

 

[Stoutstien]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts. I'm still not a big supporter of it, but those are good points.

For me, a pet peeve is small damage. The fire type auras and such which deal minor (relatively) damage is a hassle for bookkeeping and a waste of time, period, but I can understand the other side, too.

Guess your table avoid minions. Small but unavoidable Auto damage is a great and flavorful way for a npc to wipe out massive groups of low health creatures. Lot for them also have multiple triggers like the flame aura. A balor is melting hordes of anything not immune to fire.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Guess your table avoid minions. Small but unavoidable Auto damage is a great and flavorful way for a npc to wipe out massive groups of low health creatures. Lot for them also have multiple triggers like the flame aura. A balor is melting hordes of anything not immune to fire.

Well, the monsters the PCs faces use minions, of course, but the monsters rarely face PC "minions", since the PCs don't use them...

Otherwise, I suppose it would be.

 

[dave2008]

I think people have already posted the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I don't mind them in a limited capacity, particularly if it makes thematic sense, like the Marut. I might feel different if a "hit" in D&D was specifically a connecting strike that does bodily damage, but that is not what a "hit" is in D&D, so I don't stress it to much.