D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[ForeverSlayer]

Someone mentioned having an updated poll on this mechanic. Now I am going to do a poll on the believability of the mechanic. Balance isn't an issue here, but just because something is balanced, doesn't make it good.

Discuss the poll and explain why you made the choice you did. If you don't want to explain it, that's okay as well.

Edit: Don't forget that this includes how it interacts with the current hit point system and how it is described. The mechanic causes the hit point mechanic to break down.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As I've noted elsewhere, I don't think that believability is the only issue here. However, it does fail that test by violating the basic model of how the d20 system works: if you roll equal to or higher than the DC, you succeed, and if you roll lower than the DC, you fail. On that basic level, it's nonsensical.

 

[Grydan]

None of the above.

Believability is not a relevant factor in my opinion about whether or not damage on a miss is a mechanic that should or should not be in the game.

I'm not even sure what it means to say that I do (or do not) find the mechanic (or any other mechanic) believable. Could you clarify?

 

[pedr]

Damage on a miss can act as a pacing mechanic, slightly shortening combats. It can do a bit to reflect the danger and difficulty of staying in a combat with a highly-trained opponent. It reduces the felt-negative of missing, and makes the decision to make an attack slightly more attractive than some others.

In other words there are various reasons, both in-fiction and in-game which makes it a perfectly sensible design choice. It's far from being the most ridiculous divergence between D&D mechanics and the real world (and, in fact, I expect many real melee fights with weapons are all about 'misses' until one combatant tires or makes a mistake and allows a single killing or disabling strike.

 

[JeffB]

Poll options stink.

Do not like it, but its not nearly the big deal people on the intarwebz make it out to be. Quite minor. Eliminate it if you do not like it. It is D&D. Since 1974 people have been changing things. If you cannot deal with changing rules to taste or players balk, you or your players probably are taking a game of make believe way too seriously.Get over it.

 

[urLordy]

I like the poll, but I might have worded it something like with multiple choice:

[] I like damage on a miss
[] I dislike damage on a miss
[] Do not like or dislike this mechanic

[] Keep it
[] Scrap it
[] Neutral or don't know

Fundamentally the most important question for any D&D mechanic is how much it's liked or disliked. As much as I dislike the fictional positioning of damage on a miss, it's not the whole story.

 

[Morrus]

Poll options stink.

Do not like it, but its not nearly the big deal people on the intarwebz make it out to be. Quite minor. Eliminate it if you do not like it. It is D&D. Since 1974 people have been changing things. If you cannot deal with changing rules to taste or players balk, you or your players probably are taking a game of make believe way too seriously.Get over it.

JeffB, please don't be so rude. Everyone else, you are most welcome to discuss the things you like and don't like about D&D on this messageboard.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I like it because it's a different and unique mechanic that a particular class/build gets to use. The more unique each classes mechanics are, the more individuality each class has, and the more interesting the class becomes for me. I don't care about "believability" because I do not need or require the narrative or "roleplaying" part be in perfect lockstep with the "game" part. The "game" part of the RPG just has to have fun options and be fun to play, and the "roleplaying" part will come out of that.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

, and the "roleplaying" part will come out of that.

I would like to touch on this. What exactly do you mean by this part?

 

[Paraxis]

Those are some skewed poll questions.
How believable something is might be important to a simulationist but not at all important to a narrativist or gamist.
I love the mechanic but not because it is believable/unbelievable but because it is fun and interesting, it makes the GWF feel different from the other fighting styles, it gives those players that want to contribute even in a small way every round an option.