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

[billd91]

I would prefer the gunslinger ability to still miss on a roll of a 1.

But as noted, it burns off resources and is limited. If the GWF's ability was something he could do once in a while I would think it a bit gamist but would not argue with it so stringently. Its the idea that he never, ever, ever, ever, even on a bad day with a foot tied behind his back, wearing a blindfold and upside down, ever can miss. The gunslinger ability at least semi-mirrors the idea of putting forth a little bit extra into the shot through the use of grit.

A firearm would still misfire on a 1 (or any score within its misfire range) and gain the broken condition (or explode if already broken and an early firearm). That wouldn't, based on my reading, negate the damage from the grit expenditure - yet it would still be a potential complication.

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure how limited it is in practice. Someone building a gunslinger will probably shoot for an 18 Wis, giving her 4 grit points a day, with extra grit (which can be taken multiple times) she adds another 2, which is 6 points a day. She regains grit points with a critical hit or killing blow, so it's not like spells that one can run out of and have to wait until the next day. As long as she's adventuring and shooting stuff, she's going to be regaining 1 or 2 grit points a combat, at least that I've seen, especially if she just waits until the target is near dead or if she's shooting a lot of fodder.

An interesting question. They may angle for that 18 Wisdom, but they're probably also focusing on their Dexterity to improve their combat with the firearms so it's unlikely to be much of an issue until much later in the gunslinger's career when both stats could be boosted with items.

As far as managing the amount during play, there are quite a few grit-based options all competing for the gunslinger's eye. I doubt this damage on a miss ability would see anywhere near the amount of play GWF would.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

A firearm would still misfire on a 1 (or any score within its misfire range) and gain the broken condition (or explode if already broken and an early firearm). That wouldn't, based on my reading, negate the damage from the grit expenditure - yet it would still be a potential complication.

Well in Pathfinder a roll of 1 is always a failure.

 

[ImperatorK]

A quick question, for those that like damage on a miss as a constant ability: If the designers removed this feature from the game would you be less likely to pick up the edition?

Why would I?

 

[Wicht]

Why would I?

Why would you be less likely? Or why would you pick up the game?

 

[ImperatorK]

Why would you be less likely?

I wouldn't. No offense to anyone that feels so strong about this one ability that they won't even try 5ed, but personally I'm not a person that takes his toys and goes home angry because I didn't like one thing about a game. And unlike Imaro, I don't get upset when other people like something I don't like.

Lets reverse the question: Why would you be less likely to not pick up the edition if the designers didn't remove the ability?

Or why would you pick up the game?

Because I would like it more than the games I play now. That would depend on a variety of factors and definitely not on one or two abilities.
But I probably won't pick up 5ed. I'm happy with PF, it's still being published and D&D is still alive, so I have no reason, as of yet, to change editions. I didn't try 4ed and luckily for me I dodged a bullet, because I know now I wouldn't like it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I wouldn't.

Why would you be less likely to not pick up the edition if the designers didn't remove the ability?

I would if they didn't provide a replacement. I also suspect that it wouldn't be an isolated incident and similar mechanics would find their way more into the system.

 

[pemerton]

This Gunslinger example is interesting and a bit surprising - people are happy to play PF and just ignore this ability if they don't like it, but can't do the same with D&Dnext?

A quick question, for those that like damage on a miss as a constant ability: If the designers removed this feature from the game would you be less likely to pick up the edition?

Yes, I would be less likely to pick up an edition that doesn't include the options that will let me build and play the sorts of characters I am interested in (whether as player or GM).

It's implausible because I can't see any justification for explaining what special training would have this effect and only this effect. Are we to assume that even a 20th level fighter with boatloads of other skills deals no damage every time he misses, regardless of the strength of the target (an outcome that occurs at least 5% of the time in all cases), but that a fighter of modest overall skill but one special ability never, ever has this happen? What kind of education could possibly produce such a far-reaching outcome, one that overrides the notion that skill in causing damage is represented by the attack bonus?

The GWF fighter clearly is not swinging harder or more accurately or more resolutely or in any other way better, otherwise his conventional parameters (attack bonus or damage) would get better.

This specific character ability is only active on a miss. As the damage done on a hit is unaffected by the damage on a miss ability, it demonstrably has nothing to do with that ability.

All these complaints are framed within a presupposition - namely, of a type of process simulation in mechanics - that I (and, I suspect, some others who don't object to DoaM - such as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], based on their posts upthread) do not accept.

GWF does not represent training or skill. It occupies something like the same space as the barbarian's rage - it expresses fierceness, determination, resolution, inevitability.

And the fact that the mechanical resolution of a successful attack roll is not affected by the ability does not mean that that fiereceness, determination, resolution and inevitability cannot be incorporated into the narration of a hit. In fact, I would expect such incorporation to be fairly typical.

 

[ImperatorK]

GWF does not represent training or skill. It occupies something like the same space as the barbarian's rage - it expresses fierceness, determination, resolution, inevitability.

Just like with Rage, GWF can be refluffed as anything you want, including training or skill.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This Gunslinger example is interesting and a bit surprising - people are happy to play PF and just ignore this ability if they don't like it, but can't do the same with D&Dnext?

If you'd checked out the discussion when the APG came out, a lot of people were seriously unhappy with the gunslinger. Enough that it tanked Paizo's sales? No. But it's hardly a success story.

All these complaints are framed within a presupposition - namely, of a type of process simulation in mechanics - that I (and, I suspect, some others who don't object to DoaM - such as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], based on their posts upthread) do not accept.

GWF does not represent training or skill. It occupies something like the same space as the barbarian's rage - it expresses fierceness, determination, resolution, inevitability.

Even several people who are defending it have talked about it as representing some kind of training or skill. That being said, changing it from a learned skill to an expression of a personality trait does not alter the causal chain under discussion. Either the extra damage comes from technique, or from effort, or from something else, but what's relevant is that it comes from something.

It's also worth noting that the name of the ability is "Greater Weapon Focus", which is hardly suggestive of any of the ideas you're describing.

And the fact that the mechanical resolution of a successful attack roll is not affected by the ability does not mean that that fiereceness, determination, resolution and inevitability cannot be incorporated into the narration of a hit. In fact, I would expect such incorporation to be fairly typical.

Yes. However, a character with this ability is no fiercer or more determined when he is hitting someone than a character without this ability is. Apparently, he only becomes whatever it is that this ability is representing when his attack roll fails to beat the AC.