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

[Burninator]

Good point, but in D&D, fighters have never had what amounts to as perfect accuracy, and nor should they.

It breaks a whole bunch of gentleman's agreements. It makes a mockery of Bounded Accuracy that they talk about so much. What does it matter if ACs are static if a 1st level fighter can auto-damage a creature with 30 AC, with Disadvantage, any times he attacks?

It breaks the expected way D&D combat is supposed to function. And before you say " Magic Missile", that's always been a daily spell, and magical, and an explicit exception. Giving fighters an exception, a back door past to the normal rules for fighting is bad game design.

HP are bigger than D&D now, it came up with the concept but the rest of the game industry, both P&P and videogames, took it and ran with it. And none of them use it to model luck or stamina at the same time as health. Any game implementing stamina would have a yellow bar beneath it, using a separate stat and different rules for its expenditure and restoration (and at different rates).

The only thing I see that's hyperbolic was the claim to take Bounded Accuracy seriously in the same game where 1st level fighters can effectively hit any monster in the game without fail, every time, and then turn around and pretend like all playstyles are being supported. Gah, that's what I call Marketing talk. I don't like being lied to.

Simulationism is not possible in a game where human fighters cannot miss nimble, invisible targets with a huge, heavy axe, ever. It makes a mockery of the D20, damage dice, and basically the entire game. That's not hyperbolic, that's just basic fact. It's a mechanic that bypasses the narrative impact of every other resolution mechanic in the game. Not to mention macking a mockery of the english language on its face. The rule is a contradiction, there is nothing subjective about that. You cannot miss a foe with a weapon attack and it still cause damage. Regardless of your definition of hit points, you cannot say the phrase out loud "I miss the attack with my sword, but the sword causes damage to the orc anyway" without jaws dropping.

People who don't care about consistency in game rules have really no business contributing to their creation, as far as I'm concerned. Even if 99% of the responders agreed with damage-on-a-miss, they would still be wrong.

Truth is not democratically decided, it never was, and it never will be. Impossible things and rules contradictions should be corrected, not hand-waved away by irrelevent digressions about some third concept defined elsewhere.

 

[Mistwell]

I agree that the two defensive styles are the best mechanically, but if I want to specialize in two-handed weapons instead of beefing up my defenses or parrying, I should be able to, and take something that has both a meaningful and mechanical relationship to my weapon. I don't see anything about GWF that specifically screams it should only work with 2H-weapons, aside from all the other problems I mentioned.

I tire of hearing people suggest if I can't get Chocolate, I should be happy with Vanilla.

These food analogies you keep using don't make sense. Maybe you should just explain the argument, rather than trying to use something tangential to imply your argument.

No. It is insulting when it was declared that feedback clearly showed "one size does not fit all" in terms of playstyle, that all are equally valid (some are more equal than others), so long as that playstyle is not simulationist, because...suck it. It's Vanilla for everyone! Be happy and STFU and if you aren't happy with that, too bad.

Then I think you are taking this WAY too seriously, if you found it insulting and an implication of suck it. I don't even buy your premise - they gave you 5 options to choose from, 3 which apply to the big weapon you want to use, and that's just in the playtest. If you wanted 31 flavors, try a wizard. You got 5 flavors.

I do see this mechanic as an insult to the game's history and all the fans out there, who, like me, do not like being told that our playstyle (which happens to be the default, original playstyle this game has supported for nearly 40 years), is invalid and no longer supported, after I spent a year of my time participating in this. And this is the final result. Yay, thanks for beta testing this edition for us for free.

Nobody told you that your playstyle is invalid. Again, nobody is twisting your arm to choose this option - you can easily play the game and you personally never have to use this option and it should impact your game exactly zero. You don't even need any houserule - you have LOTs of other options as the playtest is set right now, and that's before you likely get even more options in the published book.

But, you're sounding like a jerk now, as you continue to escalate and increase the hyperbole and over the top excessively bombastic retorts. I am not saying you are one - I am saying these past few posts from you, escalating the rhetoric, sound jerky to me. And you admitted you're experiencing some nerd rage - so why not take a step back, tone it down a tad, and talk about it?

I didn't create all this fuss about damage on a miss, I didn't twist anybody's arms out there or tell them they have to hate it because I do. I just know lots do feel like I do, and that's plainly obvious.

Many do not like it. None are talking like you are talking about it. None are talking about face slaps, insults, invalidating playstyles, sticking forks into their eyes, or ripping out beating hearts and setting them on fire, and then posting pictures of the hulk and declaring nerd rage. That is alllllllll you my man. All you're doing is making people who otherwise might agree with you, back away slowly from the hate-spew and grow more silent.

So no, I don't speak for them, but my very first post here I brought up 20 different mechanical reasons why this GWF is not a good fit for D&D, and being told, nah, just pick something else (when there is nothing else offered for that archetype). I'm sorry, that is insulting and dismissive.

No, it's not. Most of your reasons were redundant and meaningless to me. Of the few points you had which I felt were valid, none of them demonstrated that it's an inherently wrong to have this option in the book for others to choose, nor did any of them demonstrate why the other options you have which you did not object to are bad.

I will ask you this question one more time (I've asked it twice now and you have not responded): If they had never included this option at all, and you only had defensive or protection to choose from for a big-weapon fighter, would you be saying the things you're saying right now? I think not. You might say "I'd like an offensive option here for a big-weapon fighter", but it probably would have been one comment and then that's it. It seems to me you're angry to this particular level of anger, not because you want an offensive option, but because you are upset other people will be playing with an offensive option which you detest. And I am wondering, why do you care if other people play with an option you don't like?

A metaphorical slap in the face, yes, I stand by that statement. A year of listening to promises about being inclusive to many playstyles then they put this in there.

An option for people to use if they choose is not excluding your preferred playstyle. Indeed. you seem to be arguing to exclude a playstyle yourself. Others have told you, in this thread, they like that playstyle. You want it gone, even though you have other options. You're the one demanding the exclusion of a playstyle - they're asking for simply more playstyles to be covered. So explain to me how including an option you don't like is excluding your playstyle?

Damage-on-a-miss is wrong for me, it's wrong for D&D, and it's wrong for America.

Amen

Yeah OK I asked several times if including another offensive option, in addition to the one already included, would satisfy you. And you ignored it. And then ended with an "wrong for America, Amen", on top of all that other hyperbolic ridiculousness you spewed. So, I am guessing you've just decided to troll now?

 

[Mistwell]

Good point, but in D&D, fighters have never had what amounts to as perfect accuracy, and nor should they.

It breaks a whole bunch of gentleman's agreements. It makes a mockery of Bounded Accuracy that they talk about so much. What does it matter if ACs are static if a 1st level fighter can auto-damage a creature with 30 AC, with Disadvantage, any times he attacks?

It breaks the expected way D&D combat is supposed to function. And before you say " Magic Missile", that's always been a daily spell, and magical, and an explicit exception. Giving fighters an exception, a back door past to the normal rules for fighting is bad game design.

HP are bigger than D&D now, it came up with the concept but the rest of the game industry, both P&P and videogames, took it and ran with it. And none of them use it to model luck or stamina at the same time as health. Any game implementing stamina would have a yellow bar beneath it, using a separate stat and different rules for its expenditure and restoration (and at different rates).

The only thing I see that's hyperbolic was the claim to take Bounded Accuracy seriously in the same game where 1st level fighters can effectively hit any monster in the game without fail, every time, and then turn around and pretend like all playstyles are being supported. Gah, that's what I call Marketing talk. I don't like being lied to.

Simulationism is not possible in a game where human fighters cannot miss nimble, invisible targets with a huge, heavy axe, ever. It makes a mockery of the D20, damage dice, and basically the entire game. That's not hyperbolic, that's just basic fact. It's a mechanic that bypasses the narrative impact of every other resolution mechanic in the game. Not to mention macking a mockery of the english language on its face. The rule is a contradiction, there is nothing subjective about that. You cannot miss a foe with a weapon attack and it still cause damage. Regardless of your definition of hit points, you cannot say the phrase out loud "I miss the attack with my sword, but the sword causes damage to the orc anyway" without jaws dropping.

People who don't care about consistency in game rules have really no business contributing to their creation, as far as I'm concerned. Even if 99% of the responders agreed with damage-on-a-miss, they would still be wrong.

Truth is not democratically decided, it never was, and it never will be. Impossible things and rules contradictions should be corrected, not hand-waved away by irrelevent digressions about some third concept defined elsewhere.

So I think we're almost there now - you do in fact seem to be saying that, even if you had a second offensive option to choose from for your big-weapon fighter, you'd still be offended if others used this "damage on a miss" option for their characters. Do I read you correct?

I will be even more specific. If they had this sixth option in the book:

Crusher: When you hit a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, add an additional one-half of your strength bonus (rounded down) to the damage you do.

Would you be OK then? Or would you still be personally insulted that they included the other option still in the book, for others to choose if it meets with their playstyle preferences?

 

[Dausuul]

So a better mechanic might be:

Glancing Blow: When you conduct a melee attack, and your result is less than the target's AC but more than the target's touch AC, you do [X] damage.

Well, better for verisimilitude. But kind of clunky from a mechanical perspective. Instead of players saying "This doesn't make any sense," you'll have them saying "Wait, did I hit his touch AC? Does that apply to this attack? I can never remember how this works..."

It'd be much simpler to just grant a flat bonus to all attack rolls (within the limits imposed by bounded accuracy).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, better for verisimilitude. But kind of clunky from a mechanical perspective. Instead of players saying "This doesn't make any sense," you'll have them saying "Wait, did I hit his touch AC? Does that apply to this attack? I can never remember how this works..."

Yes. It's better in that at least you don't have scenarios where the attack roll ends up as -5 and the AC is 30 and you still do damage. It's better in that it models something. But still not a great mechanic on the playability side.

Also, it occupies a really odd conceptual space. If the base game were structured so that attacks worked this way, it would make sense, but it's hard to imagine that most characters have no ability whatsoever to do damage in this situation, but that one somehow can.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, better for verisimilitude. But kind of clunky from a mechanical perspective. Instead of players saying "This doesn't make any sense," you'll have them saying "Wait, did I hit his touch AC? Does that apply to this attack? I can never remember how this works..."

It'd be much simpler to just grant a flat bonus to all attack rolls (within the limits imposed by bounded accuracy).

And we don't have touch AC in this version of the game, and don't want to create an entire different AC entry just for one option of one sub-class of one class. There are far simpler ways to do this.

 

[Burninator]

I'd rather if damage on a miss were an option, it was a feat that a DM could promptly ignore table-wide, and this would be a weak-as option hence munchkins wouldn't take it. It's weak damage-wise without str buffs, but considering that the only hit point of damage that matters in the game mechanically-speaking is the one that takes you below 0, I think it highly likely that this mechanic will alter the game at precisely the most important parts, making it not only annoying on a round-by-round basis, but also exploitable. If you know for sure you can take these three guys off the board this turn, you will spread your attacks out in that fashion. No character should have such a mega-game dissonance with his player in terms of their tactics. The more meta-game-exploitable something is, the less I like it. I don't like having those player-fiat abilities, and I don't like seeing them used. And certainly not every single round.

If they made damage-on-a-miss a feat, it'd be better, because over time there will inevitably be enough feat glut that the likelihood of seeing this in use will diminish over time.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

So I think we're almost there now - you do in fact seem to be saying that, even if you had a second offensive option to choose from for your big-weapon fighter, you'd still be offended if others used this "damage on a miss" option for their characters. Do I read you correct?

I will be even more specific. If they had this sixth option in the book:

Crusher: When you hit a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, add an additional one-half of your strength bonus (rounded down) to the damage you do.

Would you be OK then? Or would you still be personally insulted that they included the other option still in the book, for others to choose if it meets with their playstyle preferences?

I can't speak for others, but for me, yes. I would be annoyed (not offended) if it were in the book and not part of "effects on a miss" module. If a mechanic is used in the standard rules, then it's a standard mechanic that designers can use elsewhere. I have no problem with such things in a clearly optional system, that's the point of modules. They allow controversial elements to be developed in such a way that they best suit the needs of those that want them, and don't affect those that don't.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I like damage on miss and find the mechanic believable so keep it.

 

[pemerton]

D&D is a process sim, whether you admit it or not.

What process does hit point ablation simulate?

The weapon does not strike the target, so how does it damage me?

Why do you say the weapon does not strike the target? Perhaps they block or parry. Perhaps the weapon glances of their armour.

Or, perhaps the only reason that the weapon doesn't strike the target is because they avoid it and, in doing so, stumble and suffer injury.

There are any number of narratives that can explain why a target takes a (lesser) injury than they would have, had the blow connected as its author hoped.

I write weapon collision and damage simulations all day long, and I can tell you, in games you can easily hack together stuff that appears realistic to the end user with little effort compared to modelling physics accurately would require.

This, however, is a mechanic that you could simply not model in a videogame

I'm not sure what videogame design, at least in this context, has to do with RPGs?

The whole point of an RPG is that the fiction is collectively created by the choices of the participants. If they are curious as to what is happening when damage results from a roll that the mechanics do not define as a hit, they can make it up in their imaginations.

Your right to enjoy a mechanic is preserved if that mechanic is put in a magical class, but it must have that label if is it otherwise impossible. It effectively means a 1st level fighter cannot miss.

(1) The language of "rights" has no work to do here that I can see. We're talking about a commercial publishing venture.

(2) If I want to play a relentless fighter, why are you telling me I have to play a magic-user?

(3) A 1st level fighter built with this class feature does not fail to drive their enemy towards defeat in the course of 6 seconds of engagement. That does not mean that the fighter "cannot miss". I refer you back to the Muhammad Ali video posted by [MENTION=56051]Raith5[/MENTION].

Some of us want, in the course of the game's evolution, for it to make more sense, rather than less.

I have been accused of hating D&D, and of want to turn it into something it's not. But I'm not the one posting in these threads saying that the mechanics of D&D don't make sense. So let me turn a phrase back on you - why do you want to make D&D into something it's not and hasn't been? There are plenty of terrific sim games out there - why don't you try one of them?

If your response to that is that you're a legitimate D&D player too, then I invite you to consider that other are also, and they like this mechanic and want it (or things like it) in the game.