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

[Ahnehnois]

The playstyle is not that mysterious. It's one in which a player can choose a fiat option to play a relentless dreadnought of a fighter.

Mystery dispelled!

I can play a relentless fighter without having any such ability available. It's not like an fighter who rolls below the target's AC is "relenting". There's no connection between having a relentless attitude towards life and being able to deal a small amount of damage when you roll a 1 on your attack.

 

[TwoSix]

I can play a relentless fighter without having any such ability available. It's not like an fighter who rolls below the target's AC is "relenting". There's no connection between having a relentless attitude towards life and being able to deal a small amount of damage when you roll a 1 on your attack.

But isn't the point that we want mechanics that reflect and express our chosen narrative? I can play pretty much anything in a diceless game, too, but I don't find that very satisfying.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

But isn't the point that we want mechanics that reflect and express our chosen narrative? I can play pretty much anything in a diceless game, too, but I don't find that very satisfying.

What chosen narrative is that exactly?

 

[dmgorgon]

I still think that the intoxicated, hindered, restrained, prone GWF who is being taunted by the dodging Kender from behind cover has a great chance of doing no damage at all. Apparently, the designers don't see things that way.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The more I look at Next and it's design, the more the game is getting to the point where the DM just sits you all down and says "You win".

I also don't buy the excuse about feeling helpless and you don't contribute if you miss. Jesus, missing is just an an important part of the game as hitting. Why do the designers feel they need to coddle people?

 

[Mistwell]

The more I look at Next and it's design, the more the game is getting to the point where the DM just sits you all down and says "You win".

In my experience playtesting the game, this ability is not very strong. I am also finding that party unconsciousness and death is a much greater and more common threat than in most versions of the game. Are you finding in your experience playtesting the game that this ability clearly outshines others, and that the party members are never threatened with unconsciousness or death?

 

[pemerton]

I can play a relentless fighter without having any such ability available.

<snip>

There's no connection between having a relentless attitude towards life and being able to deal a small amount of damage when you roll a 1 on your attack.

"Relentlessness" isn't primarily an attitude. It's a capability, and it displays itself through its effects.

But isn't the point that we want mechanics that reflect and express our chosen narrative?

Exactly. Which takes us back to playstyle. Some people prefer a game in which the mechanics reliably deliver the narrative conception of the character, the situation etc. For those players, playing a relentless fighter isn't simply about emoting a certain way at the table - it's about the action resolution in the course of play actually giving effect to that conception of that character.

What chosen narrative is that exactly?

Mine.

The question raised by you and Ahnehnois and others was, in effect, "For whom might this be an important mechanic, and why?" I'm answering that question.

 

[bogmad]

"Relentlessness" isn't primarily an attitude. It's a capability, and it displays itself through its effects.

Exactly. Which takes us back to playstyle. Some people prefer a game in which the mechanics reliably deliver the narrative conception of the character, the situation etc. For those players, playing a relentless fighter isn't simply about emoting a certain way at the table - it's about the action resolution in the course of play actually giving effect to that conception of that character.
.

So you don't think that this mechanic has any room for improvement? It's perfect as it is, and any changes would diffuse this "relentlessness" that encapsulates your chosen narrative so perfectly?

As Mistwell has pointed out, GWF does seem to have some balance issues, in that the other weapon styles are actually better mathematically.

Now, I've obviously made my opinion of the mechanic clear, but if I were to play a "relentless" great weapon fighter, I'd personally prefer something that didn't gimp me in later levels.
Like maybe some extra STR damage when I actually connect a solid blow. And myself, I wouldn't be angered by STR damage on a miss "less than 5." That capacity for missing doesn't limit the narrative space for me or my DM (who also has to play the game with me) as far as I can tell. But maybe that would be too much? I'd need to see it in play.

 

[Hussar]

I can play a relentless fighter without having any such ability available. It's not like an fighter who rolls below the target's AC is "relenting". There's no connection between having a relentless attitude towards life and being able to deal a small amount of damage when you roll a 1 on your attack.

Actually, there is. That's the whole point of the mechanic. You are relentless, therefore, even when you roll a miss, you still deal damage. It's not like it's a really complicated narrative here. And, note, the "towards life" thing is something you're adding, not what's being talked about here. The warrior is a relentless combatant - constantly pushing forward in combat.

Which is what this mechanic is modeling.

Are there other ways we could do this? Sure, no problem. Extra attacks, bonuses to hit or damage, rider effects on a hit, that sort of thing. Each has its own pros and cons. This is one way of doing it.

But, let's not get too carried about building this mountain shall we? We're talking about one fighter type. Not all characters. So, right off the bat, this may or may not be seen in any given campaign. And, in all likelihood, it's one option out of several that can be taken, not an automatic.

And, given that you, Ahnehnois, make such a big point about owning the game as a DM, I would think that removing a pretty minor rule like this, which has virtually no knock on effects, would be a fairly simple choice. Additionally, trying to marginalize it by proclaiming that it's only for a small subset of playstyles doesn't reflect the fact that the poll is pretty much split down the middle. Should we ignore half the players so that the game favors what you want? Isn't that what 4e did, and you complain rather bitterly about - ignoring the player base?

This is a pretty simple rule to adjust to taste. Take ownership of your game and adjust it if you think it's a problem.

 

[dmgorgon]

The more I look at Next and it's design, the more the game is getting to the point where the DM just sits you all down and says "You win".

I also don't buy the excuse about feeling helpless and you don't contribute if you miss. Jesus, missing is just an an important part of the game as hitting. Why do the designers feel they need to coddle people?

I agree, in fact it's like removing the ball from soccer to ensure that every child wins.