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

[Garthanos]

I was hoping the game would get better... like it did in every previous edition change.

 

[urLordy]

If that's true, why are you arguing for a mechanic that reduces the scope of possible outcomes rather than increasing it?

Hit on a Miss doesnt because you get some situations where somebody will swish on a miss and some where they dont - that is more possible outcomes.. where the players choices determined which it was.

I thought the answer would be that you wanted empowerment over the narrative, that you want a rule enabling that what you think should happen in the fiction actually does happen ....?

 

[Garthanos]

Otherwise you end up with a game that loses its core audience.

Death takes us all.

 

[Garthanos]

When the rules are changed in such a way as to violate a rather broad tradition

Linear Fighters and Quadratic Wizards is a broad tradition... guess its sacrosanct.

 

[Garthanos]

I thought the answer would be that you wanted empowerment over the narrative, that you want a rule enabling that what you think should happen in the fiction actually does happen ....?

I rarely have just one reason.

 

[Wicht]

I was hoping the game would get better... like it did in every previous edition change.

That's a value call, and one not shared by everyone. The "improvements" of 4e split the base rather badly.

But tradition has value. There's a reason New Coke bombed. There's a reason that people advertise with Santa wearing red (a fact that does point out that traditions can be changed). It is not that traditions should never be changed, but rather when you do so with a major legacy product, you need a very good feel for what you are doing and you want something that is not going to divide your market in half.

 

[dmgorgon]

This is flat out wrong. In D&D, in any edition, you can never, ever narrate the results of any mechanically determined action without first going through the mechanics. You simply can't.

Player: "I climb the wall" *Rolls* ((Fail))
DM: No, you actually don't. You try to climb it but scrabble ineffectually at the bottom.

Player: "I climb the wall" *Rolls* ((Success))
DM: Ok, you make it about fifteen feet up the wall, and hang precariously.

But, note, in both those examples, the PC did not move an inch until that die hit the table. You can declare anything you want, but, until the mechanics are engaged, any declaration you make is subject to that die roll. "I cut off the orc's head" cannot ever be narrated until after you make an attack and deal damage. And that's true in any edition.

That's not what I was talking about.

Let me use your example to explain this a little more.

Narrative-first mechanic-second.
The character declares that he wants to climb the wall, skewer the goblin, and use his second attack to pull his friend off the wall. The DM pulls out the rules for climbing and asks the player for a climb check. If he is successful, he allows the character to attack the first goblin and then make another attack to pull the other goblin down, he even gives the goblin a dex check to avoid falling. In this case, the player decided on the action and the DM simply used the climb mechanic, attack mechanic, the pull mechanic, and a balance/dex check .

This is a case of the mechanics supporting the narrative from declaration to resolution. In this case, the mechanics are largely irrelevant, you could use any system for this.

The other style of play doesn't work that way.

Mechanic-first narrative-second

This style first provides the character with a set mechanic that typically has a name that doesn't directly correspond to any action in particular. The design allows the narrative to change each time the mechanic is performed. An example of this would be a power that allows the character to move two squares in any direction, do damage, and then pull an adjacent creature. In this case, the action being performed is not specified at all. The mechanic could represent the character scaling a 10 foot cavern wall, skewering a goblin, and using his squirming body to pull the adjacent goblin down. Another use of the mechanic might represent a totally different narrative. Notice, that at no point did the player declare the action. He simply executed the mechanic and then someone at the table provided a narrative that fit the mechanic for the situation at hand. In this case the narrative is limited by what the mechanic allows for. Unlike the first style, he wouldn't be allowed to trip the second goblin because the mechanic only allows him to perform a pull action.

 

[Wicht]

Death takes us all.

True. But its better to lose your customers after they die, rather than before.

 

[Wicht]

Linear Fighters and Quadratic Wizards is a broad tradition... guess its sacrosanct.

Some of us actually like the whole traditional fighter/wizard paradigm. And we buy games too.

 

[Mistwell]

I think what you're saying is that a character with this ability has different outcomes than one who doesn't. However, the character in and of himself is still making a binary attack; it's just that instead of hitting or missing, he's hitting or sort of hitting. This is not like the skill examples above where one roll made by one character could have three or more distinct results.

For what it is worth, you can still fail even with this ability (though this does not directly address your three-results reply, which I think is valid and I wouldn't mind three results).

Anyway, here are just a few ways you can fail to damage your target even with this option:
Player: I move next to the Kobold and try to hit it with my sword, doing at minimum my Strength damage with the attack.
DM: The Kobold had readied an action to move as anyone tried to kill it. So he moves out of the way, and you fail to do any damage.
[Next Round]
Player: I move next to where the Kobold is now and try to hit it with my sword, doing at minimum my Strength damage with the attack.
DM: Make a reflex save to avoid falling in the hidden pit trap you're now standing on that is next to where the Kobold moved. If you succeed you are in the space behind the pit, but still fail to damage the Kobold as you're not next to him. If you fail, you fall in the pit and take damage, and fail to damage the Kobold.
[Next Round]
Player: Dammit this bugger is really slippery! OK I made my save so I move again to where he's now standing try to hit it with my sword, doing at minimum my Strength damage with the attack.
DM: You draw an opportunity attack from the Kobold you pass on your way to your target Kobold. He hits you with a tanglefoot bag. Even if you make your save, you won't have enough move left to reach your target Kobold to try and hit him with your sword, and fail to damage the Kobold.
Player: Screw it! Let someone else kill that Kobold. Where is this new guy who hit me with the bag?