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

[Garthanos]

because I was addressing

Was I quoting you somewhere?

 

[Garthanos]

Ugh, just no... so how does this differentiate a graceful dodger (mechanically) from a brute who can take alot of damage? This essentially makes the Juggernaut and Gambit/Longshot mechanically the same. It just feels lazy and wrong.

Yes I agree certainly not desirable... but it can work just not in a way that feels awesome. Hence something more like even the parry mechanic would be more interesting.

 

[Imaro]

Was I quoting you somewhere?

Ah, you're right I shouldn't have assumed... so what was the point of the video?

 

[dmgorgon]

But, your graceful dodger should have expertise dice shouldn't he? Which can be spent to reduce damage. Therefore, your graceful dodger vs the GWF would reduce the damage to zero nearly every round. So, the Graceful Dodger already has mechanics which would mitigate damage. Against an opponent with a long sword, he could use his expertise dice in other ways, but, against the relentless GWF opponent, he has to continuously dodge that honking big maul that's trying to pound him into the ground.

Seems to work for me.

I don't buy the argument that dodging or force of impact is the cause of miss damage. If that's true then why doesn't a fighter charging with a lance on a 2200lb war horse cause hit point damage on a miss? Why is using that same weapon two handed by a GWF suddenly taxing hit points and yet a lance charge doesn't? Apparently, the force of a lance attack and the effort required to dodge it is far less than an attack with a great Maul.

At this point I've had enough of the BS explanations. Until the intoxicated, restrained, prone, hindered GWF has a chance to do no damage against the taunting, dodging Kender behind cover I don't buy it. It's a crap mechanic. I want conditions in the game to mean something. If the druid casts Barkskin on the Kender on the next round I want that to have an impact on the game.

oh well, I guess some of you guys will continue to weave your BS to explain it and we will continue to pass our disbelieve checks.

 

[Imaro]

But, your graceful dodger should have expertise dice shouldn't he? Which can be spent to reduce damage. Therefore, your graceful dodger vs the GWF would reduce the damage to zero nearly every round. So, the Graceful Dodger already has mechanics which would mitigate damage. Against an opponent with a long sword, he could use his expertise dice in other ways, but, against the relentless GWF opponent, he has to continuously dodge that honking big maul that's trying to pound him into the ground.

Seems to work for me.

Yeah, I'm not seeing this in the most recent playtest packet. The stranger thing is that it would appear none of the rogue's abilities like Evasion, Uncanny Dodge or Elusive would stop him from taking damage from this mechanic... since Evasion requires the opponent to hit, Uncanny Dodge requires a saving throw to have taken place and Elusive deals with advantage... So yeah it appears this damage on a miss mechanic does step all over the graceful dodger narrative.

 

[Garthanos]

Ah, you're right I shouldn't have assumed... so what was the point of the video?

Multifold - part is just light heartedness - tis funny and relates to how missing is visualized. Part is the angle that visualizing misses the way people seem to really projects an aura incompetence on the fighting man. From some point of view I never miss somebody always dodges or parries or the like.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm curious how those who are approaching this from a "narrative" viewpoint deal with the fact that this mechanic basically invalidates another narrative... that of the graceful dodger? Since this mechanic can never have a narrative where it misses... what happens when these mechanics for this narrative of a relentless fighter interact with a monster, NPC or even another PC who has the narrative of being so quick and light on their feet that they are rarely, if ever, hit? I'm not sure a mechanic that can totally invalidate a pretty common fantasy narrative like the graceful dodger is a good mechanic.

I think this is a good observation from a gamist perspective and a fictional positioning perspective. Personally, I'm not sure its much of a problem PC-side (as they are the proganists in my game and such an effect doesn't infringe upon their protagonism) but if you put this ability in the hands of an NPC, the swashbuckler/graceful dodger/monk shtick/archetype is indeed infringed upon. However, again, this just goes back to the "what is a hit point" conversation. If that Str damage on a miss can just be the ablation of "luck, fatigue due to exertion, et al", then you're ok. Basically this:

And yet another option would be simply to incorporate the dodge capability into hit points - the reason the pixie has so many hit points isn't because it's meaty, but because it dodges a lot. Though I think that would be less popular than some version of active defence for dodgers.

If something must be done with the mechanic however, I think this is a reasonable solution:

Presumably something similar could be done in D&Dnext. One or more posters upthread - perhaps @TwoSix ? - have suggested that the "dodging pixie" might get a DEX save to avoid damage dealt on a miss.

Reaping Strike
Attack: Str versus AC.
Damage: Weapon + Str + modifiers, etc
Effect: On a miss, the target must make a Dexterity Saving Throw. If the Saving Throw fails, the target takes Strength modifier damage.

That effect rider may resolve the issue for some. However, as [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] noted, this is already a pretty average ability that scales poorly with level (a trap option perhaps). The rider requiring a failed Dexterity Saving Throw weakens it further. As such, the gamist aspect of it may not pass muster.

 

[dmgorgon]

Functionally, it is a feat - a fighter, paladin and ranger-only feat.

It's not a feat. It's a build option. GWF is only applicable for one playstyle and that's a shame. Build options should not be confused with playstyle options.

If having your prayers answered by the gods is a fun mechanic, why do we restrict it to clerics and paladins? In a class-based game, you have to give something to classes. In doing so, you establish the baseline fiction for the game.

In D&D there are a distinct group of characters whose prayers are apt to be answered by the gods. (Contrast Runequest, where this is not the case.)

In D&Dnext as per current iteration, there are a distinct group of characters - the great weapon wielding fighters, paladins and rangers - who are apt to be relentless when in combat with two-handed weapons.

That concept is only applicable to one playstyle. What we need are alternative versions of GWF that don't exclude other playstyles. My 2e player has a GWF and he has the Two Handed Style Prof. What should I tell him when he converts his character over to D&D Next? Should I tell him that the designers don't support our playstyle for GWF and he has to pick something else?

It gives the player of the character a fiat ability - by declaring an attack in accordance with the action economy rules of the game, the player is able to bring it about that an enemy of his/her PC is worn down, to some extent, regardless of dice rolls. This is an ability that players of magic-users have had for many versions of the game. It's an ability, as has been pointed out upthread, that throwers of grenade like missiles have in 3E/PF.

For my playstyle dice rolls are important. I also reject many of the spell changes in D&D Next and I think they need to fixed as well. As for grenade like missles in 3e/PF there is still a chance they do No damage as pointed out upthead. Regardless, I prefer the rules for Grenade like missiles in 2e.

There is nothing inherent to the fiction of casting spells, or of throwing grenades, that makes it especially relevant to give those players such an ability. In the real world, someone might fail to be splashed by burning oil. Or - perhaps due to the armour they're wearing, or their ability to dodge - fail to be hurt by a fireball. And there are fantasy RPGs that have mechanics that allow for these possibilities (eg Rolemaster). The design decision to handle fireball and alchmical fire as auto-damage is not mandated by the fiction being modelled - it is a meta-level decision to give players of those sorts of characters fiat abilities.

Yes, lets also improve those mechanics then. You can't justify a bad mechanic with another bad mechanic.

Giving comparable fiat abilities to those who play fighters is meaningful.

For your playstyle only. We need options for GWF that other playstyles find meaningful.

 

[Imaro]

I think this is a good observation from a gamist perspective and a fictional positioning perspective. Personally, I'm not sure its much of a problem PC-side (as they are the proganists in my game and such an effect doesn't infringe upon their protagonism) but if you put this ability in the hands of an NPC, the swashbuckler/graceful dodger/monk shtick/archetype is indeed infringed upon. However, again, this just goes back to the "what is a hit point" conversation. If that Str damage on a miss can just be the ablation of "luck, fatigue due to exertion, et al", then you're ok. Basically this:

Well first, this pre-supposes a playstyle... one where the PC's are the "protagonists" and not everyone plays in that style. Putting that aside, there is also the possibility of PC vs. PC where again the graceful dodger narrative is infringed upon by another player with GWF damage on a miss. As far as hit points being just the ablation of luck, fatigue due to exertion, etc. the fact remains that you will die if that miss damage is enough to kill you, it is not non-lethal or subdual damage, so if you're supposed to be dodging in the narrative, why is there the possibility that you will die from a "missed blow" in the fiction? You see for me more hit points doesn't mechanically support the narrative of the graceful dodger because a miss shouldn't be able to kill or take out a graceful dodger and yet it can. that is why i think it works much better for the brute who is taking damage as opposed to a narrative of a character so quick and agile it's hard to lay your hands on him.

If something must be done with the mechanic however, I think this is a reasonable solution:



Reaping Strike
Attack: Str versus AC.
Damage: Weapon + Str + modifiers, etc
Effect: On a miss, the target must make a Dexterity Saving Throw. If the Saving Throw fails, the target takes Strength modifier damage.

That effect rider may resolve the issue for some. However, as @Mistwell noted, this is already a pretty average ability that scales poorly with level (a trap option perhaps). The rider requiring a failed Dexterity Saving Throw weakens it further. As such, the gamist aspect of it may not pass muster.

Yeah that might work. As far as the gamist aspect of it being weak... well I'd say you have a mechanic that doesn't satisfy simulationist geared gamers and probably won't satisfy the gamist geared gamers once it's put through it's paces... so perhaps the mechanic needs to be re-worked some.

 

[Garthanos]

It's one in which a player can choose a fiat option to play a relentless dreadnought of a fighter.

Or one that knows they are truly competent.. enemies will need to put special skill or desperate effort if they want to come away unscathed.