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

[dmgorgon]

Yes, and in our games we make our character pick from a preset list of three options, just like a video game. Oh wait, that's actually totally the opposite of the way we play! Page 42 exists for a reason, after all.

Well. I wasn't talking about video games, but you might want to talk to Mike Mearls about that because it wasn't long ago that he admitted to that approach for 4e design.

Anyway, when some says to me that you can't narrate anything without first iterating through the mechanics they are wrong. The player can declare his actions first and then you can use mechanics to resolve them. In order for that to happen you need mechanics that match the narrative.

btw, pg 42 is nothing new.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You should really try FATE. That's the system in the nutshell. (Except 4dF instead of a d20).

That may be. I'm not in the market for a new game system right now. It might very well be that FATE would be/is a good source of inspiration for D&D designers.

In the system I am running at the moment (CoC d20), everything is basically d20-based; there aren't nearly so many character abilities that exist outside of the paradigm, simply because there aren't that many character abilities. The same is true to a lesser extent with d20 Modern. I happen to think D&D has a lot to learn from it's own spinoffs.

 

[TwoSix]

In the system I am running at the moment (CoC d20), everything is basically d20-based; there aren't nearly so many character abilities that exist outside of the paradigm, simply because there aren't that many character abilities. The same is true to a lesser extent with d20 Modern. I happen to think D&D has a lot to learn from it's own spinoffs.

True20 also works in a similar fashion, in fact True20 doesn't require anything but a d20. It's an interesting system, although not one of my favorites.

So, in this declarative d20 system, would the character be a list of skills, each with a corresponding difficulty chart, and modifiers to the d20 roll to represent variations to the action?

(I feel a little deja vu. Has this come up before?)

 

[TwoSix]

Well. I wasn't talking about video games, but you might want to talk to Mike Mearls about that because it wasn't long ago that he admitted to that approach for 4e design.

It's an excellent approach to making a tactically interesting TT game. That's where video games excel.

Anyway, when some says to me that you can't narrate anything without first iterating through the mechanics they are wrong. The player can declare his actions first and then you can use mechanics to resolve them. In order for that to happen you need mechanics that match the narrative.

Of course you can play with the mechanics modeling the narration. It's a perfectly legitimate and popular way to play. It's how earlier editions were designed. Heck, it's the very heart of what's usually called "traditional" play. Does DoaM work very well with in that model? No, it doesn't.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So, in this declarative d20 system, would the character be a list of skills, each with a corresponding difficulty chart, and modifiers to the d20 roll to represent variations to the action?

I've said elsewhere that I view the fighter as close to the ideal design for what a class should be in the d20 system. A mix of skills (including "skills" like BAB and saves) and feats. Skills should have a qualitatively defined scope with some established uses with specified DCs, but with room for improvisation. Feats should provide benefits that enable unconventional uses for d20 rolls, or allow combinations of uses, or simply grant bonuses (though the merit of this last one is debatable).

What I'd want to see is a wizard with the same table as the fighter, only with class skills like "Evocation", and "Necromancy" and bonus feats like "Pyromancy" and "Animate Dead". Perhaps; the scope of these skills and feats is something I just arbitrarily made up. There's a lot of development between that concept and a completely realized system, but since it's been done for one class we know it can be for the others, and it would solve a lot of issues.

 

[dmgorgon]

It's an excellent approach to making a tactically interesting TT game. That's where video games excel.


Of course you can play with the mechanics modeling the narration. It's a perfectly legitimate and popular way to play. It's how earlier editions were designed. Heck, it's the very heart of what's usually called "traditional" play. Does DoaM work very well with in that model? No, it doesn't.

Yes, you can create a good game by learning from what video games have done. It might not be everyone's playstyle, but it's a valid playstyle option.

btw, thanks for your comments. Sometimes I feel as if people don't even want to recognize my playstyle. All I'm doing is plaything the game the way I always have and I'd like to continue that with D&D Next.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, you can create a good game by learning from what video games have done. It might not be everyone's playstyle, but it's a valid playstyle option.

btw, thanks for your comments. Sometimes I feel as if people don't even want to recognize my playstyle. All I'm doing is plaything the game the way I always have and I'd like to continue that with D&D Next.

Here's the thing. We've all been playing D&D a long time, and I think pretty much everyone assumes we're all familiar with the standard "Make your guy, the DM makes an adventure, you all go in and try to figure it out" approach. The narrative I and others have been espousing is pretty new-school, so we're pretty used to people having no idea what we're talking about. The traditional approach, pretty much everybody gets.

 

[pemerton]

I asked to have it explained to me. Either someone will explain it in a way that makes sense to me, or they won't.

That's not all you did. You also imputed to others a nonsensical belief - the one I quoted in my post above and repeat below. Obviously those others don't have that belief. They have a different interpretation of the mechanic.

Well, there's a novel idea. If something doesn't make sense to me, I should just change my way of thinking until it does.

Do you want to understand other people's positions, or only advocate for your own?

TwoSix understood my point.

Ahehnois, at post 771 upthread, said that

The fighter somehow having the ability to drain the opponent's health without "hitting" in the common language sense of the word, an ability that in fact works only when the fighter misses (his damage on a hit is still the same after selecting this ability as it was before), is simply nonsense​

Obviously that's true - for a start, fighter's don't drain health, only liches and vampires do that.

Therefore, the first step to understanding why someone might like damage on a miss is to understand what other ways there might be of interpreting the mechanic.

Now perhaps you're not interested in understanding others' interpretations of the mechanic, but in that case why are you posting asking them about it?

It's not good to make false statements.

In 2e you can make a called shot.

But you can't narrate the called shot as successful until you know what the dice say. Which was my point: mechanical resolution is a constraint on narration.

when some says to me that you can't narrate anything without first iterating through the mechanics they are wrong. The player can declare his actions first and then you can use mechanics to resolve them.

Declaring an action isn't narrating anything. The only element of the fiction that is established by an action declaration is (perhaps) the PC's desire. What actually occurs in the fiction, in terms of bodily motions and consequences both for the PC and others, can't be narrated until the mechanical resolution takes place.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Obviously that's true - for a start, fighter's don't drain health, only liches and vampires do that.

Therefore, the first step to understanding why someone might like damage on a miss is to understand what other ways there might be of interpreting the mechanic.

Now perhaps you're not interested in understanding others' interpretations of the mechanic, but in that case why are you posting asking them about it?

I asked for an explanation. A valid response would be to post something that contains a cogent explanation I can understand simply by reading it. That's what explaining is. My comprehension of the topic isn't at issue; I already understand what damage is, what a miss is, and what the word "relentless" means. I didn't ask to have a thesaurus thrown at me. This isn't rocket science; if someone can't explain the appeal of damage on a miss using the English language I don't feel compelled to venture down a rabbit hole of jargon hoping it leads somewhere.

The question is, given the game as it is, including how hit points, attacks, character advancement, and other elements of the game work, what does damage on a miss add. If an answer to that question requires changing or reinterpreting all those parameters, it isn't really an answer.

 

[pemerton]

I asked for an explanation. A valid response would be to post something that contains a cogent explanation I can understand simply by reading it.

You seem to be equating "cogent explanation" with "explanation that persuades you". But anyway, here it is: this ability ensures that a fighter, in any given 6 seconds of engaging a foe, will wear that foe down. Why might someone like that ability? Because they want a guarantee of effectiveness is one reason - a more-or-less mechanical reason. Because they want a PC who is relentless in their prosecution of their attacks - a more-or-less story reason.

Perhaps those reasons don't move you, but they are real reasons that people have really put forward in this thread.

The question is, given the game as it is, including how hit points, attacks, character advancement, and other elements of the game work, what does damage on a miss add. If an answer to that question requires changing or reinterpreting all those parameters, it isn't really an answer.

Obviously people who like the mechanic don't accept that the game is as you assert it to be given. If you're not even going to acknowledge that, why are you posting?

(By the way, in case you're not aware: the D&Dnext rules in their current iteration say that hit point loss does not manifest as visible physical injury until a target drops below half hit points. Which opens up yet another possible permutation of this ability: damage on a miss, but not to drop hp below one-half.)