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

[Bluenose]

That's fine you don't feel the force of it. I do and I am representative of myself. The idea that the fighter might miss the bad guy but the bad guy collapses anyway from the sheer force of the wind whiffling by him is annoying to me. The fact that someone would argue that it obviously did not miss because otherwise the guy wouldn't be dead is obnoxious to me. There's really not much going to change my opinion of the possibility of rolling a bad miss but still managing to take out the bad guy.

Where do the rules say Dead in relation to being reduced to 0 hit points? Unless you're making the argument that people collapsing in the course of battle from a cause other than physical injury is impossible to imagine...

 

[TwoSix]

Where do the rules say Dead in relation to being reduced to 0 hit points? Unless you're making the argument that people collapsing in the course of battle from a cause other than physical injury is impossible to imagine...

There are several times where I've allowed the players to narrate 0 HP as knocking the enemy to the ground with a sword point (or glowing staff, once) at his throat. Quelle horreur!

 

[pemerton]

What this mechanic can do, among other things, is invalidate other narratives that rely on a miss actually being a miss.

Potentially, yes, and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] has urged this point with some force - although it depends on whether Evasion-like abilities are rock or paper in the overall mechanical structure, and as we haven't seen these yet for D&Dnext damage-on-a-miss we can't be sure. For instance, in 4e the Evasion and Mettle feats trumped damage on a miss for AoE attacks but not melee and missile attacks; but many characters (both PCs and NPCs/monsters) have access to immediate interrupts that can negate melee and missile attacks, thereby allowing them to avoid taking damage on a miss (within the parameters of the action economy and the power useage rationing). In D&Dnext the rogue has Cunning Action to help avoid auto-damage via manipulation of the action economy.

But more broadly, every fiat ability negates some narrative. And in a class-based game, the presence of classes negates some narratives. For instance, in AD&D it's very hard to build a human PC who is both a superlative single-strike killer and proficient in all armours - and evenin 3E and subsequent editions, including Next (which have more liberal multi-classing or proficiency rules to close this particular gap), there's a weird thing whereby the best single-blow damage dealers also happen to be comparatively weak in respect of combat resilience. Making it hard to build (say) a boxer who specialises in taking opponents down with a single well-placed blow.

The game has to choose what sorts of builds and "archetypes" it defaults towards. D&D has always had some awkwardness giving us a swashbuckler (because of its AC rules, which tend to strongly favour wearing some form of armour), whereas the two-handed sword wielding dreadnought fighter is practically an icon of the game. So perhaps they've simply decided to embrace this asymmetry.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have posted the meaning of the relevant terms, as defined in the D&Dnext "How to Play" file. Nothing in damage on a miss contradicts those rules.
...
The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it invalid. That's not the criterion for validity. As I have said multiple times, not every one interprets the game rules in the same way you do.

My like or dislike of it is also not under discussion and is really irrelevant. My rationale for what a miss is and why dealing damage on a miss is outside of how attacks work is already well explicated, and nothing in that text contradicted it.

What is resourceful about this character?

Exactly my point. And, similarly, what is relentless about a character who deals damage on a miss?

(1) is because I can see the appeal of maximin strategies in a game (I'm not particularly a gambler).

I can see why a player would want that, but it really invalidates one of the main reasons we roll attacks in the first place: to abdicate control over the outcome. As I've noted above, the d20 approach also offers modes of attack that do not use the hit/miss paradigm (such as saving throws and area attacks), or ways of raising the minimum expected outcome of a d20 (such as rerolls and taking 10). There are dozens of readily apparent implementations of these mechanics that provide a legitimate venue for fulfilling some of the same goals.

However, on a broader level, putting a rule in because a player wants it in is hardly a compelling justification. There are a lot of things that players have obvious reason to want, but shouldn't get.

(2) is because I like the conception of my paladin as a relentless warrior who lays into all and sundry with his heavy mace.

All well and good, but in that case you can get essentially the same experience without any novel mechanics at all. If missing on occasion disrupts that sense for some reason, just pump that attack bonus. If you still miss now and then and it somehow invalidates your character concept, it begins to fall under the above about players asking for too much.

A third reason, related to (2), is that it also gives me a richer sense of what is happening in the 6 seconds of the round.

I don't even know what that means. Any ability that changes what happens during a combat round could have that effect.

It's a player fiat ability, much like (as I've mentioned upthread) the player of a magic-user doesn't have to make a check to memorise a spell, nor (typically) to cast a spell. Those are fiat abilities too.

This is somewhat orthogonal, but as [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION] has noted, false. Magic is not equivalent to your concept of fiat and indeed is almost antithetical to it as there is an in-game causality being expressed when a character casts a spell. The player and his character really aren't doing anything, they're petitioning some mystical force to do something. A force which a character that is not casting a spell can't access.

but I don't care about an ingame rationale for fiat abilities

Note the poll question: "Do you find the mechanic believable enough to keep?".

 

[TwoSix]

However, on a broader level, putting a rule in because a player wants it in is hardly a compelling justification. There are a lot of things that players have obvious reason to want, but shouldn't get.

Oh wow. I think you could get a whole thread out of unpacking that statement.

This is somewhat orthogonal, but as [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION] has noted, false. Magic is not equivalent to your concept of fiat and indeed is almost antithetical to it as there is an in-game causality being expressed when a character casts a spell. The player and his character really aren't doing anything, they're petitioning some mystical force to do something. A force which a character that is not casting a spell can't access.

I think petitioning a mystical force is one way of looking at magic, but certainly not the only way. Of course, then we're veering into "Should D&D be a fantasy toolbox" or "Is D&D a particular genre of fantasy" territory.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Oh wow. I think you could get a whole thread out of unpacking that statement.

You certainly could.

I think petitioning a mystical force is one way of looking at magic, but certainly not the only way.

That may be. However, as vaguely defined as magic is, it's not "fiat".

 

[pemerton]

My rationale for what a miss is and why dealing damage on a miss is outside of how attacks work is already well explicated, and nothing in that text contradicted it.

I didn't assert otherwise. My point is that nothing in the rules entails your interpretation either. And nor does it contradict my interpretation.

That is why I - and others, such as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - have pointed out that one person's reading of, or application of, rules text that bears multiple interpretations does not settle the interpretation for others who want to read or apply those rules differently.

I can see why a player would want that, but it really invalidates one of the main reasons we roll attacks in the first place: to abdicate control over the outcome.

The outcome is still under the control of the dice: the dice determine the degree of damage dealt (much like when a fireball spell is cast).

As I've noted above, the d20 approach also offers modes of attack that do not use the hit/miss paradigm (such as saving throws and area attacks), or ways of raising the minimum expected outcome of a d20 (such as rerolls and taking 10). There are dozens of readily apparent implementations of these mechanics that provide a legitimate venue for fulfilling some of the same goals.

I'm familiar with those various options. 4e uses more rerolls, for instance, then any pre-Next version of the game.

But damage on a miss occupies a different mechanical space and delivers a different play experience.

However, on a broader level, putting a rule in because a player wants it in is hardly a compelling justification. There are a lot of things that players have obvious reason to want, but shouldn't get.

<snip>

you can get essentially the same experience without any novel mechanics at all. If missing on occasion disrupts that sense for some reason, just pump that attack bonus. If you still miss now and then and it somehow invalidates your character concept, it begins to fall under the above about players asking for too much.

<snip>

Magic is not equivalent to your concept of fiat and indeed is almost antithetical to it as there is an in-game causality being expressed when a character casts a spell.

I am not focusing on issue of ingame causality - that is pureluy fictional events, and the fiction of a game can be changed if it is unsatisfactory in the play experiences it engenders. (Eg it used to be part of the fiction of the game that wizards did not know how to use crossbows, and that thieves did know how to use two-handed swords, but at various points this fiction was changed.)

My point is about play experience. Playing a wizard gives the player a certain degree of minimum control over ingame events - for instance, s/he can choose to mandate that a whole raft of characters take damage, via attacking with an AoE effect. If this is a permissible degree of control for a player to have over the fiction of the game, I don't see any reason why it is not permissible for the player of a fighter to have such control either.

In a game like Rolemaster, to achieve this for either player would require a metagame mechanic permitting an auto-hit (because in RM AoEs are attacks just like melee or missile attacks). It may be that you regard the auto-damage in D&D as not a metagame phenomenon but a consequence of ingame causation - the "petitioning of a mystic force" - but that is not of any great concern to me as far as playability goes. It could just as easily be done at the level of pure metagame, as the RM example shows - and this is what GWF is. It's a fiat ability.

I know you don't like fiat abilities, and you particularly don't like fiat abilities occupying the same build or resolution space as process-sim abilities. You've posted that mutiple times over multiple threads. But not everyone shares your preferences in that respect. For those of us who don't, the parallel between caster auto-damage and fighter auto-damage is clear, and fighter auto-damage is no threat to the integrity of our games.

And there is no reason for me not to get what I want from the game. In fact, from WotC's point of view as a commercial publisher, they have a good reason to give me what I want from their game. Just as Paizo gives others what they want with PF. And so on for other commercial game publishers.

Note the poll question: "Do you find the mechanic believable enough to keep?".

The mechanic I find eminently believable, in the sense that it exists and I believe in its existence. I took the question to mean something along the lines of "Do you find use of the mechanic to produce believable results in play." To which my answer is yes: I find it believable that a fighter can be sufficiently relentless with his/her greatsword or great axe that no opponent can stand against her for 6 seconds without being at least somewhat worn down.

In fact, not ony do I find this believable: I find it desirable. It is a strong D&D archetype that I like being part of the game.

 

[Wicht]

This is the "tradition" that Wicht is referring to, IMO. The idea that you can use the mechanics to narrate the action. It's been internalized to the point where people don't even recognize the fact that they're doing it without any actual mechanical support.

Or maybe we know exactly what we are doing and don't really want the mechanics to be changed in a way that interferes and forces us to change.

And maybe I don't like an option that removes zero as a possibility on a melee attack roll.

 

[pemerton]

as vaguely defined as magic is, it's not "fiat".

At the metagame level, D&D magic is just that. The player gets to declare an action and it takes place in the gameworld without any further need for resolution. (Jonathan Tweet, in Everway, called it "karma" resolution to contrast with the "fortune" resolution of rolling dice.)

Even in the history of D&D we've had casting mechanics that contrast with this, such as the d20-based system for casting in the 2nd ed AD&D Psionics Handbook.

And obviously there are other RPGs, such as Rolemaster and Runequest, that require a die roll to successfully cast a spell.

Whether you attribute the player's fiat ability to some ingame causal explanation or not doesn't change the way that the ability, as played at the table, permits a particular game participant to exercise authority over some particular facet of content of the shared fiction.

 

[Garthanos]

As I've noted above, the d20 approach also offers modes of attack that do not use the hit/miss paradigm (such as saving throws and area attacks)

If we had a Wall of steel or Flurry of attacks which allowed a fighter to create an area of effect doing slashing damage with a dex save for half damage we would have the same threads and people asserting its not "traditional" not "realistic" or not in keeping with the paradigm of building up to a limited number of attack opportunities ... or some other goo.