For a More Old-School Experience, Don't Use Background and Theme

[enrious]

I'm not trying to convince you to keep the effect of the Slayer theme, but...

... doing a small amount of HP damage on a failed attack roll makes perfect sense from an AD&D perspective --is that old-school enough?-- and is congruent with the AD&D's conception of HP.

Because in AD&D, rounds a minute long and represent a whole sequence of strikes, dodges, feints, grazing blows, etc. The to-hit roll is really a "to-damage" roll, the one hit out of many that actually caused damage (and remember, damage ain't all physical, not by a long shot).

Even with these new-fangled 6 second rounds, a single attack roll is going to be more than a single swing of a weapon.

Considered from this perspective, a Reaper fighter is just particularly good at wearing opponents down, chipped away at their defenses, bruising them, whatever. They're endurance fighters -- like Rocky Balboa.

It's not that they can hit when they miss, it's just means engaging them in melee inevitably wear you out.

This for me, coupled with what HP represent - not merely physical damage capacity, but luck, ability to "roll with the blow" to lessen the effect, mental toughness in staying focused during adversity, etc.

So an attack misses - how much of a stretch is it to think that some of the target's "luck" is used up? Or some of their focus is lost as they worry about that giant 2-handed axe that just missed them?

If HP solely represented ability to take physical damage, I'd agree with everyone that the slayer ability is lame.

However, because HP represents so much more than that, I would certainly keep the ability.

 

[CleverNickName]

So an attack misses - how much of a stretch is it to think that some of the target's "luck" is used up? Or some of their focus is lost as they worry about that giant 2-handed axe that just missed them?

Luck seems like something that you either have or don't have, not necessarily a resource that gets depleted. And focus can be divided, like if you are flanked or multitasking. At any rate, I'd probably handle this stuff with Advantage, not damage.

 

[enrious]

Luck seems like something that you either have or don't have, not necessarily a resource that gets depleted.

How can you be sure? After all, don't people "use up their luck", bemoan rolling a 20 when just playing around because they've "used up the luck of the dice", don't people have "luck streaks", and so on.

Or to use your position, how can you say that Slayer doesn't represent the fighter being very lucky, in that blows that would normally miss or not hit well enough to do damage are turned at the last minute into more substantive hits?

And focus can be divided, like if you are flanked or multitasking. At any rate, I'd probably handle this stuff with Advantage, not damage.

And focus can be maintained, even if flanked or multitasking. Maybe it takes a giant axe swinging by to lose some of it.

I'm not sold on the Slayer ability, but I hardly see dismissing it because it's a new ability when people are happy to accept the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, which is also a new ability.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm not sold on the Slayer ability, but I hardly see dismissing it because it's a new ability when people are happy to accept the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, which is also a new ability.

Well, to be fair, I'm not dismissing it simply because it is new. I am trying to figure out a better way to use it, because it didn't playtest very well for us the way it is written. (Check out my playtest thread.)

I think it would be a lot more fun and useful if, instead of automatically dealing damage on a miss, it automatically gave you Advantage on your next attack against the same target.

 

[enrious]

Well, to be fair, I'm not dismissing it simply because it is new. I am trying to figure out a better way to use it, because it didn't playtest very well for us the way it is written. (Check out my playtest thread.)

I think it would be a lot more fun and useful if, instead of automatically dealing damage on a miss, it automatically gave you Advantage on your next attack against the same target.

Ah, I see where you're going.


I'm not opposed to it because it actually worked well for our playtest, such that I don't know if it'd be worth the extra effort to worry about advantage.

But hey, that's what playtest is for (not to mention experimentation).

As it is, I think those of us in my playtest group all think that Background/Theme have tons of potential and eagerly await seeing more, but we also remember the latter days of Kits, Prestige Classes, Feats, etc.

 

[Texicles]

I'm not sufficiently versed in older editions to make a call on what qualifies as "old school." It's pretty subjective how one defines "old," unless you were rocking 1st ed.

I did in fact catch the piece of fine print, however, and perhaps it could have been phrased differently. Regardless, I like both the feel of the BG/T, as well as the optional nature of it.

As to the somewhat off-topic (but valid point of discussion imo) debate about Slayer. I'm not opposed to it, for two different reasons.

First, if you buy into HP as an abstract for more than just absolute physical wherewithal, then Slayer can be justified as getting tired out/demoralized by a raging maniac swinging a weapon at you over and over.

Second, if you prefer to think of HP as purely a measure of how much bodily harm you can take before dying, Slayer can be justified as well-executed attacks from a skilled warrior that, when rebuffed by armor, still hurt.

Finally (and one of the strengths of the 5e concept in my mind) is that, if those two justifications don't do it for you, scrap it and run the game how you want, because things shouldn't break without it.

 

[steeldragons]

I'm not sufficiently versed in older editions to make a call on what qualifies as "old school." It's pretty subjective how one defines "old," unless you were rocking 1st ed.

This is more or less my take. One doesn't have to have played OD&D or Basic to be "old school" anymore.

For me, Old school entails OD&D, B/X, BECMI, 1e and even 2e (the first few years at least). I think, generally speaking, it being the year 2012 and all, pretty much anything pre-millenial/pre-3e is safely "old school" at this point.

 

[Lalato]

Well, to be fair, I'm not dismissing it simply because it is new. I am trying to figure out a better way to use it, because it didn't playtest very well for us the way it is written. (Check out my playtest thread.)

I think it would be a lot more fun and useful if, instead of automatically dealing damage on a miss, it automatically gave you Advantage on your next attack against the same target.

Well if you're going to change it, might as well explore all options...

*If you chose to do the free damage, your next attack has Disadvantage.
*The free damage is applied to another adjacent target... your swing went wide but you were able to correct and catch the other target off guard
*Instead of damage, your miss grants Disadvantage to the target for any action other than attacking you (gives fighters a bit of stickiness)

Anyway, you get the idea... there is a lot of design space that opens up here, and that's what I like about it. The free damage is just the tip of the iceberg. And yes, I realize that it's not "old school" to build in this design space, but there can be an "old school" feel if done right.

 

[darkseraphim]

In my experience, "old school" simply means that the precise nature of a character's minor abilities is not predefined. You have your race, class, secondary skill (DMG 1979) and any background you wish to write. If you want to try something, you don't look at your character sheet; you tell the DM what you want to try, he/she considers your ability scores and class/race/skill and you go from there. If something lasting is decided (DM: "Sure, you probably have great swimming ability from your days as a navigator"), you write that on your sheet for later use.

If your players feel that not having background/theme options in print expands their potential instead of limiting it, they're "old school" by this definition

If your players don't want that approach because they feel they get more bonuses with backgrounds and themes, and their DM doesn't have the authority/inclination to push that style of play, their game will not be "old school" and they move forward with the existing rules.

It's just a play style preference really.

 

[Mallus]

Maybe that is also part of the issue: there are many different flavors of "old school."

True -- my starting point was AD&D. That's my baseline.

AD&D isn't "old school" to gamers like me; it is "the new hotness" that isn't quite so new anymore.

This is getting perilously close to a hipster argument about music...

And I'm sure that a lot of gamers will think that any pre-4E rules mechanic has an "old-school" feel to it.

Personally, I draw the line at pre-3e (excluding 2e using the Player's Options books).

(Imagine if every creature in the Caves had the Reaper feat, or a similar ability.)

Imagine if every creature had giant strength, or could charm at-will like or succubus, or snuff you via sight like a bodak, or was transparent and paralytic like a Gelatinous.... well, you get the idea.

What would such a mental exercise prove? Outside of: distinct characters/creatures should get distinct abilities.