D&D 5E I Don't Like Damage On A Miss

[CleverNickName]

Ah, im glad your table is the arbitrary metric of broken and no broken. JK...

Heh. Yeah, we are lucky. Wizards of the Coast sent out this survey and we were the ONLY ONES who filled it out.

More seriously, like i said perhaps the issue is the encounter? With only kobolds to swing at sure all you can do is kill a kobold or kill a kobold. But toss in some kind a big baddie then its do little damage on a miss or big damage on a hit.

I am a bit of a purist when it comes to the original BECM modules, so I try not to tamper with them. See, the Moldvay Basic Set is my default game system...it is the one I learned to play on, and it remains my favorite edition. I play 3.5E now, mostly because it is hard to find BECM players these days and it feels more like BECM to me than Pathfinder or 4E.

My intention with D&DNext is to convert all of my BECM modules to the new rules, and play them all again...especially the iconic ones like B2, B10, X1, and the whole Desert Nomads series. And I want to be able to do that without making changes to the original modules. (I'm already a little upset about the dramatic changes to the treasure values in this playtest version, but I've been breathing into a paper bag and thinking happy thoughts, trying to stay calm about it. I remind myself that it is only a playtest, and the "real" version will be closer to the original. But I digress.)

So I don't want to change anything at all about the Caves of Chaos unless I can absolutely help it. I consider it (and all BECM modules) to be part of the D&D canon. But D&DNext is still in development, so it's okay to change the rules. The kobolds in the original have 3 hp each; that's how they are going to stay.

I know, it doesn't make sense. And re-reading this post, I realize it makes me sound like a crazy person. But that's what honesty will do to someone.

 

[P1NBACK]

He could quite easily be damaging the enemies' will to fight with those close shaves.

That would make sense if HP actually represented skill, luck, etc.

But, the playtest document clearly states that below 50% HP, loss represents actual injury.

And, when you drop to 0 hit points you are "dying".

Not "too tired to fight anymore" or "no more will to go on" or "forced to surrender or flee".

Nope. Dying.

 

[herrozerro]

Heh. Yeah, we are lucky. Wizards of the Coast sent out this survey and we were the ONLY ONES who filled it out.

I am a bit of a purist when it comes to the original BECM modules, so I try not to tamper with them. See, the Moldvay Basic Set is my default game system...it is the one I learned to play on, and it remains my favorite edition. I play 3.5E now, mostly because it is hard to find BECM players these days and it feels more like BECM to me than Pathfinder or 4E.

My intention with D&DNext is to convert all of my BECM modules to the new rules, and play them all again...especially the iconic ones like B2, B10, X1, and the whole Desert Nomads series. And I want to be able to do that without making changes to the original modules. (I'm already a little upset about the dramatic changes to the treasure values in this playtest version, but I've been breathing into a paper bag and thinking happy thoughts, trying to stay calm about it. I remind myself that it is only a playtest, and the "real" version will be closer to the original. But I digress.)

So I don't want to change anything at all about the Caves of Chaos unless I can absolutely help it. I consider it (and all BECM modules) to be part of the D&D canon. But D&DNext is still in development, so it's okay to change the rules. The kobolds in the original have 3 hp each; that's how they are going to stay.

I know, it doesn't make sense. And re-reading this post, I realize it makes me sound like a crazy person. But that's what honesty will do to someone.

I can understand that... i think.

But rather the slayer's issue being the auto damage, perhaps its just the fact that the adventure doesnt present any meaningful choices. I mean if the game only included magic immune enemies the wizard wouldnt have any meaningful choices... or at least any that came from his class.

 

[herrozerro]

And no offense but should d&d next's core start with such ridged traditionalism? Should kobolds have 3hp because by the gods thats what they used to have?

No knock on your preferances, just wondering about the default of the game.

 

[CleverNickName]

I can understand that... i think.

But rather the slayer's issue being the auto damage, perhaps its just the fact that the adventure doesnt present any meaningful choices. I mean if the game only included magic immune enemies the wizard wouldnt have any meaningful choices... or at least any that came from his class.

I would be inclined to agree, if this were my first time through this module. But I have run the Caves more times than I can count, both with the original rules and with the shoehorned 3.5E rules...and lack of meaningful choices for the fighter has never been an issue.

Maybe I'm getting rusty, and I don't narrate as well as I used to. I suppose that could happen. But this module is one of our favorites.

I'm going to try it again later this evening, and swap out a different theme for the fighter. If it still doesn't feel right, I'll be sure to let the Wizards know.

How about you? How does the fighter's auto-damage ability feel in your test?

 

[CleverNickName]

And no offense but should d&d next's core start with such ridged traditionalism? Should kobolds have 3hp because by the gods thats what they used to have?

No knock on your preferances, just wondering about the default of the game.

Certainly not. They should focus on making a game that is versatile enough to appeal to all play styles, and compatible enough to be played with all previously published materials...not just mine. I choose to focus on the BECM style and materials, and test it accordingly. I hope others are likewise focused on AD&D, 3E, 4E, Eberron, the Realms, and others.

So back on topic: unless automatic damage is absolutely necessary for game balance, why fiddle with it?

 

[herrozerro]

I started in 4e so in all honesty, things like fighter options beyong i hit it, or trip/sunder it is d&d to me.

With that said, nope it doesnt really seem to bother me or my group. Most of us either started in 3e or 4e so we dont have the issue of having newer ideas not being d&d.

 

[CleverNickName]

I started in 4e so in all honesty, things like fighter options beyong i hit it, or trip/sunder it is d&d to me.

With that said, nope it doesnt really seem to bother me or my group. Most of us either started in 3e or 4e so we dont have the issue of having newer ideas not being d&d.

I never said that "newer ideas are not D&D," though. I said that automatic damage on a miss felt boring. The two are not the same thing.

As others have pointed out in this thread, automatic damage has been around for a long time, longer than BECM I think. "Newness" isn't the issue. I just think they could do more interesting things with it than just handing out damage.

 

[herrozerro]

I never said that "newer ideas are not D&D," though. I said that automatic damage felt boring. The two are not the same thing.

As others have pointed out in this thread, automatic damage has been around for a long time, longer than BECM I think. "Newness" isn't the issue.

Your right, i was confusing the issue, either way though, we started in 4e or 3e most of us so it doesnt really bother us that much i guess.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

On the topic of misses not making sense when they deal damage:
That's a nonsensical distinction. What do you think a "miss" on a melee attack represents? Unless you rolled a 1, you missed because you didn't beat the AC. In other words, the attacked creature likely deflected the blow with his shield, his armor, or his naturally thick skin. Or maybe he even dodged. Regardless, these are the type of events I don't expect a creature to be able to sustain indefinitely. Even dodging is strenuous; and likely not a little bit either.

Sure, dodging tires you out, but the nonsensical description of hit points of 5E not withstanding, dodging does not cause physical wounds. I played dodge ball as a kid, and I never got hurt from actually dodging the ball.

If there's something that's unrealistically abstracted, it's omitting damage on a "miss" - it's pretty jarring to assume a creature can take a pounding with impunity, even if he's got solid armor. Particularly a Kobold. It's all fine that his skin is a little scaly and perhaps he parried, but it's still a small, fragile Kobold - a massive strike is still going to hurt him, and if the attacker is sufficiently strong, hurt him enough to take him out of the battle.

A "massive strike" is a hit. If it's not a hit, it's hardly a massive strike. Apparently kobolds all have heart conditions and die from fright.

Frankly, the argument for half damage on a miss for a fireball is weaker, not stronger. If the fireball is an almost instantaneous explosion, then if you've covered yourself up well, your cloak might get charred, but you should hardly even be warmed. Incidentally, that interpretation jives better with the fact that fireballs do not necessarily incinerate the environment - the temperate is high, but the heat energy not necessarily present in enough quantity to cause significant heating. Enough to burn skin, perhaps seriously, but well shy of the hundreds of degrees necessary to cause fire.

Really? "Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites the combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc." A fireball is not a Bic lighter.

There's lots of nonsense in 4e which I hope 5e avoids, but this just isn't it. Sure, it's a simplification of reality (which is necessary), but it's not a rule purely for the game's sake - it makes sense in-world.

Not in my world.