Incenjucar
Legend
An axe is a stick with a sharp bit. In close-combat, you'd probably be using the stick part almost as often as the sharp bit.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E I Don't Like Damage On A Miss
- Thread starter Empath Negative
- Start date
An axe is a stick with a sharp bit. In close-combat, you'd probably be using the stick part almost as often as the sharp bit.
Either way, automatic hits, damage and half damage isn't going to be a deal breaker for me. I disallowed it in 4th edition and I'll strike it dead again in 5th edition.
I was just wondering why so many of you are fighting so hard for the Reaper Feat. What is so terribly integral to 5th edition that we have to have it?
A hit means it is a hit.
A miss means it is a miss.
You're telling me that's not always true. I can't suspend my disbelief. Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me.
At any rate, I'll just house rule auto-hit-damage out of our 5th edition game. Or go back to Pathfinder.
As others on ENWorld say, "Play as you like."
I've said everything I wanted to say about this particular aspect of the game and now I'm ready to move on to other problems that need to be worked on.
I was just wondering why so many of you are fighting so hard for the Reaper Feat. What is so terribly integral to 5th edition that we have to have it?
A hit means it is a hit.
A miss means it is a miss.
You're telling me that's not always true. I can't suspend my disbelief. Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me.
At any rate, I'll just house rule auto-hit-damage out of our 5th edition game. Or go back to Pathfinder.
As others on ENWorld say, "Play as you like."
I've said everything I wanted to say about this particular aspect of the game and now I'm ready to move on to other problems that need to be worked on.
The first statement "A hit means it is a hit", is the one that is mostly not always true. At least in the "you land a blow that does damage to flesh" sense . . . or in the sense that e.g. 10HP damage on a hit means the same thing regardless of other circumstances. I'd quite happily describe a hit to AC with an axe as a solid jarring blow to a shield for example, or that the target tried to duck, but the blow clipped them.
I'm quite happy to extend that looseness of meaning to a miss. Obviously not everyone here is. I'm not too worried about Reaper *having* to be in the game, just arguing that it's not a problem to me for it to be in the game.
If all personal taste issues are kicked out of core (perhaps I don't like clerics having Vancian magic due to no spellbook limit on what they know, or someone else doesn't like fighter daily powers), there'd be precious little left. Seems to me, if it's some minor thing like this, that might apply to 5% or less of abilities, then it is probably easier to let DMs and players who don't like it to remove their bad 5%.
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Guardian-type Fighter misses a player: "He swings his sword at you, and you parry deftly. Take no damage."
Slayer-type Fighter misses a player: "He swings his sword at you, and you parry deftly - but you still really feel the blow in your arms. Take 3 points of damage."
There's no descriptive problem here.
RigaMortus2
First Post
I don't know how others play and describe combat, but I can honestly say, our group describes hits as hits, and misses as misses. Example of game play:
DM: The Ogre takes his great club and swings a wildly at you (the Fighter). Does a 19 hit your AC?
Fighter: Yes it does.
*DM rolls damage die*
DM: The great club slams into your chest, take 30 points of damage.
*Fighter tracks hit point loss*
Fighter: How does the Ogre look?
DM: You guys have been wailing on him pretty hard, he is teetering and tottering back and forth. You think with one solid blow, you might be able to drop him.
Fighter: Ok, I am going to try and take him out. I power attack for +4 damage.
*Fighter rolls, and gets a natural 20, then confirms the critical hit*
*Fighter rolls damage)
Fighter: 30 damage right back a* you.
DM: That is enough to drop him, do you want to describe your finishing move?
Fighter: Yes. I feint as if I were going to swing and attack from him left, then spin around and attack from the right, decapatating the Ogre.
After combat, the party assesses where they are health-wise and even though the Fighter took a 30 point "hit" he is still well above half his hit points. The rest of the party is pretty hurt, so they all decide to rest up for 8 hours and get their spells back.
Now, with the new mechanics (or 4e mechanics), the Fighter, who was just described as taking a great club to the chest for 30 damage, will regain all his hit points, as if he really wasn't hit at all. It completely negates what happened in that combat, which could have been a very memorable battle for the players, it could have been a nail bitter, where one missed attack would have been the difference between a TPK and party victory. It undermines and ruins the integrity of the encounter that just occurred. And that is my biggest problem with it.
Now, in order to keep combat consistant and "make sense", the players are required to keep track of what "hit point bracket" their current hit points are in (full, above half, below half, 1 hit point left, 0 or below). And the DM is required to give the damage to the players first, see where the player falls as far as hit points AND THEN describe what the attack did based on current hit point total. It just seems backwards to me.
Can anyone honestly say they've always played D&D this way?
Lets re-word our fight from above so it gels better with the true abstractness of what Armor Class and Hit Points represent. I am going to be fair and play devil's advocate here, and not purposely word this moronically.
DM: The Ogre takes his great club and swings a wildly at you (the Fighter). Does a 19 hit your AC?
Fighter: Yes it does.
*DM rolls damage die*
DM: You take 30 hit points of damage, what is your current total hit points?
Fighter: That puts me at 70, I am still above half my hit points. That was just a scratch (the Fighter jokes)
DM: Ok, the Ogre's wild swing almost hits you, but you move out of the way just in time, luck and skill taking the majority of the blow that time.
*Fighter tracks hit point loss*
Fighter: How does the Ogre look?
DM: You guys have been wailing on him pretty hard, he is teetering and tottering back and forth. You think with one solid blow, you might be able to drop him.
Fighter: Ok, I am going to try and take him out.
*Fighter rolls, and gets a 2 on the die, for a total of 8.*
Fighter: I suppose an 8 is a miss right?
DM: It would be a miss, unless you have some sort of special ability?
Fighter: Indeed I do. I use my themed ability and even though I rolled poorly, the Ogre still takes minimal damage of 3.
DM: Well, that would drop the Ogre, even though it wasn't that solid of a blow. So it seems that you actually DO hit. Do you want to describe what happens?
Fighter: Yes. I swing my sword at the Ogre, and I miss and hit a tree next to him. The sword looks embeded in the tree. The Ogre, seeing he may have an opportunity to attack me freely now, lets his guard down. I quickly pull the sword out of the tree and slash him across his neck. The Ogre falls to the ground and bleeds out next to us.
Now, with the two example combats I posted above, both seem to "work" descriptively just fine. But who can honestly say they play and describe combat in a similiar fashion to the 2nd example and not the 1st?
In the first example, you roll, get results, and describe what happens and move on.
In the second example, you roll, get results, get more information from the players or DM before determining the description, then describe.
I personally have always played with play example 1. I think it flows better and is one (or more) less steps to deal with when running combat.
Edit: I forgot to mention one other thing on how our group currently plays. We try to minimize metagaming when we play. One aspect of that is sharing numerical values for hit points. So you'll never hear the Fighter tell the Cleric "I have 10 hit points left, and my max is 50. Please heal me.". Instead, it is more descriptive such as "I am bloodied" or "I don't look well, at all". With the abstractness of AC and HP, we can't play this way. The DM needs to know what our hit points are at in order to determine the description of the attack roll. Even saying "I am bloodied" gives too much away, as 4e turned the "bloodied" description into a game mechanic. We don't share HP w/ the DM, because we don't want him to not attack a certain player because they might die on the next attack AND the reverse, we don't want him to attack a certain player BECAUSE he wants to take him out of combat.
DM: The Ogre takes his great club and swings a wildly at you (the Fighter). Does a 19 hit your AC?
Fighter: Yes it does.
*DM rolls damage die*
DM: The great club slams into your chest, take 30 points of damage.
*Fighter tracks hit point loss*
Fighter: How does the Ogre look?
DM: You guys have been wailing on him pretty hard, he is teetering and tottering back and forth. You think with one solid blow, you might be able to drop him.
Fighter: Ok, I am going to try and take him out. I power attack for +4 damage.
*Fighter rolls, and gets a natural 20, then confirms the critical hit*
*Fighter rolls damage)
Fighter: 30 damage right back a* you.
DM: That is enough to drop him, do you want to describe your finishing move?
Fighter: Yes. I feint as if I were going to swing and attack from him left, then spin around and attack from the right, decapatating the Ogre.
After combat, the party assesses where they are health-wise and even though the Fighter took a 30 point "hit" he is still well above half his hit points. The rest of the party is pretty hurt, so they all decide to rest up for 8 hours and get their spells back.
Now, with the new mechanics (or 4e mechanics), the Fighter, who was just described as taking a great club to the chest for 30 damage, will regain all his hit points, as if he really wasn't hit at all. It completely negates what happened in that combat, which could have been a very memorable battle for the players, it could have been a nail bitter, where one missed attack would have been the difference between a TPK and party victory. It undermines and ruins the integrity of the encounter that just occurred. And that is my biggest problem with it.
Now, in order to keep combat consistant and "make sense", the players are required to keep track of what "hit point bracket" their current hit points are in (full, above half, below half, 1 hit point left, 0 or below). And the DM is required to give the damage to the players first, see where the player falls as far as hit points AND THEN describe what the attack did based on current hit point total. It just seems backwards to me.
Can anyone honestly say they've always played D&D this way?
Lets re-word our fight from above so it gels better with the true abstractness of what Armor Class and Hit Points represent. I am going to be fair and play devil's advocate here, and not purposely word this moronically.
DM: The Ogre takes his great club and swings a wildly at you (the Fighter). Does a 19 hit your AC?
Fighter: Yes it does.
*DM rolls damage die*
DM: You take 30 hit points of damage, what is your current total hit points?
Fighter: That puts me at 70, I am still above half my hit points. That was just a scratch (the Fighter jokes)
DM: Ok, the Ogre's wild swing almost hits you, but you move out of the way just in time, luck and skill taking the majority of the blow that time.
*Fighter tracks hit point loss*
Fighter: How does the Ogre look?
DM: You guys have been wailing on him pretty hard, he is teetering and tottering back and forth. You think with one solid blow, you might be able to drop him.
Fighter: Ok, I am going to try and take him out.
*Fighter rolls, and gets a 2 on the die, for a total of 8.*
Fighter: I suppose an 8 is a miss right?
DM: It would be a miss, unless you have some sort of special ability?
Fighter: Indeed I do. I use my themed ability and even though I rolled poorly, the Ogre still takes minimal damage of 3.
DM: Well, that would drop the Ogre, even though it wasn't that solid of a blow. So it seems that you actually DO hit. Do you want to describe what happens?
Fighter: Yes. I swing my sword at the Ogre, and I miss and hit a tree next to him. The sword looks embeded in the tree. The Ogre, seeing he may have an opportunity to attack me freely now, lets his guard down. I quickly pull the sword out of the tree and slash him across his neck. The Ogre falls to the ground and bleeds out next to us.
Now, with the two example combats I posted above, both seem to "work" descriptively just fine. But who can honestly say they play and describe combat in a similiar fashion to the 2nd example and not the 1st?
In the first example, you roll, get results, and describe what happens and move on.
In the second example, you roll, get results, get more information from the players or DM before determining the description, then describe.
I personally have always played with play example 1. I think it flows better and is one (or more) less steps to deal with when running combat.
Edit: I forgot to mention one other thing on how our group currently plays. We try to minimize metagaming when we play. One aspect of that is sharing numerical values for hit points. So you'll never hear the Fighter tell the Cleric "I have 10 hit points left, and my max is 50. Please heal me.". Instead, it is more descriptive such as "I am bloodied" or "I don't look well, at all". With the abstractness of AC and HP, we can't play this way. The DM needs to know what our hit points are at in order to determine the description of the attack roll. Even saying "I am bloodied" gives too much away, as 4e turned the "bloodied" description into a game mechanic. We don't share HP w/ the DM, because we don't want him to not attack a certain player because they might die on the next attack AND the reverse, we don't want him to attack a certain player BECAUSE he wants to take him out of combat.
Last edited:
herrozerro
First Post
The same can be said for all of the "It's magic!" excuses, some of us find it silly and a cheap cop out.
Either way, im more for inclusiveness, its a single feat from a theme that the book even points out in order to play more old school to leave themes out.
I dont see why you have to ruin my game when your style of play is already perfectly protected.
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
Considering that I just used it as an example of dealing damage on a miss? It's obvious that that is exactly what I am saying.
Probably, but a system like that just isn't compatible with the way D&D does combat. Shadowrun does that kind of armor pretty well.
I think for an edition of the game that is trying to eliminate as fiddly mechanics as possible that this is exceptionally fiddly, and I would argue a substantial portion of the Slayer's 'miss' damage is fatigue from attempting to defend oneself from his relentless attacks.
Trying to fight someone who keeps battering aside your defenses is exhausting and wears down your capacity to defend yourself quickly.
This rule doesn't cause the slightest hiccup in my suspension of disbelief, and I've explained why. You are attaching far too much concrete significance to an incredibly abstract mechanical representation of combat and ignoring parts of that representation that are far less realistic than the rules you are complaining about.
Like the existence and nature of hit points in the first place, and the ability of a person to take multiple 'solid blows' from a skilled swordsman and continue fighting-- not at full capacity, as happens in all editions of D&D, but at all.
Because it's a neat, flavorful mechanic and the arguments against it-- based in a 'realism' that's wholly unrealistic-- don't hold water.
You play 4e. You do the same thing to Wizard powers that deal damage on a miss? Or is this just another round of 'melee can't have nice things'?
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
I get why people like the mechanic, or don't see any problems with it when it comes to description or the narrative it produces. I feel like it's been asked a few times, but maybe it hasn't been clear. What, exactly, makes it so good that it shouldn't be replaced by an ability that more people would find acceptable?
A few people have mentioned advantage on your next attack if you miss. I could see disadvantage on a miss, too. Maybe advantage on your next attack within a round if you drop an opponent. Something. I'm just curious what's so great about the current ability that it's worth keeping over changing to something that more people will be on board with. Anyone? As always, play what you like
A few people have mentioned advantage on your next attack if you miss. I could see disadvantage on a miss, too. Maybe advantage on your next attack within a round if you drop an opponent. Something. I'm just curious what's so great about the current ability that it's worth keeping over changing to something that more people will be on board with. Anyone? As always, play what you like
herrozerro
First Post
I get why people like the mechanic, or don't see any problems with it when it comes to description or the narrative it produces. I feel like it's been asked a few times, but maybe it hasn't been clear. What, exactly, makes it so good that it shouldn't be replaced by an ability that more people would find acceptable?
A few people have mentioned advantage on your next attack if you miss. I could see disadvantage on a miss, too. Maybe advantage on your next attack within a round if you drop an opponent. Something. I'm just curious what's so great about the current ability that it's worth keeping over changing to something that more people will be on board with. Anyone? As always, play what you like
I think i'd be less opposed to alternate abilities that you could take instead, rather then "Lets replace it completely from the game".
but now that i've got it in my head, i think of a slayer as always doing damage he is that ferocious in his attacks.
I think the key point in its favour to me is its simplicity and the fact it means a character can have a minor effect regardless of their opponent's AC. A Slayer is always bringing some minor damage to the table, (about the same as Magic Missile, the old traditional AC bypass spell). The fact that you can use it to carve through Kobolds is just gravy.
Similar Threads
