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

[Crazy Jerome]

I predict that the inability or refusal to distinguish between "something that I personally don't like" and "an inherently bad idea for everyone" is going to get a real good work out over the next couple of years. It will be right up there with confusing "bad design" with "things I don't think the designers should be trying to do."

You know, if you don't like something, it's ok to say, "I don't like it." You don't have to go all Chicken Little to justify your dislike.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except... this happens... EVERY... SINGLE... TIME... and only with this guy. Sometimes a whiff might mean a nick, sure, whatever.

The way I see it, a "miss" just means you failed to do significant damage.

The fighter never fails to do significant damage. He doesn't swing wild. He doesn't get deflected. Each attack he directs actually hits home in at least some way, no matter how thick the hide, or agile the dodger.

That's because, as a fighter, he's an awesome dude like that. In a universe where wizards can pull fire from nothing, a skilled warrior being able to always hit home at least a little bit doesn't break my suspension of disbelief.

That said, in the final game, there's gonna be other themes in the world, and if it causes you a problem, you can always pick a different one. Even in the playtest, if you swap it out for the Rogue's Lurker theme, or the Healer theme, or the Defender theme, you'll never have to play with it.

 

[Boarstorm]

Maybe change it to on a roll of 10 or higher? (To account for complete and utter misses.)

I (personally) could live with something like this. Are you thinking natural roll or modified? If natural, against the majority of enemies that we've seen the dwarf would have hit anyway. If modified, he'd only have a 20% chance of a complete and utter miss...

...which seems reasonable for someone who's supposed to be better at combat than anyone else.

 

[Grazzt]

Because of the dwarven theme.


A miss should be a &%$#&@ miss. This sort of thing is incredibly detrimental to suspension of disbelief.

You miss!

but you kill the big bad evil guy anyway!



*spit*


If that's their design philosophy permits that kind of idiocy I see little more than failure on the horizon for them.

Or you know, people who don't like damage on a "miss" (me being one of them) can always house rule it away. Don't think the game will implode if you do.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Though this thread is needlessly hyperbolic and inflammatory, I am against the Reaper feat. It just raises strange issues with realism--he's so good he literally never fails to hit an opponent? You can say hit points are abstract all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the fighter doesn't need to roll to kill kobolds (even if they're master acrobats hiding behind arrow slits).

 

[underfoot007ct]

Did I really need to explain how I think daily martial powers suck?

I am a huge 4e fan, yet I can certainly agree with "daily martial" powers being removed forever.

 

[CleverNickName]

So should the same thing happen with the wizard spells?

The spells are a whole other ball of wax, and probably belong in another thread. But yes, I think the spells are dull and easily-abused right now.

Because right now, we just have the playtest rules...and according to the interview earlier this week, they are intended to be overbalanced. So it is safe to assume things will get nerfed...the question is how. Who knows? Maybe they will give cantrips and orisons a daily limit, or require an attack roll for Magic Missile, or remove the immobility from Ray of Frost, or require a material component (such as an ordinary arrow) for Radiant Lance.

The best we can do is keep on playtesting and giving feedback to the designers. I have every confidence that, with our help, they will deliver a balanced, exciting game.

 

[kitsune9]

I can predict with 100% certainty that D&D Next will inspire some, be reviled by others, and solve no Internet debates (maybe create some!).

 

[Scribble]

I (personally) could live with something like this. Are you thinking natural roll or modified? If natural, against the majority of enemies that we've seen the dwarf would have hit anyway. If modified, he'd only have a 20% chance of a complete and utter miss...

...which seems reasonable for someone who's supposed to be better at combat than anyone else.

I'm not good with numbers, so I guess the second option. I wasn't really thinking of the roll itself, more that since base armor class is presumably 10 then if he hits 10 or higher he's still thwacked the armor?

 

[Boarstorm]

The best we can do is keep on playtesting and giving feedback to the designers. I have every confidence that, with our help, they will deliver a balanced, exciting game.

Hear, hear.

... who else misses XP? (Rhetorical question)