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

[Scribble]

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.

Overall yeah I think talking about spells in general should go into another thread- I'm just trying to get an idea of what's causing the problem for you (and possibly others that have your same feeling?)

I don't have the same issue with damage on a miss, so the only way I can comprehend why it's an issue for others is to ask them questions... Hope you don't mind being my test subject!

 

[john112364]

Good point. Maybe they could make it "you gain Advantage on your next attack" instead. If the opponent gains Disadvantage until the fighter's next action, then the rogue can deal extra damage. It helps set the rogue up.

The point I was trying to make: they can do more with the ability than "damage no matter what." Advantage/Disadvantage makes more sense to me, since it more accurately models the opponent getting winded or knocked off-balance by a glancing blow.

It's just one man's opinion, of course.

I think I like this idea. I'm not crazy about auto damage either from a martial character regardless about how you explain it. This would be a cool alternative.

Though I can hear the naysayers now: "but why doesn't he get it all the time?"

 

[Fifth Element]

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).

Not only are hit point abstract, but so are attack rolls, "hits" and "misses." So is Armour Class. And saving throws. The entire combat system is abstract.

Fifth Edition will not fail because of this. It will fail because its trolls are poorly-designed. They're too obvious.

 

[john112364]

Overall yeah I think talking about spells in general should go into another thread- I'm just trying to get an idea of what's causing the problem for you (and possibly others that have your same feeling?)

I don't have the same issue with damage on a miss, so the only way I can comprehend why it's an issue for others is to ask them questions... Hope you don't mind being my test subject!

I think the problem is the perception that a martial attack that misses doesn't hit it just whiffs. Where as a big giant ball of fire that engulfs you should do something even if you cover you most vulnerable parts (i.e. you save). I'm not crazy about the slayers miss mechanic either but I could live with it.

But keep in mind everyone this is a play test. Now is the time to voice your opinion to WotC.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't have the same issue with damage on a miss, so the only way I can comprehend why it's an issue for others is to ask them questions... Hope you don't mind being my test subject!

Not at all.

When we were playtesting it, it made the fighter feel like her decisions didn't matter in battle. We were fighting kobolds, you see, and the fighter felt like she didn't even need to roll the dice. "They are just gonna die anyway." Later, in a fight with some orcs, "Why don't we just average my hits and misses together, and declare that I do that much damage every round?" she asked flatly. "It's not like it matters."

In our third test game, the fighter managed to slay the orc leader almost single-handedly (the spellcasters were busy with the other orcs), even though the last three attacks she made against him were all misses. Frustrated with her streak of bad rolls, she deadpanned, "Well I guess I bored him to death." She did not yell "Woo hoo! I did it, guys!" like I would have expected.

 

[eamon]

Scimitar Dance and Hammer Rhythm have been in 4e since day 1 - are people that dislike the Reaper people that never played 4e?

For that matter, fireballs have done half damage on a failed saving throw for... well, ages? I don't understand the special focus on the reaper feat (nor magic missile).

I don't even think it's particularly nonsensical - it's not like the rules are purely there for a tactical minigame without in-world representation. A crit's a blow that connects particularly well, a hit is a blow that connects solidly, and a miss is a blow that's just glancing, or blocked by smart swordplay, deflected by a shield or missed by a strenous lurch to the side.

Any of those things takes its toll; even dodging isn't something you can keep up forever. So despite enjoying a solid bit of in-game consistency (often miss-named simulationism), I really can't tell what this deal is here.

Damage on miss is perfectly reasonable. Particularly such piddling, trivial damage as that of the reaper. Heck, a hit does almost 5 times as much damage...

 

[kevtar]

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.

Thank you for your cogent and perfectly reasonable analysis. Now, tell me more about your regenerative traits and susceptibility to fire...

 

[hamstertamer]

Explaining Hit Points



The Alexandrian Blog Archive Explaining Hit Points

The link above explains hit points and how they were interpreted from a classic D&D perspective. It's the way I've always saw them and everyone else I've ever played with.

 

[CleverNickName]

Scimitar Dance and Hammer Rhythm have been in 4e since day 1 - are people that dislike the Reaper people that never played 4e?

Maybe? I can't speak for everyone, but that definitely describes me...I only played 4E a couple of times after it first came out, and then decided to stay with 3.5E.

But that's human nature for you. People who didn't like EditionX probably aren't going to like the EditionX-styled elements in the playtest.

 

[ren1999]

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

Empath_Negative, I agree with you that Fifth Edition will fail but not just because there are automatic hits and damage.

I think that Fifth Edition will fail because those making this game have been putting little thought into the wording of the play-test and the correction of fundamental mistakes. They've been copying material out of old books without even fixing the errors. I'm a technical writer and editor by trade and I know when someone is making lame excuses for doing a lazy job because they actually aren't interested in designing this game.

When I listen to the responses of the leadership, I think that their minds are already set on just one direction for the game. Though the math will be easier and all monsters will be more relevant, this game is going to be boring and always feel like a 1st level adventure.

Now I haven't given up. I'm hoping that people working on this game stop taking things so personally and actually LISTEN to the criticisms of the fans who are doing all the work.

But as one wise person said on ENWorld, "It is foolish to expect different results from the same people."