D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[Mistwell]

No, I don't... not in relation to my posts you were quoting...



Uhm, okay... so you know for a fact nearly every 4e player used the PHB 2

Yup. Due to the way WOTC emphasized the PHBs for players, and intentionally split "core" concepts between PHB 1 and PHB 2, and feed it into the DDI (which WOTC has stated most of their players accessed), and fed demand for PHB 2 by holding back some "core" concepts to wait for the release of PHB 2 like the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, and Sorcerer, it's fair to say that yes, nearly everyone used PHB2. The idea that people stuck to "only PHB 1" was applicable to 3e, but not really to 4e. I know a few did that, but most did not. Ask any 4e players, and I strongly suspect they will agree most used PHB 2.

Are you trying to argue that the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, and Sorcerer, were non-core classes? I assure you, 4e players in overwhelming numbers thought of them as core. It was a source of both great irritation and also fairly universal agreement that the PHB 2 was as "core" as the PHB 1, for 4th edition. Lots of people disliked that, but they all accepted that's how WOTC did it this time around, even though it was irritating to have to buy two books to get what was expected from one book.

And if you think that was bad, Psionics was held back until PHB 3. That delay REALLY pissed some folks off.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I know of many who are asking for that to be put back in the game. Want a link to the forum where I see that argument made a lot?

In addition, we're far from consensus on finding this a bad mechanic. Indeed, WOTC says their feedback on it shows a majority like it.



I am voting against it just because my players didn't like it. But, I still don't understand why adding an additional offensive option for that big weapon fighter, instead of replacing the existing one, is the only solution. I really have trouble understanding why someone else playing with an ability you guys dislike takes something away from your enjoyment of the game, as long as you have an option that you do like. What's wrong with more options, to cover different playstyles?

I don't remember damage on a miss even being in the survey so mind explaining where you got your info from?

The devs say so don't count and even if it was a question in survey, you wouldn't see the result.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Now at least the fiction is consistent - you are literally saying that the attack 'never misses'. Ok, so we can narrate that. But the problem is, why would we want to give 'never misses' fiction to guys wielding big clumsy weapons? Do great big two handed weapons really convey 'elegant and precise attacks' to you? Maybe this power should be called, "Delicate Butterfly Style" or "Machinelike Precision" or "Devil's Own Luck"? Maybe it should apply to finesse weapons instead?

The original power's fluff is clear: "This guy with the big sword hits so hard, that even his glancing blows do damage." There is nothing at all wrong with that fluff but the problem is that they people who wrote the mechanic have a really dumb definition of "glancing blow" so that they equate "all misses = glancing blows". A more fitting mechanic might be, "If the attack misses by 4 or less, you do strength damage to the target." Or, in 3e, if you are going for high process simulation, you might write, "If an attack misses, but still would hit the target's touch AC, you do damage to the target equal to your Strength bonus."

From a gamist perspective on what it means to be balanced, the "never misses" power (of your suggested reframing) is problematic because it implies that a first level Great Weapon Fighter always manages to connect with the God of Dodging Stuff every single time. So you lose some of the ability to make a character - PC or NPC - around the idea, "I'm hard to hit." Absolute powers like that should be avoided in your mechanics on several grounds, and not the least of which is that they make future extension of your rules more difficult.

You bring up a great point. I would like to see the devs explain how in the hell you can make a glancing blow hard? That's like saying "I am going to softly hit you really hard".

 

[Paraxis]

@wrightdjohn Any chance damage on a miss could be optional? Any feedback on this?

[MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls It's actually tested pretty well so far, but as usual we watch everything.

[MENTION=6750941]Valdark[/MENTION]2 "Pretty well so far?" Have you read the level of contention that sole mechanic has created on the forums?

[MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls Remember that we work from the surveys - the forums are part of the process, but not all of it.

I thought that when Mearls tweeted this over two weeks ago the issue would slow down not escalate, the designers have spoken. Play test feedback from the surveys shows great support for the idea a little larger sample size then the posters on any forum.

 

[Manbearcat]

You bring up a great point. I would like to see the devs explain how in the hell you can make a glancing blow hard? That's like saying "I am going to softly hit you really hard".

The number of men knocked out by a glancing blow that grazes them just on the right spot disagrees with you. Any time you see this happen its either a glancing blow to the temple causing a cerebral concussion or a shot to the right spot in the jawline causing a carotid sinus reflex with syncope. This is a very well known phenomenon by people who are, or were, heavily involved in the fight game (fighters, trainers, gamblers, doctors). The human body has funny bits of fragility mixed in with its resiliency. It is susceptible to concussion or vasovagal response without the need for the extreme, direct application of force.

As does the current, widely accepted hypothesis of the moon's origins, putting the protoplanet's strike on the earth at an oblique angle of approximately 45 degrees; "a glancing blow". Even a "glancing blow" will provide angular momentum and transfer an enormous amount of energy to an object if the collider is backed by enough mass and speed.

That pretty much explains it. You are unmoved, yes?

 

[Imaro]

Why is it important for you, or anyone, to know the reasons why people mistakenly thought that objects can't be targeted in 4e?

Says the man who keeps quoting my posts... how about you tell me why my observations about D&D on a D&D message board are so important to you, that you continue to quote me (though not really address what I am saying)... especially when you took the time to declare in your all caps voice that you don't care about them?

 

[Imaro]

Yup. Due to the way WOTC emphasized the PHBs for players, and intentionally split "core" concepts between PHB 1 and PHB 2, and feed it into the DDI (which WOTC has stated most of their players accessed), and fed demand for PHB 2 by holding back some "core" concepts to wait for the release of PHB 2 like the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, and Sorcerer, it's fair to say that yes, nearly everyone used PHB2. The idea that people stuck to "only PHB 1" was applicable to 3e, but not really to 4e. I know a few did that, but most did not. Ask any 4e players, and I strongly suspect they will agree most used PHB 2.

So you don't know for a fact but have plenty of conjecture with a side of anecdotal evidence...

Are you trying to argue that the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, and Sorcerer, were non-core classes? I assure you, 4e players in overwhelming numbers thought of them as core. It was a source of both great irritation and also fairly universal agreement that the PHB 2 was as "core" as the PHB 1, for 4th edition. Lots of people disliked that, but they all accepted that's how WOTC did it this time around, even though it was irritating to have to buy two books to get what was expected from one book.

And if you think that was bad, Psionics was held back until PHB 3. That delay REALLY pissed some folks off.

First off where in all of my posts that you've quoted did I mention anything about what classes were core for 4e and which weren't? How did this even come up? See this is what I'm talking about when I say you are rambling about things that have nothing to do with what I am talking about. And again we see that your "evidence" amounts to... the people I talked to, which is in fact not evidence for anything at all. Oh, and I'm not arguing whether WotC labeled every 4e book core or not, at best it's tangential to my original point, I think everyone in this thread (with the exception of you) seems to have gotten my point and was able to follow along with what I was saying.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The number of men knocked out by a glancing blow that grazes them just on the right spot disagrees with you.

D&D already models this. It's called a damage roll. It's possible under the existing system for a character to just barely hit or to do a minor amount of damage because of a low damage roll, either of which could be narrated as a glancing blow. Both situations could kill the target.

Whatever damage on a miss is, that ain't it.

I thought that when Mearls tweeted this over two weeks ago the issue would slow down not escalate, the designers have spoken. Play test feedback from the surveys shows great support for the idea a little larger sample size then the posters on any forum.

Does that say more about damage on a miss or about their playtest process and its participants?

 

[Halivar]

Cross-posted for relevance:

I hate the words "hit" and "miss". We never should have used them. Plate armor doesn't make you harder to hit. It makes you harder to hurt. You have success in your attack, or failure. And mechanics exist to mitigate some failures.

 

[Manbearcat]

D&D already models this. It's called a damage roll. It's possible under the existing system for a character to just barely hit or to do a minor amount of damage because of a low damage roll, either of which could be narrated as a glancing blow. Both situations could kill the target.

Whatever damage on a miss is, that ain't it.

Review the original question I was answering:

You bring up a great point. I would like to see the devs explain how in the hell you can make a glancing blow hard? That's like saying "I am going to softly hit you really hard".

That is the issue I was resolving (or attempting to).