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

[TwoSix]

I posted this concern in the other thread but would like to see what people in this one have to say as well...

I'm curious how those who are approaching this from a "narrative" viewpoint deal with the fact that this mechanic basically invalidates another narrative... that of the graceful dodger? Since this mechanic can never have a narrative where it misses... what happens when these mechanics for this narrative of a relentless fighter interact with a monster, NPC or even another PC who has the narrative of being so quick and light on their feet that they are rarely, if ever, hit? I'm not sure a mechanic that can totally invalidate a pretty common fantasy narrative like the graceful dodger is a good mechanic.

Best way to oppose a narration is to have your own valid narration. Give graceful dodgers an ability to negate all damage from an attack, similar to evasion.

Honestly, you could model this attack just as easily as a "spell" that does weapon dice + Str mod to one target in melee range, Dex save to only take Str mod damage. Of course, if we start modeling weapon attacks and spells under the same paradigm, every class starts to be the same, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

 

[Imaro]

Best way to oppose a narration is to have your own valid narration. Give graceful dodgers an ability to negate all damage from an attack, similar to evasion.

Honestly, you could model this attack just as easily as a "spell" that does weapon dice + Str mod to one target in melee range, Dex save to only take Str mod damage. Of course, if we start modeling weapon attacks and spells under the same paradigm, every class starts to be the same, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

But is there a way as the game stands now for this to take place? there is only so much space for so many mechanics.

 

[TwoSix]

But is there a way as the game stands now for this to take place? there is only so much space for so many mechanics.

Oh, probably way too late. It's just an approach that could have been taken, and I would argue, still feel like D&D. Some people, as always, will radically disagree.

 

[Garthanos]

To oversimplify, you've got two basic choices: "Immovable object and unstoppable force", or "rock-paper-scissors".

So, damage on a miss is basically the scissors to the paper of the graceful dodger (assuming the mechanics really support the GD). So long as there's a rock for the scissors, we're good.

In general, if you think, "there's something in the game that can hurt me" equates to "my narrative is completely invalidated" there's a problem of concept involved.

Very good point - Also I am not sure why anyone thinks all the options have been seen.

 

[Imaro]

Very good point - Also I am not sure why anyone thinks all the options have been seen.

We can only discuss what we have.

 

[Imaro]

To oversimplify, you've got two basic choices: "Immovable object and unstoppable force", or "rock-paper-scissors".

So, damage on a miss is basically the scissors to the paper of the graceful dodger (assuming the mechanics really support the GD). So long as there's a rock for the scissors, we're good.

In general, if you think, "there's something in the game that can hurt me" equates to "my narrative is completely invalidated" there's a problem of concept involved.

I guess my issue with this is why does the game design decide which narrative takes precedence? Isn't this exactly what rolling dice is for, when an outcome is in doubt?

 

[TwoSix]

I guess my issue with this is why does the game design decide which narrative takes precedence? Isn't this exactly what rolling dice is for, when an outcome is in doubt?

I think part of the point of the game design is to streamline all possible narratives into the desired genre-constrained ones. The question is whether "dude who always do a little bit of damage when he attacks even tough guys, because damage is wearing people down, and can wipe out puny guys with almost effortless consistency" is a narrative you want to support. Again, "what my fantasy should look like" is something fans of D&D have rarely agreed on. For me, the iconic heavily armored great weapon fighter is Siegfried from Soul Calibur. Other people have iconic imagery which is radically different (and probably much less shiny).

 

[Garthanos]

Not if hit-points aren't meat. If they have an absurdly high AC from non-armor sources, you could narrate hp-loss as a loss of positioning, or exerting themselves to avoid the blow. In the case of the graceful dodger, only the strike that reduces them to zero hit-points needs to actually connect kinetically.

I have a 4e Rogue who I took a feat called Toughness. but for him it was called Lucky.

 

[Imaro]

I think part of the point of the game design is to streamline all possible narratives into the desired genre-constrained ones. The question is whether "dude who always do a little bit of damage when he attacks even tough guys, because damage is wearing people down, and can wipe out puny guys with almost effortless consistency" is a narrative you want to support. Again, "what my fantasy should look like" is something fans of D&D have rarely agreed on. For me, the iconic heavily armored great weapon fighter is Siegfried from Soul Calibur. Other people have iconic imagery which is radically different (and probably much less shiny).

I'm not arguing whether it should or shouldn't support the relentless fighter narrative, I am discussing the mechanics they have chosen to support it with. I guess it's just personal taste but I feel like there are always going to be narratives that conflict, it builds tension and is actually a trope of the fantasy genre... but the dice should decide whose narrative wins out, not the fact that the GWF narrative can beat the graceful dodger narrative if there's another totally separate narrative that can in turn beat the GWF narrative...

 

[skotothalamos]

I posted this concern in the other thread but would like to see what people in this one have to say as well...

I'm curious how those who are approaching this from a "narrative" viewpoint deal with the fact that this mechanic basically invalidates another narrative... that of the graceful dodger? Since this mechanic can never have a narrative where it misses... what happens when these mechanics for this narrative of a relentless fighter interact with a monster, NPC or even another PC who has the narrative of being so quick and light on their feet that they are rarely, if ever, hit? I'm not sure a mechanic that can totally invalidate a pretty common fantasy narrative like the graceful dodger is a good mechanic.

Dodging is tiring. He's being missed, but his ability to keep dodging forever is being reduced. Eventually, he'll get nicked, and then seriously injured, if he doesn't find some way to deal with Crazy Halberd Man. Graceful Dodger usually has no trouble, but Crazy Halberd Man is his weakness. He'd better be extra careful with this guy. I am completely okay with Graceful Dodger having an Achilles heel in the form of Crazy Halberd Man. It adds interest to that story you're telling.

You could get your Graceful Dodger some chainmail and the Heavy Armor Master feat and he can reduce incoming physical damage by his CON mod. Now if his stat matches the fighter stat, he takes 0 damage on a miss. Of course, I realize that heavy armor does not quite fit the Graceful Dodger story you're telling, but the mechanic exists.