D&D 5E Now that "damage on a miss" is most likely out of the picture, are you happy?

Are you happy for "damage on a miss" being removed?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 75 42.1%
  • No.

    Votes: 47 26.4%
  • Couldn't give a toss.

    Votes: 56 31.5%

XunValdorl_of_Kilsek

Banned
Banned
I see this as another victory for "hit points are meat," which I don't agree with at all, so nope, not happy. It removes some of the design space and keeps a hit equal to an actual hit, which I'm not a fan. It's a world where "vicious mockery" makes less and less sense, and that's one of my favorite powers, so...

Is it enough to make me not buy the edition? Of course not, but taken as part of a whole, we're getting there.

I disagree.

You can still have hit points be what ever you want. Damage on a miss never made sense to start with. Missing something but killing it anyway makes people just shake their heads, swallow it and try not to wrap their brains around it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Argyle King

Legend
I was never sure where I stood on the issue. A brief summary...

In the beginning, I was marginally against the idea due to arguments/positions held by some other posters which managed to convince me it might be bad.

However, I wasn't entirely opposed to the idea of damage on a 'miss,' because the concept of 'blunt force trauma' is something I am familiar with both from other rpgs and actual real life experience. Being hit by a weapon can still hurt even if your armor absorbs the strike. With that in mind, the idea of damage on a 'miss' didn't bother me because what exactly a hit or a miss is in D&D is abstract enough that it could easily be made to make sense.

Then I considered that it was possible to kill someone by missing in 5th Edition. While that's not exactly unheard of in light of what I mentioned above, it still seemed unusual compared to the rest of the game. I think part of my thinking here was skewed by abilities which were able to auto-kill minions in 4th; something about that bothered me.

On the other hand, it's not entirely clear what HP represent in D&D; if they aren't injury per se, then I suppose the concepts of hit and miss would be hazy as well, and maybe 'hit' and 'miss' don't mean the same thing in D&D that I typically understand the words to mean. (This line of thinking lead me to be roughly neutral on the subject because it supported the idea of damage on a miss being valid, but it brought up the idea that D&D is using language in such a way that what they mean is not obvious or intuitive -something I strongly dislike.)

I suppose, in the end, I just looked at the game and compared damage on a miss to the style of the game being made while also comparing the option to other options. A little bit of damage on a miss for one specific option of one specific class doesn't seem out of hand, and it's most certainly not broken when compared to other options; even other options from the same class. I'd say it's a touch weak when compared to many of the other options. So, overall, I support the idea of damage on a miss, but in very very small doses. I'm fine with one specific fighting style and maybe 4-5 abilities throughout the game which allow it when it seems thematically appropriate. I do not want it to be a general assumed part of the game overall though.
 


XunValdorl_of_Kilsek

Banned
Banned
Ummm, it hasn't been removed, but don't let facts get in the way of fanatical beliefs.

A tweet that says, and I quote "I'm personally not crazy about it - causes a lot of questions about how stuff interacts at the table." does not mean it's removed.

Personally, I'd rather it was replaced with something better, but in the absence of better it is good enough.

-Ninja'd by KM-

Well when something causes a lot of questions about how stuff interacts at the table then it's safe to say there is a good chance it's going, especially by the head designer.
 



Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Actually the tweet sounds more that damage on a miss will stay in.

It sounds like the will be a rules clarification on both attack targeting (you must be able to reach the target to attack it) and a minimim roll (no damage on a 1).

Remember, Mearls wants DoaM to stand in as pity damage for Great weapon users since they can miss and do jack squat for many turns while Weapon and Shield gets defence and Two Weapon fighting has a second attack.

So I hope it stays on I get some other benefit for greataxes. Because they are no fun at low levels, man.
 


Herschel

Adventurer
Well when something causes a lot of questions about how stuff interacts at the table then it's safe to say there is a good chance it's going, especially by the head designer.

Again, that's a very wild leap of (il)logic. Reading much of anything in to a single tweet is ridiculous.

You also said "now that it's been removed", which it hasn't.
 


Obryn

Hero
My point earlier was that I find it hard to believe that a removal of DoaM will substantively affect anyone's enthusiasm to play the game. Because there will always be one more thing that's the next deal-breaker. If one feature of one type of fighter caused this much of an uproar, we're past the point where it's a discussion of the game and more a wrestling match about the True Soul of D&D.
 



XunValdorl_of_Kilsek

Banned
Banned
I was never sure where I stood on the issue. A brief summary...

In the beginning, I was marginally against the idea due to arguments/positions held by some other posters which managed to convince me it might be bad.

However, I wasn't entirely opposed to the idea of damage on a 'miss,' because the concept of 'blunt force trauma' is something I am familiar with both from other rpgs and actual real life experience. Being hit by a weapon can still hurt even if your armor absorbs the strike. With that in mind, the idea of damage on a 'miss' didn't bother me because what exactly a hit or a miss is in D&D is abstract enough that it could easily be made to make sense.

Then I considered that it was possible to kill someone by missing in 5th Edition. While that's not exactly unheard of in light of what I mentioned above, it still seemed unusual compared to the rest of the game. I think part of my thinking here was skewed by abilities which were able to auto-kill minions in 4th; something about that bothered me.

On the other hand, it's not entirely clear what HP represent in D&D; if they aren't injury per se, then I suppose the concepts of hit and miss would be hazy as well, and maybe 'hit' and 'miss' don't mean the same thing in D&D that I typically understand the words to mean. (This line of thinking lead me to be roughly neutral on the subject because it supported the idea of damage on a miss being valid, but it brought up the idea that D&D is using language in such a way that what they mean is not obvious or intuitive -something I strongly dislike.)

I suppose, in the end, I just looked at the game and compared damage on a miss to the style of the game being made while also comparing the option to other options. A little bit of damage on a miss for one specific option of one specific class doesn't seem out of hand, and it's most certainly not broken when compared to other options; even other options from the same class. I'd say it's a touch weak when compared to many of the other options. So, overall, I support the idea of damage on a miss, but in very very small doses. I'm fine with one specific fighting style and maybe 4-5 abilities throughout the game which allow it when it seems thematically appropriate. I do not want it to be a general assumed part of the game overall though.

Actually, the concepts of "hit" and "miss" were defined until 4th edition came along. It was 4th edition that introduced the concept of doing damage on a miss outside of explosions and magic. The meaning of those two words began to blur.
 

XunValdorl_of_Kilsek

Banned
Banned
My point earlier was that I find it hard to believe that a removal of DoaM will substantively affect anyone's enthusiasm to play the game. Because there will always be one more thing that's the next deal-breaker. If one feature of one type of fighter caused this much of an uproar, we're past the point where it's a discussion of the game and more a wrestling match about the True Soul of D&D.

It does for me because I believe, had it been popular, it wouldn't have stopped there. I feel we would have seej more and more of these kinds of mechanics creep into the system.
 


Obryn

Hero
It does for me because I believe, had it been popular, it wouldn't have stopped there. I feel we would have seej more and more of these kinds of mechanics creep into the system.
So I take it that all the pew-pew stuff on the at will thread, etc. is now irrelevant?

That's what I mean by "always one more thing."
 




An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top