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

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Basically Mike Mearls has said that "damage on a miss" has problems and I feel it will most likely be removed from the final game. Are you happy with this decision?

I know I am.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Basically Mike Mearls has said that "damage on a miss" has problems and I feel it will most likely be removed from the final game. Are you happy with this decision?

I know I am.

Now that it's gone I bet you can't wait to buy D&D Next right.

Or will you find something new to whine about?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Now that it's gone I bet you can't wait to buy D&D Next right.

Or will you simply find something new to whine about?

Well you're still here so what do you think?

 

[Wulfgar76]

Well you're still here so what do you think?

Given that 'Damage on a Miss' was one option, of one class, I was pretty ambivalent to it - it didn't put me into the hysterics it did some people.

 

[GravyFingerz]

Source?

 

[Umbran]

Damage on a miss wasn't a make-or-break issue for me to begin with, so their decision is kind of a non-event, for me.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm fine with it being excised for the core rulebook. I think it will be back in the tactical module anyway. (This module will be otherwise known as Corebook III: Revenge of the 4th.)

 

[Obryn]

If it goes, the next gripe target will be along the lines of move speeds, at-will spells, healing rates, etc. It was/is so piddling that there's apparently no bottom to this rabbit hole.

This is why you don't design your game around the desires of your loudest objectors.

 

[Ichneumon]

I'm always happy. The status of "damage on a miss" wouldn't make much difference, either way.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm fine with it being left in as an option. Everyone should get a chance to have things that they like included for their use.