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

[Mistwell]

I agree with 100% of the things in this post.

"Here, have another d8 of damage."

Or "Also, hit this other guy" (a la Cleave).

I like these better, and they can be big effects. And they're a lot more engaging psychologically than the "Have a cookie because you failed to be awesome" of damage-on-a-miss.

And I'm not someone who had a major problem with it being in. Both of those things are big improvements in my eyes!

How about advantage on your damage roll?

 

[GravyFingerz]

Or if your damage roll on a hit has excess over what's needed to kill your opponent you can apply the excess to another opponent within reach?

 

[Cybit]

Advantage on the damage roll, or even just Brutal 1 or 2 on the damage roll would work for me. Nothing like hitting with a greataxe for 1d12 damage and rolling a 1 to make you feel dumb.

I actually like the sweeping idea more than anything, personally.

 

[Dausuul]

It is more that two handers dont have things like AC from shields or range.

So you swing, miss, no orcs die, and the orcs can now surrondd you and axe you to death.

Meanwhile the sword-and-boarder swings, hits, but fails to do enough damage to kill an orc (where a great weapon fighter would have done), and then the orcs surround her and axe her to death, because one point of AC does not compensate for one extra whack from an orc's battleaxe.

And great weapons are damage weapons. So the design team wants them to deal MOAR DAMAEG! And damage is simple so that fits another goal. Fun and simple.

So give the great weapon fighter more damage on a hit instead of damage on a miss. Which is more exciting: Steady, boring damage output round after round, or big crushing hits interspersed with painful misses?

And I'll second the "brutal" suggestion. That feels much more in keeping with the great weapon fighter concept:

 

[Mistwell]

Meanwhile the sword-and-boarder swings, hits, but fails to do enough damage to kill an orc (where a great weapon fighter would have done), and then the orcs surround her and axe her to death, because one point of AC does not compensate for one extra whack from an orc's battleaxe.

It's two points of AC, and it's a big boost given bounded accuracy.

 

[Dausuul]

It's two points of AC, and it's a big boost given bounded accuracy.

My mistake. Nevertheless, the point stands; just because they sacrifice defense for improved offense, there's no particular reason why great weapon fighters need a special "bone" thrown to them. Now, if their damage output doesn't measure up to the benefits of a shield, of course their damage output should be increased--but keep in mind that offense is typically more valuable than defense. You choose where and when to use your offensive capability, but it's the enemy who chooses when you get to use your defense.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I love these vocal minority assumptions that people come up with.

What are you trying to justify?

Wow. You walk away from one discussion (again without answering the substance of the post), and you pick a fight in another thread?

I say it again: "Classy."

 

[Lord Vangarel]

It was never that easy though. You had linear spells like lightening bolt that still did half damage. You had abilities like evasion which made no sense at all in some situations, where the guy with that ability took zero damage even if there was no cover anywhere in a narrow corridor, but the guy with the highest dexterity and reflex save on the planet who happened to be standing besides cover still takes half damage. You had spells like Fire Seeds which required an attack roll but still did half damage. And then you had the alchemist weapons, which splashed for some damage even if you were surrounded by a force field that would stop the blow of high level magic weapons from striking you, but somehow a bit of fire from a first level item gets through.

I agree with you Mistwell, there's plenty of things in every edition of the game that don't make absolute sense when compared to other things. That's why groups end up with tonnes of houserules as they attempt to correct things that don't reconcile in their minds. Where we struggled was you miss with a weapon, and in every previous version prior to 4E I think, you missed then suddenly you didn't. Like you said, it seemed a bit cheesy to us.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Wow. You walk away from one discussion (again without answering the substance of the post), and you pick a fight in another thread?

I say it again: "Classy."

Just dealing with some of the same kind of people who like to put everyone else in the minority while they feel themselves in the majority.

 

[Umbran]

Don't make it personal, people.

And please don't drag drama from one thread to another.

If you find another poster is repeatedly annoying you, either report them (if you think they're outside board rules) or use the Ignore List (without making public declarations, please).