D&D 5E Q&A 10/17/13 - Crits, Damage on Miss, Wildshape

[wedgeski]

How would you balance ranged and area attacks? If every attack does damage on a miss, the obviously optimal strategy would be to throw as many ranged and area attacks as you can at the enemy; even missing all of them would be potentially better than actually hitting with a melee attack due to the auto damage applying to multiple people and being applied from further away.

Favouring ranged and area attacks over melee? How is that different from any other D&D combat? I'm sure the enemy would quickly have something to say about it, in any case.

 

[Argyle King]

Favouring ranged and area attacks over melee? How is that different from any other D&D combat? I'm sure the enemy would quickly have something to say about it, in any case.

My point was that it seems strange to me that an optimal combat strategy would be to miss.

 

[Argyle King]

It likewise seems strange to me that a commoner on a fast horse could easily kite the tarrasque to death via misses.

 

[wedgeski]

My point was that it seems strange to me that an optimal combat strategy would be to miss.

It likewise seems strange to me that a commoner on a fast horse could easily kite the tarrasque to death via misses.

Safer to assume the system would account for such outliers. In any case, I've given it all of five minutes thought.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

1) Abilities like cunning action (which I've repeated twice, and went into some depth on, and WHICH IS NOT MAGIC and which is for this very situation - it's the Evasion replacement, mostly);
2) flight
3) burrowing
4) swimming
5) pit traps
6) mirror image
7) other illusion spells like illusionary wall
8) anything that denies the fighter the ability to target you, like full cover
9) ready an action to move my speed if the fighter stands next to me and tries to hit me
10) ready an action to create a wall of stone between us if the fighter stands next to me and tries to hit me

I'm with you. And the villagers would need only one tactic to keep from getting slaughtered. Sure, the 1st Level Fighter would get the jump on them, kill a couple villagers, maybe 3 if he had surprise. But then the rest move away from the murderous Fighter (either disengage or just move) and then ready an action to Hustle if the Fighter gets within 10 feet of them (15 if he has reach). Meanwhile the village defenders that are outside the Fighter's range shoot him dead.

 

[Leatherhead]

How would you balance ranged and area attacks? If every attack does damage on a miss, the obviously optimal strategy would be to throw as many ranged and area attacks as you can at the enemy; even missing all of them would be potentially better than actually hitting with a melee attack due to the auto damage applying to multiple people and being applied from further away.

Well, the optimal strategy is still hitting, as that would kill the enemies faster. And arrow volleys were a thing. But besides that, the average game of D&D has such a huge melee bias I don't see it as a bad thing to bump up range with one thing that melee also benefits from.

It likewise seems strange to me that a commoner on a fast horse could easily kite the tarrasque to death via misses.

The tarrasque has been such a horribly designed monster, full of glaring weaknesses and gimmicky countermeasures. I don't see why anyone uses it as a legitimate test.

 

[Tovec]

You think that we don't understand your position. We do. It's not even that we disagree with it. But what you state is contrary to the rules, as released so far. Your impressions are valid as far as your table, but beyond that, they are not convincing.

I assumed you were understanding because you were using the literal meaning of what "must roll vs. AC" (haha, see Tovec you are wrong). Whereas I'm saying that the result of the roll is irrelevant. Roll, don't roll. Doesn't matter - you still do 3 damage to the villager and instantly kill him. You need to ATTACK. I said taht and agreed. Never said you didn't have to attack, but the roll is neither here nor there. Why bother using the d20 when you auto-kill the villager for being in melee. As already pointed out - Salamandyr thinks that you shouldn't be able to kill the villager on a 1 (a 1 in 20 chance is still 5% better than they have right now), or be able to kill them without hitting them. I agree but I take it a step further, you shouldn't be able to damage them AT ALL on a miss. You haven't talked against this except to say that I must be misunderstanding how the ability works, because you have to roll, to see if you miss.

But as you obviously understand all I'm saying I guess I'll stop replying to you unless you have something new for me to comment on KS.
I do have a question though, is the following true:

Fighter rolls attack, HITS, rolls W+3 damage
Fighter rolls attack, MISSES, deals 3 damage

If it is not then that might change my mind (or at least I would have to correct my understanding of what is going on). If it is, we can both stop this back and forth about my blind snapping fighter.

All of this cleanly misses the point. My point is not "but saves allow half damage", my point is you can be successful in your "saving throw" and still not be "saved". Many critics of "damage on a miss", and most specifically your very response above run right to the literal meaning of the words. "But 'miss'!" I'm saying you can make saving throws that don't save you, so it's no stretch for misses that do damage.

Okay, you missed where I said the wizard still has to roll to hit the square - but that is tangential to the point you are trying to make.

If you are arguing that wizards should do NO damage if the target saves against their fireball? I can see that argument. Start a thread, give arguments in favour of it and we can go from there.
-- It is not the same thing as saying save = attack, or fireball = melee swing

But, yeah, I could see that argument working. Makes sense on some level. I still would say they should take half because the fireball fills the square (an argument repeatedly brought up). So, unless there is a change to how it works, same goes for evasion, then I think I would side as it works right now - but it is a persuasive to say that if you save against a fireball you should take no damage.
-- It does NOT however follow that because fireballs make you still take half damage, that ALL effects should cause you to take half damage, NOR that this specific one should cause you to take STR damage.

No, because it's the elephant in the room. If someone says, like Morrus did earlier in the thread, "Okay, I can see how damage on a miss is like half-damage on saved AoEs, but personally it just doesn't feel right to me", then fine. Subjective reaction. But when people try to prove that its an objectively silly idea, and whip out ad hominems like "special snowflake", then they have to show why half-damage on AoE saves are okay, but STR mod damage on a miss are not. They have to show why literal semantic meaning is so important for "hit" and "miss", but not important for "save". But they can't. It's the same principle at work: simple terms generalized to abstract representations of combat.

It really isn't the elephant in the room. The mechanic we are talking about it. Or rather the elephant would be definitions of HP and armor (again I might add). If you want to start addressing HP and armor, the real elephants, we can - but those NEVER end.

How would you balance ranged and area attacks? If every attack does damage on a miss, the obviously optimal strategy would be to throw as many ranged and area attacks as you can at the enemy; even missing all of them would be potentially better than actually hitting with a melee attack due to the auto damage applying to multiple people and being applied from further away.

I know, strange isn't it.
"I shoot my arrow at him, he is 12k feet away, do I hit?"
"No, you miss."
"Yay! I still deal DEX damage."
"You can't even see him, he's hiding behind a boulder, in a building."
"Doesn't matter, DEX damage."

Sounds a lot like..
"I swing my sword at him, he's wearing full plate and equipped with a shield, do I hit?"
"No, you miss."
"Yay! I still deal STR damage."
"You can't even see him, your blind and standing in an aura of silence."
"Doesn't matter, STR damage."

It likewise seems strange to me that a commoner on a fast horse could easily kite the tarrasque to death via misses.

Yep. Same here, can't XP you anymore.

I'm with you. And the villagers would need only one tactic to keep from getting slaughtered. Sure, the 1st Level Fighter would get the jump on them, kill a couple villagers, maybe 3 if he had surprise. But then the rest move away from the murderous Fighter (either disengage or just move) and then ready an action to Hustle if the Fighter gets within 10 feet of them (15 if he has reach). Meanwhile the village defenders that are outside the Fighter's range shoot him dead.

Tactics =/= defense. None of the common defenses work, you take 3 damage. Best armor in the world (which in DnD rules means you should get hit less often)? 3 damage. A pixie buzzing around the fighter's face? 3 damage.

He gave tactics, most of which were magic, to try and not be in the square the fighter was able to hit - that is not anywhere near the same as being in melee and NOT taking that 3 damage.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Tactics =/= defense. None of the common defenses work, you take 3 damage. Best armor in the world (which in DnD rules means you should get hit less often)? 3 damage. A pixie buzzing around the fighter's face? 3 damage.

He gave tactics, most of which were magic, to try and not be in the square the fighter was able to hit - that is not anywhere near the same as being in melee and NOT taking that 3 damage.

But it's relevant because you are, admitedly, using a ridiculous example that will not come up in actual gameplay. You stated originally that a Fighter could destory a whole village of peasants blindfolded and there was nothing they could do to defend against it. Now you've shifted goalposts to say that getting away from the attacker is not defending yourself. A fully functional, non-blindfolded Fighter will not be able to do what you claimed.

Now if you want to zoom in on your example to those first few villagers and say there's nothing they could do to stop the Fighter from killing* them? Yes, sure. And it models the reality of the situation pretty well. That's why they are 3-4 hp villagers. This won't happen to real threats.

It seems like you're trying to turn something that is aesthetically displeasing to you and making it an in-game issue. At least others can just leave it at "I don't like partial success on a failure" or some variation of the same.





*Nevermind the thought that the DM does not have to call 0 hit points dead. It is at his discretion to treat them just like a character dropped to zero hit points.

I know, strange isn't it.
"I shoot my arrow at him, he is 12k feet away, do I hit?"
"No, you miss."
"Yay! I still deal DEX damage."
"You can't even see him, he's hiding behind a boulder, in a building."
"Doesn't matter, DEX damage."

Sounds a lot like..
"I swing my sword at him, he's wearing full plate and equipped with a shield, do I hit?"
"No, you miss."
"Yay! I still deal STR damage."
"You can't even see him, your blind and standing in an aura of silence."
"Doesn't matter, STR damage."

Sounds nothing alike. The first is a creature you can't target. If you can't target them you can't even roll to see if you hit or miss.

The second, depending on rules for targeting someone you cannot see or hear, still puts the target in the path of a Fighter swinging a really big weapon at him. If he can't target him because he can't see or hear him, then the same applies as above.

Keep up the ridiculous examples. They really help your end of the discussion.

 

[steeldragons]

What did you do when something said, "If you miss the skill check by 5 or more, [something bad happens to you, like falling], otherwise you stay where you are on failure, or move half speed on success"?

This doesn't sounds like anything I've ever read before. Must be from some edition I am unfamiliar with.

 

[Ratskinner]

Thing is, then that's a character who - narratively at least, if not in terms of the words chosen to describe game mechanics - cannot miss. I don't like that aesthetically.

And, sure, you can redefine the meanings of "hit" and "miss" so that it makes sense logically in terms of the game mechanics. But that degree of redefinition breaks actual conversation - when words like "miss" don't mean "miss" any more. Or "hit" doesn't mean "hit". Or "leg" doesn't mean "leg". (OK, that last one's silly).

We, I guess, accept that "damage" no longer means "damage". So sure, there's precedent. But there's also a point at which the amount you're doing that becomes a personal aesthetic barrier. For me - personally - damage on a miss passes that barrier. It works for me in terms of AoE stuff (save for half) but that's about as far as my mental breaktitude is able to aesthetically immerse in the concept.

Personally, I'd be fine with eliminating the whole hit/miss thing. Just skip straight to the damage part. The system is plenty abstract enough that I'm not sure a "hit" has ever actually meant a "hit" (with the occasional exception of poisonous critters and the like.) I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to come up with other "trigger" mechanics for things like that. Considering all the neat-o mechanics floating around in other games like 13th Age, it shouldn't be too hard.