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

[Mistwell]

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

It's in both 3e and 4e, and Pathfinder too.

For example, from the 3e SRD:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/climb.htm

"A Climb check that fails by 4 or less means that you make no progress, and one that fails by 5 or more means that you fall from whatever height you have already attained. "

And from 4e the balance rule:

"Fail by 4 or Less: You stay in the square you started in and lose the rest of your move action, but you don’t fall. You can try again as part of a move action. Fail by 5 or More: You fall off the surface (see “Falling,” page 284) and lose the rest of your move action. If you are trying to move across an unstable surface that isn’t narrow, you instead fall prone in the square you started in. You can try again as part of a move action if you’re still on the surface."

 

[steeldragons]

It's in both 3e and 4e, and Pathfinder too.

For example, from the 3e SRD:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/climb.htm

"A Climb check that fails by 4 or less means that you make no progress, and one that fails by 5 or more means that you fall from whatever height you have already attained. "

Well, there ya are then.

In answer to your initial question, nothing, since nothing I played ever said it. Doesn't seem that there's anything necessary to say about the rule as written that you've quoted. I don't quite see how it relates to "damage on a miss".

 

[Mistwell]

Well, there ya are then.

In answer to your initial question, nothing, since nothing I played ever said it. Doesn't seem that there's anything necessary to say about the rule as written that you've quoted. I don't quite see how it relates to "damage on a miss".

You never played any of 3rd edition, 3.5 edition, 4th edition, or Pathfinder? Really, never tried any of them? Huh, OK fair enough. I can respect that. You're consistent, right?

It's not damage on a miss, it's "something other than failure can happen on a miss, depending on how much you missed by". I was curious what your reaction was to those things...but if you never played any of the new editions released since 2000, I guess it's not a relevant question.

 

[steeldragons]

Nope. It's not really relevant.

But I don't see a skill check roll as the same thing as an attack one. One, the skill activity, can fail and do different things...an attack roll failing, but still doing damage, is not a failed attack.

As I said, I'll have no truck with it. You are free to truck as much of it as you like.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

I don't buy the failures of past editions as valid excuses for why poor design should be included in the current game.

 

[Salamandyr]

You know...every edition of D&D has had something that I found glaringly stupid. B/X had race as class (I like it now, but boy I hated it then). AD&D had differing weapon damage depending on the size of the creature hit. 2e basically broke magic resistance, and nerfed damaging spells. 3rd edition had, oh so many things. Pathfinder has firearms using touch attacks, and when some 4e designer announced that they wanted race to be a vital choice all the way through to 30th level, I stated the person who said that should be fired for incompetence (and for me one of the worst things about 4e was race/class synergy).

Damage on a miss is an optional component of one feature of a handful of classes. There are not only other options to take instead of that, they're all arguably better. So while I agree we should do our best to tell Wizards if it's something we don't like, we need to keep perspective. The quality of the game doesn't ride on this one feature.

 

[Weather Report]

There should be an option for people that want to specialise in Great Weapon Fighting, but not do damage on a miss.

As has been repeated, excluding it will piss off a lot less people than including it will.

The Reaper feat caused quite a bit of disconnect when we played the the 1st packet (which I love).

 

[Kobold Stew]

Fortunately, those for whom this is a concern have the option of including it in their comments on the playtest. It will be clear to Mearls and co if this is a big deal generally or not.

 

[Argyle King]

I'd like to clarify that I'm not completely against damage on what D&D calls a miss.

What I was opposed to was the idea stated earlier that all (or nearly all) attacks should do damage on a miss.

 

[Weather Report]

I'd like to clarify that I'm not completely against damage on what D&D calls a miss.

What I was opposed to was the idea stated earlier that all (or nearly all) attacks should do damage on a miss.

I also have no problem with it, per se, but it seems to cause a bit of "...I missed..." group starts to move on "Oh, no, wait, I actually did 3 points of damage!"