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

[TwoSix]

Yeah I understand that... You can always find an association if you want. So when I say "disassociated" I may not mean something strictly/technically/scientifically. I just mean that the association used (at least so far) is not strong enough, and still makes the mechanically feel disassociated. The fact that this is subjective doesn't make it unimportant.

One could even say that creating that narrative link between the mechanics and the fiction of the game is part of the fun of playing the game!

 

[Celebrim]

Speak for yourself. It makes perfect sense to me. As per my post 146, "this fighter is so unrelenting that every round of combat with him/her wears an opponent down".

Sure. You can rationalize whatever you like. But your rationalization only works for specific concrete examples of what melee combat is like. If we assume that melee combat is always between two armored individuals who are wailing away on each other for six seconds your explanation for the mechanic makes perfect sense. But the mechanic simply does not make sense as written for the general case. There is lip service to the ideal that D&D combat is abstract here, but no actual adherence to the conventions of the abstraction. It's like the claim that since not all hit points represent the physical capacity to endure damage, that an attack can be abstracted to only effecting those non-physical portions of hit points. That claim contradicts the logic of hit points that had been in use forever prior to the claim. And here we have a mechanic that makes lip service to the fact that AC is abstract, but attempts to create a mechanic that treats AC as if it where concrete in a way that has no bearing on what AC actually can represent. AC doesn't just represent ability to absorb a blow without injury, but also the ability to evade a blow entirely. In the general case we cannot ignore the fact that for a particular individual ALL their AC might represent the ability to evade blows and that the abstract number is entirely representing the concrete reality that the target is difficult to land a blow on and not at all difficult to damage when landing a blow.

For example, suppose the fight is between a PC and a flock of outsiders/elementals/fey etc. The outsiders have DEX 30, tiny size, natural fly speed, perfect maneuverability and is immune to fatigue and the other sorts of things that represent the weaknesses of mortals (sleep, hunger, thirst, aging, etc.) They also have 1/2 HD. It makes absolutely no sense to rationalize damage on a miss as wearing down the foe through your unrelenting attacks in this case as if the picture here was the same as attacking a tortoise with a thick shell. The target can't be worn down. The most salient aspect of this combat's narration is probably, "You can't hit the buggers, but when you do they go down." They aren't narratively parrying the attacks. There isn't narrative of making contact, but failing to breach the targets armor/thick hide/etc. There are no glancing blows here. If you swing, it's a miss, the target darts nimbly away and is not fatigued by dodging away in any way. It's immortal. If you don't hit it, it can literally keep up this entertaining game of dodge the sword forever. There is no 'damage on a miss'.

Can you rationalize the mechanic still? Of course, but notice that to rationalize it in this case, you have to totally change the rationalization. Instead of brutally wearing the opponent down, the new flavor you are giving the mechanic is that the fighter has such precision and accuracy in his attacks that they never completely miss. But now this is no longer a mechanic that seems to relate to the original color of 'brute force' and 'massive weapons'. This is now the color of finesse!!!

We could of course grant 'immunity to damage on a miss' to all targets where the rationalization breaks down in order to remain consistent in our imagined world, but this is bad design. Ideally a newly introduced rule shouldn't require remote reference to the rule. Otherwise, each introduction of a rule or each rule change requires changing all the numerous references to the rule and people designing new monsters require knowledge of literally all the rules to be successful in the design. It's much better to design the rule in such a way that it understands the fundamental assumptions of the abstraction and doesn't break them. Have the rule inherit the assumptions of the system, rather than make the entire system inherit the assumptions of the new rule.

So, sure, you can rationalize whatever you like, provided you don't care for a systematic description and you prioritize mechanics over the imaginary space being played in. The ultimate result of that is that you no longer have a game of warriors fighting monsters in a fantasy world, but figures in conflict with other figures on a table top. There is nothing wrong with that. I like chess, Blood Bowl, and Necromunda as much as the next guy. But don't try to tell me you aren't changing anything about my game when you try to foist that on me.

 

[Gadget]

I simply meant that it's hard to believe that there are people who actively do not want mechanics associated in general with narrative.

That there are fans of specific mechanics, which happened to be disassociated or weekly disassociated, and these fans absolutely want those mechanics in the game, is a different thing. They love the mechanic because of how it works, but again it's hard to believe that they love it because it is disassociated, I'd rather think they would love it anyway even if it was associated.

Speak for yourself. I came to richly appreciate much of 4e's 'disassociated' mechanics; they were quite a breath of fresh air after 3e's heavy process sim mechanics. I used to think that 3e's process sim was the way to go, but I became very burned out on all the fiddly subsystems that entailed. I want to simulate a heroic fantasy adventure, if the results are consistent with that, I'm fine. Hit points themselves are a 'disassociated' mechanic to a degree. As long as the result of the mechanic is in line with what the fiction I want to emulate, I don't really care about how accurately the mechanics are modelling the game world physics involved. However, I will agree that a mechanic is not good or bad based solely on whether or not it is 'associated' or not. Each method can be overused, and I'm on the record as being unsure about this particular mechanic.

It's not different in the sense that it's just another donut, but my metaphore was that each single donut doesn't make you sick, it's the total that slowly will.

The problem with this metaphor seems to be assuming that, and I may be reading it wrong, this mechanic is some sort of munchkin power trip thing that no self respecting (i.e. 'healthy' eater) gamer would countenance. While there may be balance problems, I'm not sure they have been shone to be so yet.

 

[Li Shenron]

My point is that you have claimed that there are no players who prioritise being able to play an unrelenting fighter over process simulation in mechanics.

No.

I originally claimed that there are no people against associated mechanics. OTOH there are people against disassociated mechanics. Therefore IMO associated mechanics are to be preferred over disassociated mechanics. However I recognized that no mechanic is "truly" disassociated because you can always make up an association; but when the association feels too week to some people, it is in practice the same.

This, and nothing more.

 

[TwoSix]

So, sure, you can rationalize whatever you like, provided you don't care for a systematic description and you prioritize mechanics over the imaginary space being played in. The ultimate result of that is that you no longer have a game of warriors fighting monsters in a fantasy world, but figures in conflict with other figures on a table top. There is nothing wrong with that. I like chess, Blood Bowl, and Necromunda as much as the next guy. But don't try to tell me you aren't changing anything about my game when you try to foist that on me.

Classy way to suggest that people who like their game played a certain way aren't real roleplayers. That's always appreciated.

Or just to be clear, turning mechanical resolution into newly created narrative on the fly using narrative mechanics makes me a better roleplayer. My game is better realized and truer to the genre because of those mechanics, not despite them.

 

[MJS]

Damage on a miss is the kind of mechanics we get when people don't spank their children.

(yes im joking- mostly -don't use the dumb thing if it's not workin for you)

 

[Weather Report]

Classy way to suggest that people who like their game played a certain way aren't real roleplayers. That's always appreciated.

Or just to be clear, turning mechanical resolution into newly created narrative on the fly using narrative mechanics makes me a better roleplayer. My game is better realized and truer to the genre because of those mechanics, not despite them.

Or better at contrivance and rationalisation.

 

[Celebrim]

Or just to be clear, turning mechanical resolution into newly created narrative on the fly using narrative mechanics makes me a better roleplayer. My game is better realized and truer to the genre because of those mechanics, not despite them.

I've no desire to argue over that. That's a matter of opinion. As a matter of opinion, I don't think that "turning mechanical resolution into newly created narrative on the fly using narrative mechanics" is somehow unique to, much less prioritized or heightened, under a mechanics first, narrative later approach. I personally prefer a 'this is a narrative I need, what mechanic can I use to capture it', over a 'this is a neat mechanic, let's imagine a narrative on the fly to justify it' approach, but again, matter of opinion.

But I will argue over the claim that the game hasn't changed, that it always worked that way, and that I don't understand the logic of the game if I think differently. My supposed failure to understand that hit points are 'abstract' is not the cause of me seeing 'damage on a miss' as a major change in the approach to the game.

 

[Tovec]

Speak for yourself. It makes perfect sense to me. As per my post 146, "this fighter is so unrelenting that every round of combat with him/her wears an opponent down".

See the 'immortal' example. There are many examples of creatures which should not be worn down - but through balance should probably still be hit by this ability. My route problem by the way has nothing to do with wearing down opponents. My issue has to do with doing so by not connecting a blow with them, the ensuing contradictions in existing mechanics, and the fact that this "hit" happens on a miss.

Create an ability that somehow bypasses DR to always do minimum strength damage to the target. Fine, I'm on board.
Create an ability that deals non-lethal damage to a creature in certain circumstances (say the line above this one.): Again, I don't see a problem as long as you hit.
Ensure that ALL of the restrictions on that list are followed (can't kill people, can't still hit on a 1, etc.) AND make it non-lethal - and then you are starting to approach what you are currently describing pemerton.

I surprisingly didn't see your answer of how this ability interacts with uncrittable creatures, damage reduction, poison, high DEX AC creatures, and so on - that I've been asking for for PAGES already. I suppose, I probably shouldn't have expected it.

Also, by "existing rules and mechanics of the game" I assume that you are excluding 4e, which has had this sort of effect from the beginning, and also 13th Age, a recently released D&D variant that also has this sort of effect baked into its core.

As you WELL know, my knowledge does not reside in 4e. And to the best of my knowledge 13th age has not been picked up by WotC or given the Dungeons and Dragons brand to incorporate it to be a full DnD product either.

No, I'm arguing through what I know of 3e and 5e mechanics as they exist. I'm not dealing with another system's responses (13th age). And try to avoid bringing up examples of 4e whenever I can. (And for the record, whenever I provide a solution from PF I do my best to make sure people know it is PF's and not 3e's.)

So, by the existing rules of 5e - many of which are carbon copies of 3e, so say many 4e supporters - do not support this special snowflake status of an ability.
Further, given the other mechanics that I have repeatedly given you, and the 'immortal' one given after my last post, have already been established and have clearly understood implications in the game.

For example, we know that some damage must be physical on every HIT because otherwise poisoned weapons wouldn't work. Or rather otherwise they would work on a miss - which they don't in my knowledge. Under that premise, which has been in play since 1e - given Celebrim's quoting - I have to assume 5e is partially physical on a HIT. On a MISS? Well now they're saying that on a miss of any degree, be that 1 under AC or a 1 on the roll (and let's further say a +0 to the roll?).. is still a hit because it bruises, tires, wounds, etc. the target. It doesn't make sense.

Go back and read Rodney's description (from the article), "we like to think of it as the fighter character striking the body of the target, and the armor (or hide) absorbing the brunt of the damage, but not all of it." That is what Damage Reduction is modeled on. If WotC wants to make better armor reduce damage on a blow they need to change how AC is calculated to make armor add to DR instead of AC. As it is, this description DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. So long as you continue to have armor makes you harder to hit, and does NOT reduce damage of an attack - this ability does not work as described.

So, no I don't know 4e or 13th ages description. But show me in 5e rules where this works the way described. And while you are at it, please show me how it hits the immortal who doesn't get tired. And how it is meant to work with damage reduction, and AC (wearing better full plate OR having a better DEX), and with poison, and so on and on and on.

I'm getting tired of being told I'm wrong without being proven it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I surprisingly didn't see your answer of how this ability interacts with uncrittable creatures, damage reduction, poison, high DEX AC creatures, and so on - that I've been asking for for PAGES already. I suppose, I probably shouldn't have expected it.

None of these is at issue, though, is it?
* Uncrittable creatures would take the SRT damage as usual.
* damage reduction (presumably you mean Damage Resistance, How to play p. 22) would halve damage as usual.
* poison damage would not be added
* high DEX AC creatures are affected as usual.

Are there any mechanical reasons to think differently?

What appears to be at issue is the story associated with each of these things, which you do not like (nor do I in all cases, FWIW; you seem to care more, however).

Fortunately, you are willing to let go of the narrative reason and focus on mechanics:

No, I'm arguing through what I know of 3e and 5e mechanics as they exist.

<snip>

I'm getting tired of being told I'm wrong without being proven it.

See post 105, where I did engage on a point-by-point basis with several of your specific claims, which were shown to be contrary to the rules of 5e as we have them. You have not answered those specific claims. To say you want further "proof" but ignoring that which has been given to you does not make for constructive conversation.

Let's take you at your word that what matters are the "5e mechanics as the exist." Where, then, is the problem with the mechanics?