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

[Klaus]

After 16 pages, I think the best compromise is this:

- Damage on a miss should be in the game, in some form, because there are players that prefer to guarantee a minimum level of efficiency instead of maximizing their strengths (due to poor luck, or whatever).

- A Fighting Style may not be the best form to include damage on a miss, as it might be too central a concept. Perhaps a feat of some sort (let's call this "Vicious Combatant"). Those who don't like the concept can simply ignore that element.

 

[pemerton]

the mechanic simply does not make sense as written for the general case.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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."

I notice the implicit assumption here that 4e is not part of the D&D tradition. (@TwoSix already noticed that 4e players, on your account, aren't roleplayers.)

In 4e the tiny fey you refer to would be minions, and therefore immune to all miss damage. I don't know how D&Dnext will handle that kind of corner case. It strikes me as having much the same status as a B/X scenario in which a mage is trying to cast spells inside a warehouse whose sacks full of pepper and like spices have been broken open. Where are the general rules for spell failure in conditions where sneezing is quite likely? Generations of players coped despite their absence!

Also, on hits points and physical damage, you haven't explained what you think is happening in AD&D when a target suffers hit point loss due to psionic attack.

 

[pemerton]

I originally claimed that there are no people against associated mechanics.

And this is what is false. There are some people who are against "assoicated" (process simulation) mechanics. As [MENTION=23716]Gadget[/MENTION] noted, they tend to bog the game down. (3E's grapple rules are just one well-known example of this. Encumbrance rules are another example that I don't like.)

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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

[MENTION=23484]Kobold Stew[/MENTION] tackled these upthread.

If an immortal creature can be killed, it can also be worn down. What else does its hit point loss represent?

If a creature is "uncrittable" (a 3E notion which I do not think has any currency in D&Dnext) why would it not take the damage? It can be worn down.

If a creature has damage reduction (a 3E notion which has, as its analogue in D&Dnext, damage resistance) why would that not apply normally?

If a creature has high AC, sucks to be it - it is being attacked by an opponent who can wear it down.

If a creature does bonus poison damage on a hit, and it misses, it wouldn't deal the poison damage because the trigger would not have been satisfied. I don't see the issue here.

As you WELL know, my knowledge does not reside in 4e.

In that case, I'm surprised that you are claiming that damage on a miss is at odds with the D&D tradition, given that you are by your own admission unfamiliar with a major recent component of that tradition.

 

[Tovec]

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.

Right, except by Rodney's definition of what is happening should change ALL of these.
If the attack is so brutal that it is somehow transitioning through the armor and harming the creature.. then it is at direct odds with all of these.

What is happening is effectively described as a power attack applied as a finesse action (using 3e-ish terms). In the case of power attacking ("attack so brutal") it should interact with damage reduction differently. If it is striking ("in a specific place due to training") then it is a sneak attack. There are already mechanics for this. But this is modeled differently. Worse, we know how those two effects relate to creatures and targets in the game world.

And yes I mean damage resistance. Different version of the same mechanic I call damage reduction.

My point is this is trying to get in after when damage resistance would be applied. You say it is halved as usual, but how? The description Rodney gave says that the fighter is hitting so hard that he still does STR. So, the targets armor is reducing the weapon section (something not necessarily equal to half - per the DR rules that exist) and that the STR gets through. Applying DR after that means you are applying it twice? The armor makes it so that you aren't doing W+STR and instead get STR... then apply whatever DR they would have (presumably armor-related) again to reduce the 3 to.. 1.5? If they want to have armor reduce the damage on an attack they can do that. But that isn't what it currently does. Armor currently increases AC. It makes attacks NOT connect in damaging ways. That is the explanation. Changing it works fine but that isn't what they are doing. They are special snowflaking. Further then, why is the 2H fighter the only one getting that? Shouldn't everyone apply their STR (maybe DEX) on attacks, on misses. W+ability score on hits. But that's not what they current have.

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.

I replied to post 105. You should look at my post 112.

You replied to me saying that I was wrong because I didn't allow for the attack roll. I replied by saying that the result of the roll was irrelevant. I received no further responses from you. So, yes proof would be good. All you did was say I was wrong because I said they didn't need to roll. They don't. They need to attack, but the result of the dice is meaningless. You hit because you deal damage, even if somehow managed to roll a 0 on a d20 you still do this. (You obviously still get the ability on a roll of 1.)

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?

If you don't know what my problem with the mechanic is yet, you aren't trying. I know I am. And if you aren't figuring it out yet, I recommend we quit this - you start.

@Kobold Stew tackled these upthread.

Addressed. You might want to read what I said to him.

If an immortal creature can be killed, it can also be worn down. What else does its hit point loss represent?

If an immortal creature, which needs not breath, eat, sleep, and so on, can be worn down through damage by physically wounding it....... you say should ALSO be killed by simply evading your attacks - even though there is no reason why it would be bogged down by simply flying around you.

My answer to what HP loss represents is the same as Celebrim already said, "If you connect, you are going to kill that thing." That is how you kill it. That is what HP loss represents. If you DON'T HIT and still manage to kill it?... yeah, then I don't know what HP represent anymore - and thus my issue with this mechanic.

If a creature is "uncrittable" (a 3E notion which I do not think has any currency in D&Dnext) why would it not take the damage? It can be worn down.

There is no concept of uncrittable in 5e? Weird. The uncrittable part only really mattered in the sense of avoiding sneak attacks/finesse attacks. I took for granted that something like it existed in 5e. Do HP, AC, Hit Dice, magic, different weapon damage dice, or skill checks no longer exist as well? I'm curious what else I've missed.

Now if there is a mechanic that deals with finessing/sneak attack immunity it should apply to this - via Rodney's description and reasoning. If not, then I withdraw my objection to "uncrittable."

If a creature has damage reduction (a 3E notion which has, as its analogue in D&Dnext, damage resistance) why would that not apply normally?

See above. Also, why wouldn't it?

Also, yes I'm familiar with 3e terminology, but as none of the three of us have any confusion over damage resistance instead of reduction I don't see why that is a sticking point. It just changes how the damage is reduced (how that reduction is calculated) not that it does/should reduce it.

If a creature has high AC, sucks to be it - it is being attacked by an opponent who can wear it down.

Sigh, right. But that is a flaw. High DEX translates to High AC. Having the best armor, likewise. If it no longer matters that you increased your AC that is a PROBLEM. Wearing down only works if you can actually do it. That immortal should not be worn down and die even though you never lay a blow on him. Ever. It doesn't make sense. If someone with this ability is fighting someone who is a trained soldier wearing full plate.. he should likewise never realistically be able to kill him through misses. Now I'm sure pemerton that you would say that the HP totals come into play but they shouldn't. The description you gave implies that the damage should all be non-lethal and tracked differently. Also, I recall many discussions about other topics where you point out that HP should not be a fighter's only measure of staying in the fight. This is the worst kind of that. Wearing armor should matter for how well or poorly you can stay in a fight. The armor itself might tire you out - MIGHT - but historically doesn't (in Dnd). And even if it did, there is no reason why you would be tired out (by wearing say.. leather armor) if your opponent MISSES.

You could come up with a half dozen explanations for how this works, one for every type of creature where it doesn't make sense for the others:
The leather armor guy is bruised (presumably for lethal damage). The plate armor guy is non-lethaled to death. The fighter tires out the buzzing immortal somehow. And the other "niche" cases like that.
But in so doing you are saying that this mechanic doesn't make sense. It no longer works consistently in a single way. And now I have to come up with the explanation for how it works each time. And you are also saying that I always have to adjudicate how the mechanic which should only do one thing - presumably a light lethal strike on a heavy swing (as Rodney describes) - is able to kill someone through tiring them out, bruises, or whatever that are different for every one of those half dozen types.

If a creature does bonus poison damage on a hit, and it misses, it wouldn't deal the poison damage because the trigger would not have been satisfied. I don't see the issue here.

Now I have to ask why not. If you are going to damage that immortal thing then you must hit even if it is the tiniest of scratches. Thus dealing minute damage (STR damage?). Presumably a regular attack that does minimum damage to the creature (with the W+STR) is still connecting with meat and dealing the poison. Also, where does it say that it does/should NOT cause poison? I get that it shouldn't but then again I still think that it shouldn't damage the flying immortal at all, when you miss.

In that case, I'm surprised that you are claiming that damage on a miss is at odds with the D&D tradition, given that you are by your own admission unfamiliar with a major recent component of that tradition.

I'm saying it is at odds with what I know. I don't know of 4e. I thus ignore it (as I largely ignore 2e and 1e and even exclude PF knowledge) from arguments.

Beyond that, yes it is at odds with the mechanics I do know of 3e. But worse it is at odds with 5e too. As I said up-post.. if it works as described as working (which doesn't currently make any sense) then it should apply across the board. All weapons and styles should be so expertly placed as to do STR (or DEX) to the target, on a miss. All of them. Not just the fighter.

This could quickly become an issue of fighter can't get good things (or however that goes), but my question remains that why the 2H fighter gets this in this circumstance when no one else does. To me it obviously doesn't make sense and it breaks my sense of verisimilitude. But I want to know why you think the fighter should be so snowflakey, especially if 4e apparently broke from this tradition of damage on a miss. Did only the 2H fighters in 4e get this ability too? (If yes, it would explain a lot now that I think about it.)

 

[Kobold Stew]

Right, except by Rodney's definition of what is happening should change ALL of these.

Not if you go by the rules as written.

I replied to post 105. You should look at my post 112.

Yes, and none of that addressed the multiple rules citations that I provided.

I received no further responses from you.

Since you had chosen not to answer the specifics I had raised about your post 102, I assumed you were still pulling together an argument, rather than simply ignoring inconvenient facts. As I said, if you read the rules differently, cite the passages from the rules that show where those you are speaking with are mistaken (me, in this case!).

So, yes proof would be good. All you did was say I was wrong because I said they didn't need to roll. They don't. They need to attack, but the result of the dice is meaningless. You hit because you deal damage, even if somehow managed to roll a 0 on a d20 you still do this. (You obviously still get the ability on a roll of 1.)

There's an interesting semantic distinction you are drawing between a player at a table saying "I attack" but not then rolling a die, and a player at a table saying "I attack" and rolling a d20. In the latter case, the player's character (the being in the shared fictional world created by those at the table) has attacked. It's not clear to me that that's the case in the former example, but speech-act theory could possibly support your claim. I'm not sure a plain reading of the rules does, however. In any case, it seems we agree that what you stated multiple times in post 102 was incorrect based on the rules in the test pack.

If you don't know what my problem with the mechanic is yet, you aren't trying. I know I am. And if you aren't figuring it out yet, I recommend we quit this - you start.

This again sounds like you are not interested in having a reasoned discussion. I do understand that you don't like the story that the rules imply:

To me it obviously doesn't make sense and it breaks my sense of verisimilitude.

See? This is a different problem. I'm sorry your sense of verisimilitude is broken. Fortunately, you never need to take this fighting ability, even if every single character you play in Next is a fighter.

 

[pemerton]

You hit because you deal damage, even if somehow managed to roll a 0 on a d20 you still do this.

That is not correct. You miss yet deal damage. "Hit" and "miss" are, on this account (as in fact they always have been) technical terms. Damage on a miss does not turn misses into hits. It is a new condition for dealing damage.

If it no longer matters that you increased your AC that is a PROBLEM. Wearing down only works if you can actually do it. That immortal should not be worn down and die even though you never lay a blow on him. Ever. It doesn't make sense. If someone with this ability is fighting someone who is a trained soldier wearing full plate.. he should likewise never realistically be able to kill him through misses.

<snip>

Wearing armor should matter for how well or poorly you can stay in a fight.

I don't understand. AC and amour still matter - there is a big difference between being worn down at the rate of 5 hp per round and being worn down at the rate of 10+ hp per round (1d8 sword +5 STR +1 or more from sundry other bonuses).

There is no concept of uncrittable in 5e? Weird. The uncrittable part only really mattered in the sense of avoiding sneak attacks/finesse attacks. I took for granted that something like it existed in 5e.

Feel free to point me to the relevant rule. I haven't noticed it, though.

Do HP, AC, Hit Dice, magic, different weapon damage dice, or skill checks no longer exist as well? I'm curious what else I've missed.

I assume that this is intended as snark and smart-arsery. Anyway, I believe that HP, AC and skill checks are defined in the How to Play document; that weapon damage dice are defined in that document and also in the Equipment document; and that magic is defined in that document and also the Spells document. I haven't been keeping track of Hit Dice, but last I looked they defined healing resources rather than the number and size of dice rolled to establish a creature's hit point total.

You seem outraged that terminology is changing, and rules concepts also. But it happens. Both the terminology and the concept of saving throws changed dramatically between AD&D and 3E, for instance. No one is obliged to like such changes (I don't particularly care for the 3E change to saving throws, for instance) but they're part and parcel of rules revision. It strikes me as a bit odd to rail against them as if the terminology and mechanical elements of D&D were laid up in heaven like Plato's forms.

Now if there is a mechanic that deals with finessing/sneak attack immunity it should apply to this - via Rodney's description and reasoning. If not, then I withdraw my objection to "uncrittable."

I do not believe that there is such a mechanic.

If you are going to damage that immortal thing then you must hit even if it is the tiniest of scratches. Thus dealing minute damage (STR damage?). Presumably a regular attack that does minimum damage to the creature (with the W+STR) is still connecting with meat and dealing the poison. Also, where does it say that it does/should NOT cause poison?

There are several things here. First, it has always been possible to inflict hit point loss in D&D without dealing "scratches" - phantasmal killer (hit point loss from fear) is one example. Maybe the immortal dies from exhaustion? Or from being pummelled to death (that happens often enough in the real world)?

As for poison, I am looking at the Areana on p 2 of the Bestiary, which requires a poison save on a hit. This is the typical way that poison has been handled in D&D, and I assume the Areana is typical of how it is handled in D&Dnext. Given that the fighter has missed, rather than hit, no poison save would be required.

And there is nothing especially odd about this. It is possible to be physically struck by a venemous creature or a poisoned blade yet not to be poisoned. (For instance, the fang/blade does not pierce clothing.)

If an immortal creature, which needs not breath, eat, sleep, and so on, can be worn down through damage by physically wounding it....... you say should ALSO be killed by simply evading your attacks - even though there is no reason why it would be bogged down by simply flying around you.

What immortal creature do you have in mind? Devils, demons, elves, earth elementals, etc can all be worn down.

I guess part of my problem is that I don't really understand your model of hit points. Presumably you concede that 5 or even 10 hp of damage dealt to a creature with 50 or 100 of them does not reflect any serious injury to that being, given that the being is in no danger of dying or even disability, and in fact is able to go about its business as if it were at full health. That is, the immortal can be worn down by attacks that don't seriously wound or inconvenience it. I would say that whatever is being done on those occasions by a hit, is also being done by this super-tough fighter on a miss. The fighter is just that unrelenting!

On the other hand, the same amount of damage - 5 or 10 hp - dealt to a 1st level being (kobold, goblin, villager, whatever) will be fatal. Therefore, a roll of 5 or 10 on the damage dice - the exact same mechanical event at the table - corresponds to different events in the fiction, depending on both the starting hit point total and the current hit point total of the target to whom the damage is dealt. Whatever interpretation of hit points you use to make sense of this - I get the sense that you see it as a bit like shaving meat of a spit, though I don't quite understand how that is meant to work as a biological/medical analogy - you can do the same sort of work to make sense of what 5 hp loss might mean to different targets. Conversely, if you don't worry about the fact that a given damage roll can mean something completely different in the fiction depending on the target to whom that damage is dealt, then presumably you might take the same relaxed attitude to the dealing of damage on a miss.

As I said, because I don't really get your model of hp, I don't follow your objection to wearing down immortals via relentless attacks.

My answer to what HP loss represents is the same as Celebrim already said, "If you connect, you are going to kill that thing." That is how you kill it. That is what HP loss represents. If you DON'T HIT and still manage to kill it?... yeah, then I don't know what HP represent anymore - and thus my issue with this mechanic.

As I've just said, I don't know what you think hit points represent at the moment. A hit to a fighter with 150 hp that deals 3 hp damage does not connect in any meaningful way. That fighter is not remotely injured or inconvenienced by that "hit". Whatever you think happens to that fighter when s/he is hit (by a kobold, say) for 3 hp of damage, the same thing happens to an immortal who is being worn down by a relentless fighter who does a minimum of 5 hp per round.

What is happening is effectively described as a power attack applied as a finesse action (using 3e-ish terms). In the case of power attacking ("attack so brutal") it should interact with damage reduction differently. If it is striking ("in a specific place due to training") then it is a sneak attack. There are already mechanics for this.

<snip>

The description Rodney gave says that the fighter is hitting so hard that he still does STR. So, the targets armor is reducing the weapon section (something not necessarily equal to half - per the DR rules that exist) and that the STR gets through. Applying DR after that means you are applying it twice? The armor makes it so that you aren't doing W+STR and instead get STR... then apply whatever DR they would have (presumably armor-related) again to reduce the 3 to.. 1.5? If they want to have armor reduce the damage on an attack they can do that. But that isn't what it currently does. Armor currently increases AC. It makes attacks NOT connect in damaging ways. That is the explanation. Changing it works fine but that isn't what they are doing. They are special snowflaking.

<snip>

You could come up with a half dozen explanations for how this works, one for every type of creature where it doesn't make sense for the others

<snip>

But in so doing you are saying that this mechanic doesn't make sense. It no longer works consistently in a single way.

<snip>

To me it obviously doesn't make sense and it breaks my sense of verisimilitude.

This is the bit that I really don't get. I take it as obvious that what Rodney Thompson said is by way of illustration only. For a start, given that not every creature has "armor/hide/scales" - say, a zombie or a lich - he is obviously not talking about those sorts of beings.

But more importantly, it is already the case that damage does not work consistently in a single way. As I've already pointed out, the meaning in the game of a roll of 5 or 10 hp on the dice changes dramatically based on the starting point and the current hit point total of the target. If the target has 50 total hp and is at full health when struck for 10 hp of damage, then those 10 hp represent nothing more than (perhaps) modest exertion in ducking the blow and perhaps a (radically non-fatal and not even debilitating) nick. If the target has 5 total hp and is at full strength than those 10 hp represent some form of fatal blow. Which is very far from being the same thing.

it is at odds with 5e too. As I said up-post.. if it works as described as working (which doesn't currently make any sense) then it should apply across the board. All weapons and styles should be so expertly placed as to do STR (or DEX) to the target, on a miss. All of them. Not just the fighter.

<snip>

why the 2H fighter gets this in this circumstance when no one else does.

<snip>

I want to know why you think the fighter should be so snowflakey

<snip>

Did only the 2H fighters in 4e get this ability too?

All sorts of characters in 4e can deal damage on a miss, depending on details of powers, feats etc. It's not uniquely a fighter thing, nor is it uniquely a two-handed weapon thing.

As to why everyone in 5e can't do it, because not everyone is a relentless fighter who will wear you down. It's a class feature. Why do the gods only answer the prayers of the clerics, no matter how devout another might be? That's a class feature too. I don't see why fighters shouldn't have class features, and being relentless in combat seems like a pretty apposite one to me.

 

[Li Shenron]

And this is what is false. There are some people who are against "assoicated" (process simulation) mechanics. As [MENTION=23716]Gadget[/MENTION] noted, they tend to bog the game down. (3E's grapple rules are just one well-known example of this. Encumbrance rules are another example that I don't like.)

I don't consider these at all cases of being against associated mechanics, but instead being against a level of complexity or simulationism that is considered excessive for their own playstyle.

 

[Mistwell]

I've got the 1e DMG. I can quote the relevant text. I'm familiar with 1e mechanics. I believe you are wrong. Hit points loss has always represented more than tissue damage, but it has never been divorced from tissue damage.

You inhale a poisonous gas for 2d6 points of damage.

 

[Celebrim]

You inhale a poisonous gas for 2d6 points of damage.

Are you suggesting toxins don't cause tissue damage?