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

[Tovec]

CRAZY LONG POST AHEAD. Spoiled into pieces.
[sblock=Kobold Stew]

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!).

[sblock]

Each of these claims is false (mistaken, as I see it) based on what is stated in the rules of the testpack.
* In order to "miss", the fighter's player does need to make an attack roll (and so be in combat and choosing to make an attack roll as her action) -- How to play, p. 19 "Attack basics".
* damage dice are only rolled on a hit, and zero is not a result that ever arises -- How to play, p. 20 "damage rolls"
* to gain the benefit described as a first-level character (others can get it at higher levels), the character needs to be a fighter who has chosen one of five fighting styles (Classes, p. 25), and the character needs to "miss a target with a melee weapon which you are wielding with two hands". There are therefore a number of conditions that need to be met, and snapping fingers , even one handed, would mean that they are not being met.
* indeed the rules do describe circumstances which are "so easy, so free of stress or conflict...that there should be no chance of failure" (DM Guidelines, p. 1) in which rolls are not needed -- which may be taken to include your "zero effort". Since a melee attack roll is needed, this by definition isn't one of those circumstances, and the specific rule provides a unique case in which the "chance of failure" to roll a weapon's damage die, modified, etc., does damage to the target in any case.
* snapping isn't "improvising an action" either: a DM may allow you to snap fingers while wielding a two-handed weapon, etc. (How to play, p. 19), but the damage will be done by the attack.

The Bold attempt to counter where I say you don't need a roll to hit.
The Italics are for "you don't need a roll for damage".
The Underline talk of counters to snapping.
Strikethrough is for some strange rebuttal against "no effort" which I don't even understand.

All of which I addressed in post 112. I'm using the same emphasis system:

I understand that. What I am saying is that he doesn't need to roll - because no matter what the roll result is he kills the villager. If the fighter rolls a 20 he kills the villager. If he rolls a 1 he kills the villager. He doesn't need to roll. He still needs to "attack" but he doesn't need to roll.

He doesn't need to roll damage. If the villager has 3 HP and the fighter can do 4-25k damage, he doesn't need to roll damage. This means that even if he could roll 0 on damage dice (which as far as I know - by itself - is impossible) he would kill the villager.

Alright, this one is fair - except you again miss the point I am making. I'm not suggesting that the fighter can (or should be able to) snap his fingers and get this effect to occur. However, my issue is that he deals 3 damage to the villager based upon his strength. As such it doesn't matter what the weapon damage is dealing - at all. He may as well snap his fingers, or whistle, or dance around. So long as he "attacks" he automatically kills the villager because he is just so strong.

Right, but when a 1 means he still does this - he doesn't need to roll. His zero effort means that as long as he gets to attack the villager - even while blindfolded - he kills that villager. Without any effort. He doesn't need to roll an attack. He doesn't need to roll damage. He could have disadvantage on his rolls. The villager could be wearing full plate. He could be the most dextrous guy in the world (really high AC). And still the fighter kills him with zero effort - not needing to roll, because on a 1 on every die he kills the guy. The rogue sure as hell doesn't do that. He still needs to sneak attack, or poison, or position, or whatever.

And as far as this last point, which does not observe the previous formatting, I did reply to it as well. But I suspect that it is the real crux of the issue here. Thus, why I am separating it.

* I get that people's understanding of what hit points represent varies, so again, let's read what's been given to us (How to play, p. 22): "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Hit points are an abstraction..." Of the four things here, only one of them (physical durability) pertains to the circumstances you describe, as I see it, leaving the other three that could be represented by the damage that is being done to your hypothetical villagers.

So, to quote from my last post: "I received no further responses from you." If you feel that I left things unaddressed - and I presumably did not feel this - I don't see how it is my responsibility to continually reopen and readdress things with which you are dissatisfied. Especially since I feel they are resolved. Oh, and if I still haven't "answered" these points - you have REALLY got to respond instead of taking a backseat and just assuming I will read your mind.[/sblock]

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.

I try not to break up someone's post like this - taking a line out of context but since you raise "interesting semantic distinction" I think I should reply to it before continuing.

First, I have repeatedly given my justification for this interesting distinction. As I said in post 112 - the result of the roll is irrelevant. As I said in my previous post if the result of the roll is a 1 (the minimum you can roll on any die as far as I know.) and this ability still works without a hitch - then that is a problem. So, while it may be an interesting distinction, I have definitely described it over and over in this way. That is why my replies in 112 were phrased the way they were. At no point am I saying that an attack (and subsequent miss) are not necessary. I am saying the result of the d20 (what number comes up, and how that number plus bonuses equates to AC) is not necessary when you automatically kill the creature on a 3 and have weapon damage capable of dealing 3+W and you kill on a hit or a miss.

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.

Never questioned that he attacked. Nor did I question that he missed. I questioned that the missed attack should HURT, but never that he made an attack. In fact I would absolutely stipulate that the attack ("I attack") is necessary. Absolutely. This I all said back in 112. I believe I said as much earlier than 112, but I said words very similar to what I have just said AT LEAST since 112.

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:

What I am not interested in is repeating myself ad nauseam. I am not interested in that because I have limited energy at the moment. I am still recovering from surgery for the past few months and I'm still not back to my old self. I can read endless stuff but replying takes a lot of time and effort out of me. So, I don't have endless patience for when I feel people are ignoring all I say.

Beyond that, I am sorry. I should not have suggested you quit the conversation. I personally hate when people do that, on either side of an issue. My aggravation at apparently not communicating myself well is starting to grind on my nerves and on this conversation - it is the last thing I do now because of how much apprehension I have discussing this.

The reason I don't quit is because I still feel strongly that this mechanic makes no sense.

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.

Perhaps we are using verisimilitude in different ways. I don't see how that one word would suddenly change the context of all I have been saying. Please enlighten me.

As far as "it is not broken because you don't have to take/use it," well we all know where those conversations go. All I am going to say is that that statement is false. 2+2 =/= 5, even if I don't use 2s or 5s (however that works). I would still have to encounter them and the math is still based around them, or in this case the system is still based with thinks like "damage on a miss is fine" when it shouldn't be. And worse yet, when they're working on 6e someone is going to look back to 5e when this gets through and say "see, it was in 5e - therefore it should be in 6e."

But no. I have no interest in starting the conversation that extends from "it isn't broken because you don't have to take/use it." I'm quitting that one before it begins. If you reply to any part of this, I will not. You win.[/sblock]

[sblock=pemerton]

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.

It does turn them into hits when dealing damage and not dealing damage have been defined as hits and misses respectively.

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).

The rate we have been using are 3 and W+3, but that doesn't really matter.

But yes there is a big difference. In fact, prior to this one ability, the AC itself makes most of that difference. Taking a death (if the fighter just got to whack you over and over) and turning it into a series of unsuccessful attacks. Now, with this ability, the fighter can now tire you out? and eventually kills you without ever solidly landing a single attack (what you say is a "hit").

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.

You seem to be misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying there IS a term for uncrittable. In fact I'm saying I'm surprised there isn't one.

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.

Pot? Hello, this is kettle? What's your deal in calling me black?

But no, I wasn't being snarky or smart-assing you. I'm sure all those things have made it into the packet. I'm also sure there are some minor aspects that I assume made it but have not. I haven't read the packet straight through and I'm sure there are pieces I've missed. Even playing a few playtests never came up with uncrittable not being in the packet - it is relatively niche in and of itself. It is however another in a long list of things that this hit on a miss would affect. I considered it withdrawn as I SAID last post.

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.

Outraged? No.
And yes terminology changes. As you can see by my references to how Damage Reduction that I was talking about, is now damage Resistance in 5e. I don't object, nor am I outraged that such a thing happens. I suggest you go back and look at those parts that you are quoting here - about 'uncrittible not being in the packet' - and see that I am surprised and that I am withdrawing my particular objection in such a case. As I said last time.

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.

Fair enough. Thus, withdrawn.

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)?

Phantasmal killer is hurting your brain. Your brain is then making you think you are dying. It kills you by hurting your mind. It is doing HP damage and still must HIT to do it. As far as how that works? I suppose it is a closure of the physical realm type thing. It is possible to say that the phantasmal killer should do some other form of damage, or even outright kill the target, but yeah, the mind makes it real.

If you want to discuss phantasmal killer in greater length, we can. I don't really want to but we can. It is magic and it obeys different rules but for right now (as I previously said), "your mind makes it real." How is debatable.

What any of this has to do with a guy wielding a greatsword, I can't seem to figure out. So returning to "scratches" .. When the fighter is swinging his sword he has to HIT the buzzing immortal (was it some sort of pixie? I'm starting to forget the details Celebrim gave). If he does not, there is no reason why he should tire out the immortal faster than he himself tires out, swinging over and over without successfully hitting.

And in either situation there is no reason why the flying immortal should be harmed from a miss, at all. Rodney's description doesn't make sense. The fighter isn't hitting the immortal, dealing a blow through the armor and causing it to tire out. Simply put, if the fighter misses this extremely small and hard to hit target, there is no reason for any part of his blow to go through the tiny immortal's armor and deal at least some damage - he isn't rolling over the target's AC. And if he does hit (does roll higher than AC) there is a decent chance he will kill it outright.

Representing 3 hp loss per round (or per attack specifically) doesn't track and doesn't make sense in the situation provided. It is a little arbitrary how it was set up, but it works perfectly well barring DM intervention - yet it breaks what should be happening due to existing mechanics. Or rather how the mechanics would work in all situations in 5e as they are now, if this damage on a miss (for the one snowlfakey fighter) were not in the rules.

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.

The "not be poisoned" has more to do with the resolution of a fortitude/constitution save. This situation, dealing enough force through the armor, that Rodney provides should not "Still take damage from the weapon." (p. 23, Classes - that's right, I'm quoting the book too.) and should not therefore cause a poisoned weapon to cause anyone to roll a poison save. A glaring hole in the explanation of the ability.

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.)

A venomous [snake] can be defeated by simple leather. It surely doesn't cause damage to translate through plate. Also, the snake has to HIT YOU.

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

The immortal I was using was Celebrim's example.

And yes, again we agree that they can be worn down through damage. To cause said damage you have to ATTACK, HIT, and DEAL DAMAGE. There is no reason that devils, demons, or earth elementals to be simply tired out by AVOIDING an attack. As Celebrim points out, the fighter should tire out much faster than the dude evading that attack.

And elves have no special measures, as they are not immortal - are they?! *checks* No, they live "more than 700 years." (p. 3, Races) That is a relief. It is also the kind of thing I'm talking about though. It is niche and wouldn't have effected a playtest. It does matter though, just as uncrittable would.

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!

First let me say that I have no problems with NOT having a death spiral even though it is much more realistic to have one.

Second, I can perfectly well understand you don't know how I model HP. I don't think I've ever really explained it. What I can tell you is that all hits from a weapon (wielded by anyone) I consider to be fleshy. 5 or 10 HP loss for someone with 50 or 100 is a relatively minor hit - a scratch. But it is a hit none the less. If it is a bludgeoning weapon then it is something causing a bruise - it'll be tender in the morning. It is also something that allows poison to get into a system. It is something that can be reduced through some sort of damage reduction typically.

Third, yes it is not a serious injury (by itself, ignoring all other bonuses (which I'm assuming you are)).

Fourth, and yes, Immortals can be worn down through a series of relatively minor hits. Although to be fair, I'm from 3e - when the devil is actually taking 5-10 damage he has probably reduced it already, so that is damage after the DR.

Fifth, I don't see how you go from "yes, not a serious injury" and "yes, can be worn down" to say "whatever is being done on a hit is also being done on a miss." It just doesn't track. Your conclusion is not drawn from the premises.

Sixth, the fighter's ability to be unrelenting is fine. He should have a greater stamina to be unrelenting. He should have some capability to deal extra damage perhaps, or ensure that a minimum is going to go straight through a target's DR (say STR as a convenient example). That does NOT mean that he should have an ability to be so unrelenting ... that he is able to supernatural hit and deal damage when he misses entirely.

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.

Seventh, "X amount of damage that does not kill one person could kill another" has been around since 1e. The answer has been the same since then. Celebrim brought up what that means and my answer is largely the same as his was. So for my money or at least my reasoning, some amount of damage (every time there is a hit, and after DR) is going to be physical. For the higher level characters it is not a killing blow to the chest and is largely luck, fate, or what not. But ostensibly the attack hits meat at least a little. So, some of it might be luck, making a blow that would kill someone else into a blow that barely scratches you. So 5 hp for one creature is not the same as 5 hp for another. That is why I can accept that 5 hp is going to kill the kobold but a high level fighter can fall off cliffs and live.

Eighth, that does not translate to this ability at all. If the ability were 1/10th of the target's total HP per miss - it would still suck. Suck less for villagers but still suck and not make sense in the same ways it currently sucks and not makes sense.

Ninth, I don't see where I make allusions to either shaved meat, or medical analogies, but alright.

Tenth, you go and skip a step again. Again your conclusion isn't drawn from your premises. You say that because I can see that 5 hp for a kobold isn't the same as 5 hp for a high level fighter - that attacks and misses no longer mean anything. While there is an element of truth, I think the game designers should try to reduce the frequency of that, not increase it. But, even so, NO, I don't see those as the same thing. If the fighter did this by missing an attack by 5 or something it would still be dumb but it would make a LOT more sense than it currently does. As would any of the other proposed changes (more damage, minimum damage, and so on) that I have raised before. My objection sits firmly in it being 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.

Hopefully you now understand more my thoughts on HP. As far as my objection: There is no reason why MISSING endlessly should in anyway affect the immortal. Or at least why it should affect him any more than it does the fighter. So as Celebrim says, the fighter should be taking the STR damage per round. Or more likely, ALL creatures in a fight should be taking a base level "tiring" damage per round of combat. Him missing has should have no impact on the immortal creature.

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.

Ignoring this ability:
A fighter deals 3 damage (or rather minimum 4, because W+3) to the target with 150 hp. He has to hit. The blow is relatively minor and the fight continues. Eventually, assuming the fighter hits often enough, he is able to kill the target.

Now with the ability:
A fighter deals 3 damage to the target with 150 hp. He doesn't have to hit. The blow is not actually a blow because it is a measure of the fighter managing to tire his target out. He only tires the target out in melee and only manages to tire him out by missing. Eventually the fighter may even kill his target, through missing. He kills him faster if he hits of course but then the "tiring him out" no longer applies. Also, regardless of how tiring the fight is the fighter retains all his HP on a miss from his opponent... somehow.

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.

Since it is the only explanation we have from Rodney, it is all I can base my replies to.
But what you are saying here I already covered last post.

So, yes, there is one explanation for armor. Another for liches. Another for immortals. One for high AC due to DEX. Another for high AC due to armor. And so on and so on and so on. Tell me, how often are there this many VERY different descriptions for the same basic effect for other abilities. Fire may or may not burn someone, but it doesn't burn one person, cause non-lethal for another, affect poison in a third, etc.

I say that it brings up these extra things because the objections to what you say (tiring out) vs. what Rodney says (so fierce it goes through the armor) are VERY different in what should be happening mechanically in the rules if this ability did not exist. Yours is foiled if creatures are immune to being fatigued. Rodney's does not incorporate damage reduction (sorry, resistance). The basic description allows poison to work but neither of you seem to propose descriptions where it should. Do you start to see the problem?

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.

You replied with my "it works differently" with ... "it deals different amounts." [sarcasm] Wow. Yes you have won sir. [/sarcasm]

Those are not the same. Yours is described as tiring targets out until they die of exhaustion. Rodney describes where DR should apply. Those are different things entirely. Not different NUMBERS.

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.

Is it consistent with any edition except 4e? That is all I need to know before I know how to formulate my response.

What I can say before you answer that I said last time, if all sorts of 4e can do it.. why not let everyone in 5e do it? Why don't DEX attackers deal DEX damage on a miss. Let all fighters deal STR on a miss, all weapons all the time. You could even open it up to casters dealing INT (or applicable score) to misses.

As to why everyone in 5e can't do it, because not everyone is a relentless fighter who will wear you down.

I didn't realize that all other characters were not trying to wear you down. I had no idea it was limited to a guy wielding a 2 handed weapon who was the only one who could do this, by missing.

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.

"It is a class feature," is not an explanation for anything that is not magic. If it IS magic then I have a whole new can of worms to deal with. And I know that if it is magic you have no problems with that, because they did that in 4e too, but I still do and it goes against what I've seen of 5e as well.[/sblock]

This of course makes sense of the high AC is the result of being able to deflect blows. It makes no since in the general case of an AC that represents the ability to avoid blows. In this case, no wearing down is taking place. By your 'damage = fatigue' model, it's the guy swinging the sword who should be losing hit points on a miss!

This.

No, I don't imagine you would. After all, the rules are clear, right?

And as long as the rules are clear pemerton doesn't care if they make sense. Celebrim is too nice to say that, but I'm no longer so patient.

 

[pemerton]

It does turn them into hits when dealing damage and not dealing damage have been defined as hits and misses respectively.

Can you please cite that definition? It is not one that the rules use - obviously - given that they include, as a possible consequence of a miss, the dealing of damage! Page 2 of the "How to Play" document defines a hit as an attack roll which, after relevant bonuses and penalties are applied, equals or exceeds the AC of the target.

Now, with this ability, the fighter can now tire you out? and eventually kills you without ever solidly landing a single attack (what you say is a "hit").

<snip>

Phantasmal killer is hurting your brain. Your brain is then making you think you are dying. It kills you by hurting your mind. It is doing HP damage and still must HIT to do it. As far as how that works? I suppose it is a closure of the physical realm type thing. It is possible to say that the phantasmal killer should do some other form of damage, or even outright kill the target, but yeah, the mind makes it real.

<snip>

we agree that they can be worn down through damage. To cause said damage you have to ATTACK, HIT, and DEAL DAMAGE.

Obviously if this ability is in play then damage can be dealt without hitting on an attack. At the mechanical level, the player has a "fiat" ability - s/he can simply declare an attack and thereby bring it about that, in the fiction, the target is somewhat worn down. In the fiction, the fighter in question is so unrelenting that every 6 seconds of combat with this guy guarantees that the target will be on a trajectory towards death.

I don't know what you think the attack roll models, and so I don't know what you think it's exclusion from the resolution process is modelling. But presumably you are familiar with the idea of games with fate points, which players can spend in order to fiat outcomes rather than rely on the dice? In that case, it might help you to think of this ability as building into the fighter a fate point resource for the player - every time the fighter attacks, the player has a little fate point s/he can play which says "No matter what the dice say, you take at least 3 (or 5, or whatever) damage from this attack".

When the fighter is swinging his sword he has to HIT the buzzing immortal (was it some sort of pixie? I'm starting to forget the details Celebrim gave). If he does not, there is no reason why he should tire out the immortal faster than he himself tires out, swinging over and over without successfully hitting.

<snip>

the fighter's ability to be unrelenting is fine. He should have a greater stamina to be unrelenting. He should have some capability to deal extra damage perhaps

The fighter does have a capability to deal extra damage - namely, this ability! And why should the fighter tire him/herself out quicker than the pixie. The point of this ability is to model an unrelenting fighter. S/he strikes so swiftly and viciously that the pixie gets worn down, and loses the energy to dodge, more quickly than against an ordinary foe.

Tell me, how often are there this many VERY different descriptions for the same basic effect for other abilities.

I already answered this - every time you roll a damage die you have to vary your description based on both the base hit points and the current hit points of the target. The need to vary your description of what happens when you deal damage on a miss based on the circumstances of the target, and the ingame context, is no different.

And on that topic:

5 or 10 HP loss for someone with 50 or 100 is a relatively minor hit - a scratch.

<snip>

Immortals can be worn down through a series of relatively minor hits.

<snip>

Eventually, assuming the fighter hits often enough, he is able to kill the target.

No one ever got killed by a scratch, or even a cumulation of scratches. (Putting tetanus infections to one side.) So presumably, the 5 hp loss for the immortal with 100 total hp but only 5 current hp is something more than a scratch. That is, exactly the same game mechanical process - rolling an attack die and then rolling a damage die - means something different in the fiction depending on the context, including the status of the target.

The fact that the in-game meaning of damage on a miss can similarly vary is no dramatic new thing.

as long as the rules are clear pemerton doesn't care if they make sense

It's against board rules to insult other posters, so I'd rather that you didn't.

The rule makes perfect sense. It is a fiat mechanic, like a fate point mechanic, that empowers the player of the fighter to impose a certain vision of the fighter upon the fiction: namely, this fighter is so relentless that 6 seconds of combat with him/her will always wear an opponent down.

Of course those who like process simulation mechanics don't like it, but that tells us nothing about its coherence as a mechanic. The real puzzle for me, as always, is why people who like process simulation mechanics would play D&D rather than (say) Runequest or HARP.

 

[bogmad]

that is silly, which is why the designers are very clear that this ability, if used, is to be ADJUDICATED BY THE DM.... in that very FAQ they say a 1 can still truly miss as well.

I think a lot of folks, myself included at first, are looking at this in a VERY black and white fashion, whereas the tone of the designers is nothing of the sort. Its just an idea to run with. All the stupid possibilities that might result are why the game has a DM.

Where are they clear with this ability? Reading the fighter description of Great Weapon Fighting I don't see it anywhere. It's not an "idea to run with" as described in the of the mechanics for the class.
They could emphasize an approach in the DM Guidelines, I don't doubt, but there's been enough going back and forth about page 43 that I don't think just emphasizing DM improvisation is enough to really resolve the issue. The amount that the mechanics are something "ADJUDICATED BY THE DM" vary a considerable deal according to the playstyle of the DM and the group he's playing with.

A "clear" mention in a FAQ doesn't seem enough to please everyone. Saying "a 1 still misses, and a DM can decide not to add the damage on a whim" is just more wonky than saying "you do strength mod damage if you miss the creature's AC by 10 or less"

I'm trying not to look at the issue as black and white; I like the idea behind the feature. I think the implementation just doesn't work for everybody and there's a way to improve that doesn't tick one side off so much.

 

[Campbell]

Some people look at this is an issue of too little process simulation. I see it as too much - when damage on a miss happens on every single attack roll it must always fit the fictional positioning in every instance. When players have a wider array of effects to call on I find there is less strain on each effect to be justified in every situation.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I appreciate the time you spent composing it. I'm sorry you've decided not to continue.

I am also very sorry to hear about your surgery. I hope it went well, and that you are recovering quickly.

I'll be brief:

(1)

As I said in post 112 - the result of the roll is irrelevant.
<snip>
At no point am I saying that an attack (and subsequent miss) are not necessary.
<snip>
Never questioned that he attacked.
<snip>
What I am not interested in is repeating myself ad nauseam.

When I read post 102 I see you claiming precisely this five times.

(2)

So, I don't have endless patience for when I feel people are ignoring all I say.

Please believe that I am not ignoring what you say. I'm not sure I felt as strongly at that time about this issue as I do now, and part of this increased conviction emerges from the process of thinking about and responding to your posts. That's not the result you want, of course, but please believe that it has been serious engagement on my part. I have been thinking about your position, and your arguments have helped form my current beliefs.

(3)

Beyond that, I am sorry. I should not have suggested you quit the conversation. I personally hate when people do that, on either side of an issue.

Apology accepted.

(4)

Perhaps we are using verisimilitude in different ways. I don't see how that one word would suddenly change the context of all I have been saying. Please enlighten me.

On the one hand, in the passage I cited, you claim to be concerned about the mechanics, the rules of the game and how they cohere or fail to cohere. On the other hand, in the next passage I cited, you are concerned with verisimilitude, the player's interpretation of the imagined world that is represented by the mechanics. Mechanics govern the experience at the table; verisimilitude is the player's engagement with the shared fictional world. They influence each other but, in my view, are important to keep separate.

I hope that helps.

(5)

And worse yet, when they're working on 6e someone is going to look back to 5e when this gets through and say "see, it was in 5e - therefore it should be in 6e."

I'm pleased you are fighting for future generations. It shows how important you feel it is. Way back in post 49, I found it incredible that this was credulity-straining above all else. You've taught me otherwise.

In contrast, I see this as a comparatively small issue, and I don't think it was noticed on these boards before it was brought to our notice in the Q&A.

I expect that in the end the rule for heavy-weapon fighters when the game is published will be very different than the one we have now. In that sense you're safe. I'll play the game whether it's there or not, and I'll keep playing it through the coming months even though the rule is in the testpack. Will I ever see it used in that time? I have no idea. But perhaps, with more play experience, my view will shift.

If the rule is in the final game, then I hope you will find a way to enjoy your rpg time, either with these rules or playing something else. That's your call, of course. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing what you have to say about this and other topics.

Be well.

 

[MJS]

Where are they clear with this ability? Reading the fighter description of Great Weapon Fighting I don't see it anywhere. It's not an "idea to run with" as described in the of the mechanics for the class.
They could emphasize an approach in the DM Guidelines, I don't doubt, but there's been enough going back and forth about page 43 that I don't think just emphasizing DM improvisation is enough to really resolve the issue. The amount that the mechanics are something "ADJUDICATED BY THE DM" vary a considerable deal according to the playstyle of the DM and the group he's playing with.


A "clear" mention in a FAQ doesn't seem enough to please everyone. Saying "a 1 still misses, and a DM can decide not to add the damage on a whim" is just more wonky than saying "you do strength mod damage if you miss the creature's AC by 10 or less"


I'm trying not to look at the issue as black and white; I like the idea behind the feature. I think the implementation just doesn't work for everybody and there's a way to improve that doesn't tick one side off so much.

Suffice it to say this mechanic is a miss, and it's done damage. : )

 

[urLordy]

The rule makes perfect sense. It is a fiat mechanic, like a fate point mechanic, that empowers the player of the fighter to impose a certain vision of the fighter upon the fiction: namely, this fighter is so relentless that 6 seconds of combat with him/her will always wear an opponent down.

Of course those who like process simulation mechanics don't like it, but that tells us nothing about its coherence as a mechanic.

<unlurk>
I might be overly picky here, but I don't understand the usage of the words "perfect" and "coherence".

For example, say there is a raging barbarian, a two weapon fighter, and a great weapon fighter. Presumably, in the fiction, all three enact a relentless onslaught (savage sweeps and smashes, fearful whirlwind of dagger and sword, and great sweeps of heavy weapon) and inflict a measure of exhaustion, morale, etc from their opponent. However, mechanics and gameplay don't necessarily reflect this for all three, especially if only the latter inflicts damage on a miss.

Or take another example, a low-level fighter with Great Weapon Fighting and a high-level fighter without that mechanic. Say a couple rounds of combat where both players fumble the die roll and get two misses in a row. The low level fighter kills the opponent after 2 misses, but the high level fighter causes no damage at all. Presumably, however, the high level fighter in the fiction is a much more fearsome opponent, and yet the mechanic arbitrates otherwise in such a case.

Admittedly, this kind of disconnect happens all the time in D&D especially in corner cases. I just don't understand why you chose to use "perfect" and "coherence". Those judgement values don't mesh at all with many people's playstyle, I don't think.

 

[TwoSix]

Or take another example, a low-level fighter with Great Weapon Fighting and a high-level fighter without that mechanic. Say a couple rounds of combat where both players fumble the die roll and get two misses in a row. The low level fighter kills the opponent after 2 misses, but the high level fighter causes no damage at all. Presumably, however, the high level fighter in the fiction is a much more fearsome opponent, and yet the mechanic arbitrates otherwise in such a case.

That IS an interesting result, and probably results in an interesting story! It is a pretty weak enemy if the low-level fighter kills it in 2 misses. That's what, 10 HP max, assuming the low level fighter already has a 20 Str. Maybe the high-level fighter was toying with it. Maybe the enemy was focused on the more fearsome fighter, and that let the low-level guy through.

 

[steeldragons]

Suffice it to say this mechanic is a miss, and it's done damage. : )

Heh. I see what you did there.

 

[bogmad]

That IS an interesting result, and probably results in an interesting story! It is a pretty weak enemy if the low-level fighter kills it in 2 misses. That's what, 10 HP max, assuming the low level fighter already has a 20 Str. Maybe the high-level fighter was toying with it. Maybe the enemy was focused on the more fearsome fighter, and that let the low-level guy through.

Which is easier to explain to a beginning player? If we have to give a lesson on game mechanics theory, and why a miss still doing damage is some sort of "narrative token" every new kid just picking up the game should be able to explain away, then perhaps the game is too complicated.

Anything can be an interesting story if you justify it, but if you make common simple mechanics require new and different narrative justifications as a matter of course, then players just stop bothering to do the imaginative work and it turns into a game more about the numbers than what they represent.