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

[Li Shenron]

1) Good clarification for critical hits. Still, I am not wholly satisfied by the critical hits rules. It feels weird that everything is maximized except for one bonus dice. I think these would be improved if either all damage is rolled and you get bonus damage dice, or all damage is maximized.

2) This:

It might make sense to say something like, "If you attack the target and miss, but your roll was sufficient to hit the targets touch AC, you still do damage equal to your strength bonus." But saying, "Regardless of how hard it is to connect with the target, you still manage to do tissue damage.", is not something I can accept.

I think there is a fundamental issue here.

There are people who are OK with disassociated mechanics. But these people don't actually need disassociated mechanics, they are fine with either associated or disassociated.

And there are people who are NOT OK with disassociated mechanics. The weaker the association, the more people dislike the game.

An intelligent designer should immediately understand that associated mechanics are better, because they don't alienate anybody, while disassociated mechanics always alienate someone and should be avoided. It doesn't matter that we already have other disassociated mechanics in the game. Every additional disassociation lowers the tolerance threshold of a lot of gamers.

It's one thing to keep Hit Points in the game even if abstract, because removing Hit Points means to create a completely different system for damage and wounds. It's another thing to introduce weak explanations just to be able to keep a completely non-essential feature of a certain class into the game: if they can't find a strongly associated explanation for this mechanic, just ditch the mechanic.

Alternatively, adapt the mechanic to narrative rather than (weakly) adapting narrative to mechanics. Celebrim's suggestion is so much better because the association is so much stronger, even if the mechanical difference is apparently minimal.

3) Ok.

 

[1of3]

Would it help, if I proclaimed that I won't buy the game, if my fighter can't strike reapingly?

Anyway, with this rule for crits - and I endorse this rule - the Assassin's first feature needs to be rewritten.

 

[Morrus]

Agreed. Not sure why this is an issue.

It's an aesthetic. Aesthetics are a big part of why we like something or not.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I misread the thread title as "Crit Damage on a Miss" and thought "Hmmm ... now THERE'S a controversial mechanic!"

I'm envisioning "Roll a natural 1. Now roll to confirm. 1! Yeah! Now you get 'Crit on a Miss' damage!"

 

[Klaus]

I'm fine with damage on a miss.

PC: I attack with my longsword... (rolls)... 13.

DM: Not good enough.

PC: Okay, I miss with my longsword, but I shift my elbow just enough to catch him on the shoulder with it. I deal 3 damage despite the miss.

 

[Morrus]

I'm fine with damage on a miss.

PC: I attack with my longsword... (rolls)... 13.

DM: Not good enough.

PC: Okay, I miss with my longsword, but I shift my elbow just enough to catch him on the shoulder with it. I deal 3 damage despite the miss.

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

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

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

 

[Klaus]

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

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

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

Breakitude?

And the character I described *could* miss... with his sword. Back in 1e and 2e, an "attack" was actually a series of feits and jabs, and when you "hit", you just managed to connect one of those feints and jabs significantly. That's what I see happening for a character *who has the ability to deal damage on a miss*: even when he fails to connect a solid blow, he is wearing his opponent down. He is battering his opponent's defenses aside, which entail some hp damage, creating an opening that he then fails to take advantage of.

We already include exhaustion and fatigue as part of hit points. Why not say that battling our controversial fighter is taxing?

 

[Kinak]

It's one thing to keep Hit Points in the game even if abstract, because removing Hit Points means to create a completely different system for damage and wounds. It's another thing to introduce weak explanations just to be able to keep a completely non-essential feature of a certain class into the game: if they can't find a strongly associated explanation for this mechanic, just ditch the mechanic.

I think you get close to an important point with this. Including disassociated mechanics is a trade-off. If the rule makes the game enough better, it might be worth taking some flak for disassociated mechanics.

That said, I agree with you that damage on a miss isn't worth it. Particularly because it shines a bright light on hit points and AC, which have always been... poor fits, but aren't going to change. It's easier if we just let people paper over those than tearing the covering off.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Morrus]

Breakitude?

And the character I described *could* miss... with his sword. Back in 1e and 2e, an "attack" was actually a series of feits and jabs, and when you "hit", you just managed to connect one of those feints and jabs significantly. That's what I see happening for a character *who has the ability to deal damage on a miss*: even when he fails to connect a solid blow, he is wearing his opponent down. He is battering his opponent's defenses aside, which entail some hp damage, creating an opening that he then fails to take advantage of.

We already include exhaustion and fatigue as part of hit points. Why not say that battling our controversial fighter is taxing?

Don't get me wrong, man. I understand it.

I don't like it.

 

[Klaus]

Don't get me wrong, man. I understand it.

I don't like it.

Wibbly-wobbly Hit-Pointey-Wimey... stuff!