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

[pemerton]

Older editions can be appreciated for their contributions to past and ongoing games but are not part of the argument for me for how a modern RPG should be designed.

Well, you did ask for clarification. And I provided it.

That's world-building. If you don't find it compelling how magic works in a D&D setting, that's fine but it's not the same thing.

I don't see how it is world-building to say that mages never forget their magic formulae, or never speak them wrongly. In real life people forget particular forms of words; and there is certainly genre precedent for it being possible to say the words wrong.

Among more-or-less mainstream fantasy RPGs D&D is quite unusual in this respect, which was the point I was making.

You might as well say that a player has fiat authority that his PC will never have diarrhea affecting his ability to go adventuring. I find these comparisons to be distracting from the main issue, sorry!

Well that's the issue, isn't it. Why is a mage forgetting the words or fouling up the gestures in the same realm of absurdity as diarrhea, but a fighter always missing on a 1 is not? My suggestion: nothing but habit and familiarity. Hence, my prediction that any one who was to start playing with autodamaging great weapon fighters would have no trouble with it, and would internalise it as a piece of fiat just as they do spell casting. They would treat the possibility that this PC might fail to wear down a foe somewhat in the course of 6 seconds of engagement as being in the same realm as absurdity as being unable to go adventuring because of diarrhea.

It is different for people, you just don't accept it as a subjective valid truth?

I don't understand the question. I know some people are happy with fiat in some places and not others. (More often they don't mind it on casters but don't like it on non-magical abilities.) I'm expecting the game to change to accommodate their preferences.

I'm also waiting for this same group of players to turn on Ace in the Hole, which is much the same thing as far as I can see (namely, player dice manipulation without magic as an ingame explanation).

When I think you're ready to accept the opinions of those playing D&D in pseudo-sim 1st player perspective, I might hazard to explain further

Obviously it's your prerogative to reply to questions or not, but if you think that I'm being disingenuous in my posts you've made a mistake. You asked for clarification and I provided it in good faith.

Also, if by "ready to accept" you mean "ready to share" then that is a fairly high threshold for a message board posting. I'm not expecting you to abandon your dislike of the mechanic, and I'm not sure why you would expect me to abandon my acceptance of it, or my view that it is neither incoherent nor undesirable nor some sort of necessary concession to expedience.

 

[bogmad]

For short lets call these dodge, parry, absorb and apply them to 3 simple antagonists: Pixie (Dodge), Orc (Parry) and Dragon (Absorb). The nature of a hit, or rather a miss, can now have a different fictional position in which the damage on a miss can be resolved. In fiction, I think we can all easily agree that each opponent here is using different tactics in combat.

The positioning of the defense can be either passive (part of the monster description) or an active fictional positioning during combat:

The Orc, pummeled by your attacks chooses a more cautious approach and begins to avoid (dodge) your incoming blows, rather than parry them and stay close to you.

The trigger for narrative damage on a miss can now become "when an opponent parries or absorbs your blows, you still do X damage even when you fail to beat their defenses."

It works for the orc (parry) example, but the problem is when the mechanic fails to work for the Pixie (dodge) situation. Change the parameters a bit to where the huge size of your weapon means you score a glancing blow to the Pixie by rolling just below AC, or miss entirely on a 1 (or 1-5, etc), and then it's easier for me to come up with a trigger for the narrative damage that makes sense.

 

[urLordy]

Well, you did ask for clarification. And I provided it.

I just saw apples to oranges sorry.

I don't see how it is world-building to say that mages never forget their magic formulae

Anything that is established to be real and true within the fictional D&D game world is world-building, whether you personally find it compelling or not. Dragons fly, mages remember memorized magic formula, etc. That's called world-building. If a DM decided that old senile mages cannot remember memorized spells, that's additional world building. If a DM decided that old senile mages can remember spell formula with perfect clarity but not what happened to them yesterday, that's also more world-building. Some stories are more compelling than others, but wizards remembering spell formula is part of a D&D fictional universe. You're arguing what you dislike about the fiction; that's not the same thing as outcome-based narrative rule.

or never speak them wrongly. In real life people forget particular forms of words; and there is certainly genre precedent for it being possible to say the words wrong.

There is genre precedent for wizards in non-D&D universes forgetting the words to a ritual that is remembered and recalled conventionally, but there is no genre precedent AFAIK for forgetting magic runes imprinted in the mind. For example, I cannot recall the Patryns and Sartans in Weis's Death Gate cycle forgetting magic runes, or even worrying about it.

Among more-or-less mainstream fantasy RPGs D&D is quite unusual in this respect, which was the point I was making.

That point doesn't force D&D spell memorization to be an outcome-based rule. Just a function of world-building, a bio-arcane law if you will.

Well that's the issue, isn't it. Why is a mage forgetting the words or fouling up the gestures in the same realm of absurdity as diarrhea, but a fighter always missing on a 1 is not?

I didn't say that a wizard fouling up the gestures is as absurd as diarrhea. That's why I gave the sneezing powder example. I'm saying your comparisons are as useful to me as referencing player fiat that their PC never gets diarrhea.

My suggestion: nothing but habit and familiarity.

Speaking of habit and familiarity, Ratskinner mentioned the significant resistance and de-programming when certain players accepting the usage of narrative tokens. Now you already said how you view the rules as only outcomes of play. That you did not view the rules as sim or world-building. How do you know that your own habit and familiarity is causing you significant resistance and requires de-programming in order to see your comparisons also as process sim or world building?

Obviously it's your prerogative to reply to questions or not, but if you think that I'm being disingenuous in my posts you've made a mistake. You asked for clarification and I provided it in good faith.

Also, if by "ready to accept" you mean "ready to share" then that is a fairly high threshold for a message board posting. I'm not expecting you to abandon your dislike of the mechanic, and I'm not sure why you would expect me to abandon my acceptance of it, or my view that it is neither incoherent nor undesirable nor some sort of necessary concession to expedience.

Well that was clear already when you found the counter arguments to be "almost unintelligible" and are already "confident" that new players will interpret outcome-based rules just fine. I already met halfway acknowledging the inconsistencies of hit points and how I've come to accept them despite their failings. I'm not getting that same conciliatory vibe from you that mechanics which you view as outcome-based cannot be viewed as process sim or worldbuilding.

 

[Warbringer]

It works for the orc (parry) example, but the problem is when the mechanic fails to work for the Pixie (dodge) situation. Change the parameters a bit to where the huge size of your weapon means you score a glancing blow to the Pixie by rolling just below AC, or miss entirely on a 1 (or 1-5, etc), and then it's easier for me to come up with a trigger for the narrative damage that makes sense.

No, point is it never works when an enemy dodges ... Then a miss is a miss; when parry or absorb there is contact, hence damage.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Emerikol]

I didn't read this whole thread. I do though agree with Morrus and pretty much for the same reasons.

I don't like guaranteed damage every single time when it's a sword being swung. Swords are blockable. Surely the greatest swordsman in three Kingdoms can block joe the town guard without taking damage.

 

[bogmad]

No, point is it never works when an enemy dodges ... Then a miss is a miss; when parry or absorb there is contact, hence damage.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Sounds like we're on the same page mostly then.

Most agree though that with "AC," "hits," and "misses," as game terms a "miss" can mean a few things. It can mean that the armor is good enough to absorb the "hit" -hence no damage- and it can mean sometimes a miss is when the weapon doesn't connect at all -hence no damage.

By saying a fighter with Great Weapon Damage always does some damage because of the strength of his attack always slips through armor to a degree, you're effectively saying there is only one kind of "miss" for a guy with Great Weapon Fighting. (i.e. There is no such thing as a "miss" that doesn't involve weapon contact.)

 

[Derren]

A thief, no matter how good, in B/X and AD&D used to have a chance of failing a climb (no 100% chances of success). A fighter, no matter how good, in every edition before 4e had a chance of failing to do damage (natural 1). But a magic-user never has to check to see if s/he forgets the words to the spell, or sneezes/coughs/chokes at the crucial moment. The player has fiat authority in that respect.

My point was that giving fighter players fiat authority for minmium damage on an attack is, in its fundamentals, no different.

So there were no saving throws back then?

 

[sheadunne]

Is "damage on a miss" similar to "escalation" in 13th age, in that they're both tools to keep the action moving, rather than reaching a point where the battle drags? Both are very meta elements that are a bit hard to accept but easy to imagine. Are they tools to "fail forward" in combat? Is Damage on a Miss different than giving everyone a base damage pre-rolling which is automatic and then rolling to see if you deal additional damage? (Character A attacks Monster A and before dice are rolled deals 1d6 damage-representing the amount of effort, stamina, etc required to engage Character A in a fight. Character A then rolls to see if additional damage occurs-representing physical damage that bleeds.) There are a ton of different ways to represent this but they all come back to each individuals feel of what HP means. I'm in the camp that feels HP represents physical damage, even though I know it represents more than that. It's how I judge effects that impact HP. From a DM perspective, I like the idea of ticking down the clock on a combat so that it doesn't go on forever. Is this the way to do it? Is there a better way (escalation dice) or will balanced AC/HP keep the game moving steadily onward? No idea.

 

[pemerton]

Is "damage on a miss" similar to "escalation" in 13th age, in that they're both tools to keep the action moving, rather than reaching a point where the battle drags? Both are very meta elements

<snip>

From a DM perspective, I like the idea of ticking down the clock on a combat so that it doesn't go on forever. Is this the way to do it? Is there a better way (escalation dice) or will balanced AC/HP keep the game moving steadily onward? No idea.

I think this is a good analysis, but leaves out one further aspect - that this ability is also a way of distinguishing the look and feel of this paticular character.

 

[Ratskinner]

When the Rule of 3 article says Great Weapon Damage is the result of your blow connecting forcefully enough to do minor damage even on a miss though, I naturally think about it some more though and wonder "Ok. But what happens with the kind of 'miss' where you don't even bounce off the armor?-Where you just whif? ​How do you do damage then?"

I dunno that its ever presumed that you just totally whiff on everything you might have tried to do in melee this round. (Maybe that's what a fumble should be?) Even if a "hit" on a d20 actually represented a specific in-fiction physical impact of some sort...I could still see damage-on-a-miss because of the nebulous way that HP are defined. So you loose a few points of luck....what the heck does that mean anyway? Of course, when the Cleric "heals" your loss of luck...its a bit of headscratcher. But that's not a problem with the fact that you lost that luck/those HP on a miss.