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

[bogmad]

I dunno that its ever presumed that you just totally whiff on everything you might have tried to do in melee this round.

That's exactly the presumption the Pixie (dodge) corner case was meant to represent.

Sheadunne put it pretty well when he talked about each persons "feel" of what HP represents even if we know intellectually it means something more complex.

I can live pretty well in that state of "feeling one way while knowing another" until something like auto damage takes me out of it.

 

[sheadunne]

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.

How so? My mind's not wrapping around it. Would this mechanic be used to represent a character kicking someone after they miss with their axe swing? And it's use would be to represent a certain style of fighting unique to a particular character/class?

Kicking Axe Swing
When you miss with your Axe Swing you kick upward with your foot.
Hit: 1d8+Strength
Miss: 1d4

Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? It's been a while since I read/played 4e so I'm a bit rusty on abilities.

Could this ability be represented in a way that doesn't include the "damage on a miss part," such as

Kicking Axe Swing
When you miss with your Axe Swing you kick upward with your foot.
Hit: 1d8+Strength
Miss: Add +2 to your original roll. If you hit, deal 1d4 damage.

Does that add additional complexity or not capture the same type of mechanic? I don't know.

 

[pemerton]

How so? My mind's not wrapping around it. Would this mechanic be used to represent a character kicking someone after they miss with their axe swing? And it's use would be to represent a certain style of fighting unique to a particular character/class?

In the context of D&Dnext, it has to be something distinctive about a great weapon fighter, because they're the ones who get damage on a miss. (Well, also the 20th level rogue via Ace in the Hole, but for whatever reason no one seems to care so much about that one.)

So (unlike the escalation die, which is mostly ubiquitous across the PCs) it is an ability that is distinctive to that sort of character, and is meant to convey something about their particular role/character within the fiction. Upthread I've tried to capture this as "relentlessness". It's a way of upping average damage but in a very non-swingy way: hence relentlessness, and also serving a meta-goal like the ones you referred to of keeping combat moving and maintaining excitement, especially against "fodder" like goblins and kobolds. (This is also a difference from 4e, because in 4e the only things that could be killed from full hp with stat-mod worth of damage are minions, and they are immune to miss damage. So in 4e damage on a miss serves a slighlty different meta-purpose from in D&Dnext - it keeps things moving and reduces swinginess, but it doesn't give that "Thorin Oakenshield among the goblins" vibe that a great weapon fighter doing auto-damage in Next might tend to generate.)

Does that add additional complexity or not capture the same type of mechanic? I don't know.

I think it would both add complexity and undermine the meta-goal of keeping things moving.

 

[Ratskinner]

That's exactly the presumption the Pixie (dodge) corner case was meant to represent.

Oh well then, to my mind, a Pixie who successfully avoided a weapon swing might still lose HP from...
...straining a wing.
...feeling a bit of mortal fear.
...losing some morale.
...losing a bit of luck. (Still don't know what that would mean.)
...getting disoriented from the maneuver used.
...getting fatigued from the maneuver/effort required to avoid the blow.
...probably a few other things someone more creative can come up with.

All of which, AFAICT, would be compatible with the definition of HP presented in the "How to Play" document.

 

[Tovec]

In the context of D&Dnext, it has to be something distinctive about a great weapon fighter, because they're the ones who get damage on a miss. (Well, also the 20th level rogue via Ace in the Hole, but for whatever reason no one seems to care so much about that one.)

Let's take a look at the ability.

Ace in the Hole
By 20th level, you have an uncanny knack for succeeding when you need to. If your attack misses a target, you can turn the miss into a hit against that target. If you can take actions and fail an ability check or a saving throw, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20. Once you’ve used this feature, you regain its use only after you complete a short rest or a long rest.

At first blush I would say the reasons we do not care are the following:

1. It is a 20th level ability. not a first level ability like Great Weapon Fighting.
2. "If your attack misses, you can turn it into a hit." Is not the same as "When you miss a target with a melee weapon, the target still takes damage."
3. It works only once per fight, as you need a short rest or long rest after its use. Therefore it is limited in use, not used on EVERY round of every fight all day long.

Again, that is just a first blush. If the fighter version had all these restrictions I will withdraw my objection. Remember, must be limited use, 20th level, and conditional that it MIGHT still hit, not an auto-hit. Also no longer bypasses DR, avoids poison, etc..

I am also sure there are other reasons why it makes more sense.

Oh well then, to my mind, a Pixie who successfully avoided a weapon swing might still lose HP from...
...straining a wing.
...feeling a bit of mortal fear.
...losing some morale.
...losing a bit of luck. (Still don't know what that would mean.)
...getting disoriented from the maneuver used.
...getting fatigued from the maneuver/effort required to avoid the blow.
...probably a few other things someone more creative can come up with.

All of which, AFAICT, would be compatible with the definition of HP presented in the "How to Play" document.

A fighter who (successfully or not) swings his sword might similarly lose HP then from...
...straining his arm.
...feeling a bit of mortal fear (the pixie in question is immortal.. so immortal fear then I guess)
...losing some morale.
...losing a bit of luck. (And I am right with you in not knowing what that would mean.)
...getting disoriented from the maneuver used. Over correcting from a failed attack perhaps.
...getting fatigured from the maneuver/effort required to swing the sword.
...probably a few other things that someone more creative can come up with.

Except there is no reason why the fighter would have these difficulties. And yet it would make more sense that he would tire out by wielding a greatsword than an immortal pixie would by moving a few inches out of the way.

Also, no one except the fighter with a greatsword can cause the pixie to strain her wing. Not the guy with two weapons, nor the relentless barbarian, or any other class or combination EXCEPT the greatsword fighter ..on a miss.

 

[Ratskinner]

Except there is no reason why the fighter would have these difficulties. And yet it would make more sense that he would tire out by wielding a greatsword than an immortal pixie would by moving a few inches out of the way.

I must say that I find way too much as been made of the "immortal" thing. In any case..

On the contrary, there's a whole host of "realistic" reasons why the fighter would have these difficulties...D&D just doesn't attempt to include those in the narrative or address them mechanically. That's why, and I agree, that it makes more narrative sense for the fighter to tire out before the pixie (maybe pixies should deal more damage to reflect this?). All we have revealed here is that the D&D combat engine breaks down in extreme cases, losing what little ability it had to produce a coherent narrative....I don't think that's really news for anyone. I personally don't find that "damage on a miss" contributes significantly to exposing the limitations of that engine in these cases.

Now, just so I'm as clear as I can be. I'm perfectly willing to accept upfront without qualification that "damage on a miss" is just the final straw the broke the camel's back for some folks...or that they just don't like it...or whatever. I think that's a perfectly fine position to have that doesn't require any justification to me at all. However, I don't think that anything particularly distinguishes the effort required to find make narrative sense out of the "damage on a miss" that doesn't also apply to gobs of other inconsistencies and insensibilities generated during typical D&D play by the combat engine*....other than the historical fact that most of us have just gotten used to the others. If you're trying to tell me that the traditional D&D combat system was made of consistency rainbows and coherent unicorns up until that horrid "damage on a miss" thing showed up...well, then I disagree.

Also, no one except the fighter with a greatsword can cause the pixie to strain her wing. Not the guy with two weapons, nor the relentless barbarian, or any other class or combination EXCEPT the greatsword fighter ..on a miss.

I think that is a (potential) problem. The easy fix is to make it like 13th Age where (almost) everybody gets miss damage. Another easy fix is to remove the "to hit" roll and just go straight to damage (likely with multiple dice.)

*most of which seem to involve the lack of clarity or consistency about what any particular Hit Point actually represents narratively, but that's a bigger argument. It does make me wonder if this sort of issue can even be resolved satisfactorily under any of the extant D&D HP definitions, or even under a HP system at all.

 

[pemerton]

no longer bypasses DR

I don't get this. Nothing about the current fighter ability bypasses DR.

conditional that it MIGHT still hit, not an auto-hit

I don't get this either. Ace in the Hole is not conditional. The player, having rolled a miss, gets to declare it as a hit.

limited use, 20th level

I don't really understand what difference being 20th level makes, except perhaps that it will turn up much less in actual play.

I also don't see how limited use helps. It just gives rise to the issue of "martial dailies". (In a sense, of course, the great weapon ability is limited use too: the player can only use it when an attack is rolled, and the rolling of attacks is rationed via the game's action economy.)

"If your attack misses, you can turn it into a hit." Is not the same as "When you miss a target with a melee weapon, the target still takes damage."

I can't see any difference, for the reason that I'll now explain.

"If your attack misses, you can turn it into a hit" = even though I missed, I get to roll my damage dice and inflict that damage on the target.

"When you miss a target with a melee weapon, the target still takes damage" = even though I missed, I get to infict damage on the target (though less damage than if I got to roll my damage dice).

The implication of what you say, and of your seeing of a difference, seems to be that if the great weapon ability read "When you miss a target with a two-handed melee weapon, you can turn that attack into a weak hit that deals damage equal to your STR modifier" then it would be less offensive too you. If that's the case, then by all means let's have WotC rewrite it like that! Cause I don't care - as I've said I can't see any difference.

 

[pemerton]

there's a whole host of "realistic" reasons why the fighter would have these difficulties...D&D just doesn't attempt to include those in the narrative or address them mechanically. That's why, and I agree, that it makes more narrative sense for the fighter to tire out before the pixie (maybe pixies should deal more damage to reflect this?). All we have revealed here is that the D&D combat engine breaks down in extreme cases

I don't think I agree with this - though if it were true, I agree that pixies should deal more damage.

Look at the typical representation, in D&D art, of a pixie. Then look at the typical representation, in D&D art, of the "dreadnought" fighter with plate and spikes everywhere and a whopping great sword. That guy doesn't get tired. Especially not when dealing with a peskie pixie. (Another way of looking at it: choosing to include this ability in the game is establishing and/or reinforcing a certain stereotype of who is relentless and who is not. It's choosing one narrative over another. Much like giving Ace in the Hole to rogues rather than (say) Monks (for whom it presumbly would be called something like Penetrate Reality).)

I'm perfectly willing to accept upfront without qualification that "damage on a miss" is just the final straw the broke the camel's back for some folks...or that they just don't like it...or whatever. I think that's a perfectly fine position to have that doesn't require any justification to me at all. However, I don't think that anything particularly distinguishes the effort required to find make narrative sense out of the "damage on a miss" that doesn't also apply to gobs of other inconsistencies and insensibilities generated during typical D&D play by the combat engine

This, on the other hand, I completely agree with. It's what I've been saying since my first post in the thread - except I don't think I'd call them "inconsistencies" so much as "circumstances requiring deft narration".

no one except the fighter with a greatsword can cause the pixie to strain her wing

I think that is a (potential) problem.

This relates back to what I said to [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] a little bit upthread - they're trying to establish and consolidate a particular archetype with this ability, and it is important to that goal that not everyone have the ability. Of course other PC's can cause the pixie to strain a wing (roll, hit, deal 1 out of the pixie's 20 hp on a damage roll). The relentless great weapon fighter just wears the pixie down more.

 

[herrozerro]

But by wounds, not by fatigue.

Woah, are you saying immortality means you cannot be fatigued?

 

[herrozerro]

OK. We'll it would be nice if D&D Next design could account for people seeing it both ways. I thought they were doing that before.

Interesting quote. So removal of an option that myself and other like is accounting for us and you seeing it both ways?