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

[urLordy]

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

Yes rarity (which minimizes its footprint in gameplay) and especially epicness of 20th level (they're expected to do cool things that most others cannot).

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!

It might help a little, but I don't think they can, because some effects are triggered by a "hit" and miss damage isn't a hit (it came up in this week's Q&A).

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

Firstly, "removal" isn't mandatory or inevitable. Secondly, "both" referred to a rule designed with two of the aforementioned roleplaying stances in mind. Thirdly, there's nothing interesting AFAICT about saying it would be "nice" to have an edition that unifies 2 or more playstyles; as this has been the goal of D&D Next since its inception. Just discussing things and hopefully find a way to piss off the least number of people -- it all seems like standard conflict resolution to me, nothing particularly interesting.

 

[sheadunne]

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.)

Thanks! I haven't been keeping up on the nuances of 5e as much as I should.

I am a proponent of unique mechanics which are limited only to particular classes or unique to only certain circumstances. If the action is unique, so should the mechanic be. I'm not as concerned with meta as long as the use is a good representation of what the ability represents. My concern is that unique mechanics quickly become standard mechanics, for instance, advantage/disadvantage. I like the mechanic only for a very specific use. That was the case when it was first introduced but now it is a standard mechanic used in a million different places. NOTE: I have this same problem with spell lists in previous editions that cross class. I prefer a unique approach to classes. If the spell is on the wizard list, that's the only list it should be on and no other class should have access to it. Along those lines, if we assume the "damage on a miss" quite nicely represents the great weapon fighter's style, then that's fine. If "damage on a miss" becomes a norm and crosses over classes and situations, then it becomes a standard and in my opinion lessons the uniqueness of the action/fiction/ability. I also have the same issues with Skills and rolling a D20. Rolling the d20 is a combat action. Using skills should be a different experience. It's one of the reasons I'm exploring other ways to handle skills. Currently (in PF) it feels too much like combat. I want the mechanics to make it feel different than combat (in AD&D this was the case, at least with thief skills). I feel rather alone in this regard as most people tend to want a universal mechanic to cover all game mechanics, i.e. the d20.

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

I agree. The reason I brought it up is that I was working on something similar for the basic fighter class I was redesigning. Perhaps in that regard I should just go meta myself.

 

[Celebrim]

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

No. I'm saying that:

a) Some creatures in D&D have the quality of being immune to fatigue.
b) We can postulate that such a creature is the target of the combat, and we can imagine that the color of immunity of fatigue is something logical for many creatures.
c) Thus, the creature cannot be worn down by the fatiguing effects of spending just a few seconds dodging blows or indeed any amount of time doing so. I've suggested the creature is immortal to suggest this is infinite immunity to fatigue.
d) Thus, if we are to say that the creature is being worn down, it must be do to something else - such as wounds.
e) But, if we postulate that the creature immune to fatigue has no armor bonus nor any other bonus that reflects the difficulty to do a damaging blow to the target, and all of its AC is the result of dodge bonuses, small size, and other bonuses that reflect the difficulty to hit the target, then there is no mechanism for doing damage to this target on a miss.

I created this scenario not because I'm worried only about the case of 100% immunity to damage on a miss, but of any degree of partial immunity to 'damage on a miss' because the color of the target indicates 'hard to hit - say the PC halfling rogue whose sole source of AC is dexterity and small size who is being attacked by a great sword fighter. It doesn't make sense for the Halfling to be damaged on a miss either.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

That's why I put "realistic" in quotes. IRL, attempting to swat a fly with a sledgehammer will do more damage to the swatter than the fly. (Depending on the enthusiasm of the swatter. ) In heroic fantasy...not so much.

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".

IME, once you start expanding the circle of mechanics beyond just the sword-swings themselves, I have often run into what I would call inconsistencies (the healing spell titles perhaps being the most readily demonstrable.) How bad and precisely what these are has varied a bit from edition to edition. "Deft narration" can solve some of the problems, but often the key seems to be "narration avoidance", which is what I was referring to upthread by learning to "not see" some of D&D's problems. When mechanics are encouraging me to avoid narration or narrative consistency...it irks me. D&D has these issues baked in at a very fundamental level, but since its what everyone plays...I've sorta made my peace with it. (That's part of why I found this thread so entertaining as a spectator....a lil' bit of schadenfreude, I guess.)

This relates back to what I said to @sheadunne 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.

Yeah, again that's why "potential" was in there parenthetically. That strikes me as a design choice. I don't personally find that "damage on a miss" screams "great weapon fighter" to me any more than some of the other types of fighter. (Maybe a finesse fighter deals DEX damage on a miss?) I don't really have a big problem with it, but I can see how reserving it for the GWF could cause some grief.

 

[Weather Report]

The comparison to save for half damage against spells is cheap and disingenuous, those spells hit everyone in the area, you just make a reactionary roll for less, totally different.

 

[pemerton]

I have often run into what I would call inconsistencies (the healing spell titles perhaps being the most readily demonstrable.) How bad and precisely what these are has varied a bit from edition to edition. "Deft narration" can solve some of the problems, but often the key seems to be "narration avoidance"

I agree with you that the healing spells are just inconsistent.

I mostly had 4e in mind, but even then I think there is at least one circumstance that can come up which I think you would count as inconsistent or narration-avoidance, to do with the prone ooze or snake.

Now I don't think knocking these things prone per se is a problem: they're discombobulated, and require a move action to right themselves. But the rules say that non-adjacent ranged attacks against prone targets take a penalty. That makes sense in the standard case (the prone target has less of a profile) but doesn't make sense for a prone ooze or snake.

I think that came up once in my 4e game, and I just didn't apply the penalty to the ranged attacker.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree with you that the healing spells are just inconsistent.

I do as well. I've worked on fixing them to be logically consistent with the hit point model, but have yet to find an implementation that strikes a good balance between my simulationist and gamist concerns. One problem is that low level characters really do need the ability to heal what is for them a more than light wound. So if you reconcile what curing a light wound means, you run into a problems of pacing, game balance, and so forth at low levels. But if you allow curing serious wounds as a low level ability, then by high levels it requires too little commitment of resources to cancel out attacks. For now, it's been easier to keep it consistent.

Surges weren't a bad idea for fixing the problems with healing, but embedded in the larger framework of bleh that is 4e, it's been hard to tease out exactly where to go with them that works well. But if I do eventually go that way, it wouldn't be the first time I've reimagined a 4e mechanic and written it into my house rules. I probably not tackle the problem before the end of the current campaign, because my game balance has been so sweet so far.

And since someone mentioned it, I've also had problems with sneak attack as a concept as well. Again, the difficulty is finding the right balance between the mechanic expressing something real in the world and keeping a nice balance between the classes.

So yes, the system is sometimes inconsistent - I've yet to read one that isn't (though some don't sweat it much). But I'm trying to drive those inconsistencies away not compound them. If someone could show that there was a great reason for accepting an inconsistency, I might consider it. But there is no pressing need for a 'damage on a miss' mechanic. There is nothing useful (to the game) that the mechanic does that you can't achieve in some other way, and indeed, the mechanic is absolute which means not only is a bad simulationist mechanic, but a bad gamist mechanic as well. I'm busying banishing unquantified mechanics from my game as well. And it isn't exactly oozing story either, so, yeah. Trash heap. Nothing here worth salvaging.

 

[Tovec]

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.u

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.

Let me amend:
"Except there is no reason why, in established mechanics, the fighter would have these difficulties. And yet it would make more sense...."

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.
<snip>
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.

What I've been showing for the past 14 pages (in my settings it is 14 now, for others it is 28 or something, right?) is that it isn't just a bad feeling we get. That is the beginning but there are reasons for this bad feeling. The mechanic itself has multiple reasons why it annoys me(us) beyond "I don't like it." These comments make me think that you think it is a last straw. It isn't. It is another straw. It doesn't make sense (as you seem to at least partially agree) and yet pemerton doesn't see it - which does confound me a little.

And when did I say anything about rainbows and unicorns?

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.)

And if everyone got damage on a miss that would be another thing (or game system in this case) entirely. But in DnD you don't get damage on a miss. If you did that would undoubtedly raise other concerns as it completely rearranges the math of the system but I'm not versed well enough in that topic.

No, what I can tell you is no one else is getting damage on a miss. Not even the rogue is getting damage on a miss. The rogue, once per rest, is able to turn a hit that is otherwise a miss into a hit. But that is not the same thing.

And I would no longer have the current objections I do if everyone had damage on a miss. I couldn't. Simply, one my objections is that it is inconsistent - if everyone had it then it becomes consistent.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.)

You commented that, "No one seems to care so much about that one." I gave reasons why we don't care. You are now picking apart (poorly) THAT ability? Sigh. Is that the reason you asked to begin with?

That it is 20th level means it is going to see less play. It means it is balanced against things that other 20th level characters can do. If the fighter got this ability at 20th it would be FAR less game breaking. Even if it was AS IS at 20th level it would be less game breaking. Consider that my background is 3e, in that edition at 20th level the fighter could probably use an ability similar to this. Though again I would probably extend it to all fighters if any of them got it but that is really REALLY besides the point.

At 20th level a barbarian gets "death-defying rage" which makes them far heartier and harder to kill. There are less complaints about it (if any at all - do we care about that one at all?) because it is at 20th level. Some would likely find it game breaking if it were given to a barbarian at first level - compounded by if it were given only to one type of barbarian at that level.

A 20 level monk gets 1 ki per turn at the start of their turn. That is a lot and rather quickly. At 1st level it would be broken.

Now, this ability, which is broken for OTHER reasons as well, is available at 1st level. If it were available at 20th level it is possible that people may have not seen it before it went to print and may not have cared even if they did. (And I know we are talking about this due to the article, but that is because someone asked in the first place for it to show up.)

And yes it matters how it is phrased. Every ruleslawyer is going to tell you that. Everyone trying to counter a ruleslawyer will tell you that too.

An ability that turns that 1 into another roll or outcome is not the same as one that gives a different result on a failure. One can still be defeated, essentially the rogue can still NOT hit. But even when they do hit (either naturally or turning their miss into a hit via AitH/GWF) it has certain implications. A hit can cause poison to go through for example. A miss does not. A hit has certain implications how that works in the game world and as far as the characters understand it.

And finally, limited times and situations per day is KEY. The rogue has to rest (short or long) before he can do this again. He isn't able to turn EVERY miss into a hit. He can do it sometimes, because he has an ace in the hole. But he can't do it with every hit. The rogue can still MISS. In fact he would on every attack EXCEPT the first time he uses Ace in the Hole. Which is very different than "impossible to miss" 2h fighter.

And yeah, that was all first blush and you asked for reasons why we cared less. I gave you those reasons. I am not now going to argue the validity of Ace in the Hole. I'm sure there are other benefits and problems with it. That isn't the topic here. But sufficit to say (as I said last time) ALL those restrictions for this fighter ability would mean we aren't having this conversation. At the very least I would like the 20th level one, because then I'll likely never see it in play.

 

[Ratskinner]

Let me amend:
"Except there is no reason why, in established mechanics, the fighter would have these difficulties. And yet it would make more sense...."

That, I would agree with.

What I've been showing for the past 14 pages (in my settings it is 14 now, for others it is 28 or something, right?) is that it isn't just a bad feeling we get. That is the beginning but there are reasons for this bad feeling. The mechanic itself has multiple reasons why it annoys me(us) beyond "I don't like it." These comments make me think that you think it is a last straw. It isn't. It is another straw. It doesn't make sense (as you seem to at least partially agree) and yet pemerton doesn't see it - which does confound me a little.

And when did I say anything about rainbows and unicorns?

I was speaking/writing colloquially about "you"...it sounds more awkward to my ears to say "If one is trying to tell me..." I was just trying to make my position clearer to the general thread audience, rather than directing a comment to you personally about your style or argument. No offense intended. Please pardon my hyperbole.

I agree that the mechanic may not be very sensible in all situations, at times requiring what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] calls "deft narration" to even begin to make sense out of it in the fiction. However, I and others find that to be true of a fair number of things in a typical/traditional D&D engine. So, from my (and I think pemerton's) perspective, that by itself doesn't really make this mechanic unsuitable for D&D (or at least no less suitable than all those other things).

If a person can accept all those other awkwardnesses, and miss damage is just one too many for them to make narrative sense of a D&D combat...then that's how I think its the "last straw" for that person. Which seems to be the case for a decent number of posters in this thread.

Stepping back for a second, though. Even though I (and I presume anyone sticking around to read this post) enjoy arguing about game mechanics. I wouldn't want you to discount your feelings in matters such as these. This is, after all, a leisure activity...whether you/we like it or not is of critical importance whether or not you have some well-reasoned argument about it! At least, that's how I see it.

 

[pemerton]

That it is 20th level means it is going to see less play. It means it is balanced against things that other 20th level characters can do. If the fighter got this ability at 20th it would be FAR less game breaking.

It hadn't occurred to me that your objection (or anyone else's) was that the ability is unbalanced. I don't see that at all. Assuming that 3/5 of attacks hit (that is roughy the ratio in 4e), then 3 damage per miss is the statistical equivalent of a +2 damage bonus. I don't think that's game breaking at all!