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

[Weather Report]

C'mon, that's not cool.

...a lot of coolness, and why are they able to provide, but not us, seems like a lot of fake-ness...

 

[Celebrim]

Short answer: I hope people such as yourself do not like this game, and eventually you and yours sort fade into the background, much like 4th Ed, become some distant, horrid aberration that we all forget about, nothing personal.

Eh... that might be a wee bit too evocative of language. Might want to consider an edit and clarification, because "nothing personal" sounds snarky in situations were you sound personal.

I'm no fan of 4e either, but I would never compare a person to it.

 

[Weather Report]

Eh... that might be a wee bit too evocative of language. Might want to consider an edit and clarification, because "nothing personal" sounds snarky in situations were you sound personal.

I'm no fan of 4e either, but I would never compare a person to it.

\


...blah, blah...load' no, sorry, noooooooooh, it ain't happening like you dig...

 

[13garth13]

\


...blah, blah...load' no, sorry, noooooooooh, it ain't happening like you dig...

You know dude, much as I agree (to a point) with your stances regarding many aspects of D&D and what "works" in it....you come across like a complete knob. You take aggressive stances, use hostile/rude language, and make gaming arguments into personal attacks, and then to make it worse, when someone tries to use some soft gloves on you and suggest you might want to tone things down, you get snarky and dismissive/out-and-out-rude.

I'm going to suggest (as you well ought to know by now) that you really, REALLY should chill out a bit before a moderator does something of a more permanent nature.

Really, you make yourself look bad (and to a certain degree the rest of us who in theory agree {more-or-less} with your priorities).

Just a thought, man.

Cheers,
Colin

 

[Morrus]

Short answer: I hope people such as yourself do not like this game, and eventually you and yours sort fade into the background, much like 4th Ed, become some distant, horrid aberration that we all forget about, nothing personal.

Giving you repeated chances, warnings, infractions, and temp-bans just tipped over the edge into boring. For the moment, please do not post again in this thread. I'm going to chat with the other mods to see if they're as bored with this game as I am and whether it's time to call it a day before our brains freeze over at the sheer mind-numbing repetition and clear uselessness of it. For the moment I'll just add this to your ever increasing list of infractions.

Man, the last couple of weeks. People we're really trying not to ban are simply insisting on it. There's something in the water.

 

[Mistwell]

 

[Ratskinner]

Is the fighter's damage on a miss a magical effect (by current description)? No.
Are the only comparable effects that grant damage on a "miss"* magic? Yes.
Does magic seem to be the defining aspect of why it can do so? Yes.

Doesn't really strike me as a cop out when it IS the explanation. Magic missile doesn't miss because it is magic that is designed to not miss. If the fighter ability was magic too, explicitly labeled as such, then it would make sense but then we would have new issues since the fighter shouldn't be using magic for his attacks. But it would at least explain what is happening in ways that the current explanation does not.

I'm guessing it works if only because it would be too powerful if the spell forced the targets to be prone (the only way I can see to ensure only half of you gets burned - like two-face dark knight style). Either that or the game can't allow for everyone on masse to move out of the range of the effect? NOT having it save would make it HUGELY over powered in either case. So I think overall it hits you were you are standing, and you don't move because the game can't allow for that. I'm not sure honestly. If you want to argue that fireball should be an all or nothing damage state, go ahead I'm all for that conversation - but I doubt that is your intention either. So perhaps I have "skimmed" past what you were saying, again.

Correct, its not my point. My point is simply that in that last paragraph, you cited mostly gamist/balance reasons. The same type of reasons that "validate" (to use the word extremely loosely) damage on a miss.

I don't your fascination with the wording of "Cure Crit" as if it were somehow significant. From the SRD:
<snippage>
I just don't get your fascination with the word critical somehow informing how the ability works.

I don't understand your side's fascination with the words "Hit" and "Miss" as if they were somehow significant. They are exactly the same positions reversed. The common-language meanings of "hit", "miss", and "Critical Wounds" are functionally superceded by their definitions within the game mechanics. I keep bringing up the "Critical Wounds" thing because it is an obvious example of how the combat system abstractions create narrative difficulties. The caster must know that he is using a spell called by that name (especially since it can appear on scrolls) and yet will not often be using it in a manner consistent with that knowledge. (Especially in comparison to the tight resource management that occurs for such resources.)

To reiterate, since it seems at risk of getting lost, here. I really don't care if damage on a miss is in the game or not. I just think that the suggestion that it alone makes nonsense of D&D's otherwise perfectly sensible combat/wounding rules is rather silly.

Also, are we accepting that wiff means to miss? I wasn't really familiar with the term before this thread.

That is common parlance where I'm from. Although usually reserved for a truly bad or exasperating miss, for example a basketball shot that hits neither net, rim, or backboard. (Also, at least locally, its spelled "whiff".)

 

[Ratskinner]

Yes, I'm aware of this zoomed out perspective in combat, esp. in 4E. I believe that, based on all the input you've received while arguing things on Enworld is that the primary playstyle that has problems with damage-on-a-miss is not the one that's popping out for the entire duration of combat.

if fictional cohesiveness is maintained like blinking, then blinking only occasionally is ideal if you prefer to be in-character such that you only go into metagame mode between those half-second blinks.

If, however, combat is like one giant long blink (and then fill in all the blanks later) then that becomes incohesive to those people who don't want to blink for so long.

Hell, you could flip a coin and say "Heads, you win the adventure" or "Tails you lose the adventure" and I could argue this the fiction still has integrity. Well, that depends really on whether I want to be in-character for the duration of that adventure, whether I care or not that adventure has 50:50 odds of success, etc.

But now I'm meandering...

Maybe you are, but I think its a somewhat relevant meander.

I think this is a critical bit. Because we have to ask ourselves why simply flipping a coin is perceived as an insufficient game mechanic for resolving entire adventures.* I think there are different answers to the question:

• it doesn't provide any sense of "realism" or "immersion".
  • ...or "not all adventures should have a 50% difficulty rating."
• it doesn't provide enough complexity to feel like I'm actually "playing" something.
  • ...or feel like a challenge.
• it doesn't provide enough inspiration to help actually tell the story of the adventure
  • ...or give me a sense of creative exercise.

And I'm sure a zillion permutations and additional responses to cover everyone's bases. (...and anyone is welcome to sympathize as many as they want.)

My position/feeling/desire is that the game system should avoid "blinking" as much as possible. However, I "blink" quite a bit whilst playing D&D, to the point of constantly "squinting". When I play certain other games, I suddenly feel that pressure lifted. Unfortunately, I don't think D&D is about to drop all the things that cause that sort of thing to happen (since every design team declares most of them to be sacred cows).

*Okay, maybe just I have to ask myself questions like that...

 

[Manbearcat]

Correct, its not my point. My point is simply that in that last paragraph, you cited mostly gamist/balance reasons. The same type of reasons that "validate" (to use the word extremely loosely) damage on a miss.

I don't understand your side's fascination with the words "Hit" and "Miss" as if they were somehow significant. They are exactly the same positions reversed. The common-language meanings of "hit", "miss", and "Critical Wounds" are functionally superceded by their definitions within the game mechanics. I keep bringing up the "Critical Wounds" thing because it is an obvious example of how the combat system abstractions create narrative difficulties. The caster must know that he is using a spell called by that name (especially since it can appear on scrolls) and yet will not often be using it in a manner consistent with that knowledge. (Especially in comparison to the tight resource management that occurs for such resources.)

To reiterate, since it seems at risk of getting lost, here. I really don't care if damage on a miss is in the game or not. I just think that the suggestion that it alone makes nonsense of D&D's otherwise perfectly sensible combat/wounding rules is rather silly.

Good post but I can't xp. Just wanted to bold this part as the post generally, and this bit specifically is where I sit on the issue. And I'm not interested in typing up another space-eater post for no purpose so this saves me time!

 

[TwoSix]

And I'm not interested in typing up another space-eater post for no purpose so this saves me time!

I have trouble believing this. Are you feeling all right, MBC? Do you need some chicken soup?