Just from a playing viewpoint, I LOVED the damage on a miss in the, what 1st or 2nd packet. What my character did was hit things. So he hit things! It gave me a feeling of mastery, that my character actually had a niche that made him special. So I'm a fan of hit on a miss in small amounts. If everybody is doing it, then no. But if only a select few even among trained warriors have it, than I'm okay with that. Options are good. Now I can understand that it might bother joe over there that bob's character can't miss. The same way that everyone agrees to not throw around fireball's when in a low-magic setting, people can agree to just avoid those few optional mechanics. That is a human group dynamic thing more than a design thing. That's my 0.5 cents worth (adjusted for inflation).
D&D 5E Q&A 10/17/13 - Crits, Damage on Miss, Wildshape
- Thread starter Sir Brennen
- Start date
This is the hottest 5th Ed issue going, something is wrong.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
It was the most recent article at the time the thread was posted, so it's not surprising it's hot. It's dying down now, as we have a new article.
Jester David
Hero
It's not 1/2 damage, it's Str mod damage. And while "all rules are optional" it's much easier to omit a feat or spell than it is a fighting style. It means any other form of fighting suddenly becomes better than using a two-handed weapon. It's a shame to nerf an entire type of weapon just because a single side rule is not ideal.
so, this ability only works for fighters with one-handed weapons? Even so I'm not seeing why the reach and damage of two-handers is negated. At any rate, all I get from this goofy house rule is the reminder to give fighters cool stuff for weapons training. It doesn't appear to be difficult to omit or change, or add to. Personally, I think they should leave this stuff out of the core rules. Then they can sell a whole splat book full of fighting styles, mastery, weapon vs. AC, whatev...
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Each fighter gets to choose one fighting style. There are several to choose from (such as archery, defense, protection, and two-weapon fighting). Here is the text of the one we're talking about:
Great Weapon Fighting When you miss a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your Strength modifier. The weapon must have the two‐handed or versatile property to gain this benefit.
In my opinion, this isn't a particularly great fighting style. It gets weaker as you increase in level (your strength never can go above 20, so it maxes out at +5), and there are better things for the fighter to choose. Bounded accuracy means monster hit points and damage from their attacks go up, but their AC and attack bonuses mostly do not. So, in my opinion, things that change your attack bonus or AC are more powerful than something that increases your damage, on a long-term basis. For example, archery and defense increase your attack and AC bonuses. Protection imposes disadvantage on an attack against an adjacent ally, which effectively is an increase to AC. Only Great Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Fighting increase damage, and I'd say both are on the weaker side in terms of this list of fighting styles.
Last edited:
Not only is it sound, it is versatile and quick. The simulationist in me likes the idea of separate tracks for fatigue, luck, health and the rest, but in practice separate tracks prove cumbersome. My players just aren't that interested.
So HP ends up wearing lots of hats. For example, the exhaustion track reduces your max hp and eventually kills you, without ever causing "damage". You remain at your max hp...that number just declines to 0.
I don't mind. It is quite possible to die from exhaustion.
It is, however, impossible in DnD to die when a big burly man smacks you with a massive two handed sword or greataxe. At least not the first time, not after the first few character levels.
Now, we all know that a 3-5 lb slab of sharpened metal descending upon virtually any part of a human body will most likely kill that person from shock, massive blood loss or organ failure (unless they receive prompt medical attention). At the very least, such a massive wound would cause disadvantage.
In other words, not even a critical hit in DnD represents a realistic solid blow from a great weapon. Or at least, not until hit points are whittled down enough that the next blow, no matter how tiny, takes the victim down to 0 or below.
This has been true from the first iteration of DnD to this Next.
So, the concern over "damage on a miss" seems a little disproportionate to me.
If a big man skilled with a great weapon comes chasing after you with murderous intent, delivering great sweeping blows with a large heavy weapon, it really doesn't matter if you let your armor "absorb" it (crushing your body), or deflect it with your shield (numbing your shield arm), or dramatically maneuver to stay out of harm's way (exhausting your luck and stamina). It's going to be draining. Of hit points.
Having this be represented as Str modifier damage on a miss seems OK to me.
And of course, it's a melee attack, so of course the normal requirements for making a melee attack still apply. A miss cannot happen if the "attack" does not occur.
It seems to me that this mechanic is revealing the the hard core process sim and hit-points-as-meat crowd. Those who have problems with the damage on a miss seem to largely fall into this group. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, as I am definitely not in that group. If you go against a fighter with this ability, its going to cost you, plain and simple. If you only have two or three HP, then you are a mook (or minion in 4E parlance) and you are going to go down. Hopefully, you got in a lick of your own to wear down the fighter before being fed to the buzz saw of doom; also hopefully, you are in a group with your fellow minion buddies to be more effective speed bumps for your Evil Overlord Boss.
That being said, I can see how this could produce undesirable results. It might be somewhat anti-climatic if the the Demon Lord/Great Wyrm, when finally worn down, ends up as puree simply because the fighter was standing in the next square. Then again, the fighter would at least have to spend an attack action and be in range, so it might be okay. Another problem is that this may work against the whole purpose of bounded accuracy by making 'mook' types a little too ineffective against this fighting style. I think I would prefer it if this ability was only active in a 4e type 'stance' and to use really powerful offensive maneuvers the fighter had to end the stance. This might help make it more balanced by making it a trade off and limiting its use. If it is so divisive, maybe it could be limited to the oft mentioned put still unseen 'tactical module'?
That being said, I can see how this could produce undesirable results. It might be somewhat anti-climatic if the the Demon Lord/Great Wyrm, when finally worn down, ends up as puree simply because the fighter was standing in the next square. Then again, the fighter would at least have to spend an attack action and be in range, so it might be okay. Another problem is that this may work against the whole purpose of bounded accuracy by making 'mook' types a little too ineffective against this fighting style. I think I would prefer it if this ability was only active in a 4e type 'stance' and to use really powerful offensive maneuvers the fighter had to end the stance. This might help make it more balanced by making it a trade off and limiting its use. If it is so divisive, maybe it could be limited to the oft mentioned put still unseen 'tactical module'?
Tovec
Explorer
No amount of stances or limits is going to make this palatable to me.
Let me explain myself from another angle. Remember the STR 16 fighter going after the goblins with 3 HP or the STR 18 fighter killing an entire town worth of humans? Now imagine in-game being a villager, the fighter walks into town with his specialization and a weapon. He can swing blindfolded and aimlessly at you and kill you instantly without having to hit or roll damage. EVERY TIME. Zero chance to dodge it. Every time. No one else can do that. Even the wizard's fireball can be evaded/dodged. The fighter can't be, no matter how you are placed, what abilities you have, how dexterous you are.
I have an issue with that that no amount of "he fatigues me to death" can solve. Enter melee with this fighter and you are dead. That is cool for the fighter but sucks for literally anything else. And you have no chance of defending yourself, or stopping the single ability - on the first round mind you.
Now, something like "does attack and (if hits) bypasses DR of STR" works for me. So does extra damage or something on a hit. But on a miss NOTHING is acceptable to me as an answer - that is the point of a miss. The fighter could walk into town and snap his fingers, his strength bonus will kill that human in melee range.
As long as the fighter can deal 3 HP, with the goblins having the same - why give him a weapon at all. Why not give him a +1000 damage or instant kill (on a hit). Even those make more sense* to me, so long as he had to roll and hit you first.
*More sense, not a lot, but more.
Let me explain myself from another angle. Remember the STR 16 fighter going after the goblins with 3 HP or the STR 18 fighter killing an entire town worth of humans? Now imagine in-game being a villager, the fighter walks into town with his specialization and a weapon. He can swing blindfolded and aimlessly at you and kill you instantly without having to hit or roll damage. EVERY TIME. Zero chance to dodge it. Every time. No one else can do that. Even the wizard's fireball can be evaded/dodged. The fighter can't be, no matter how you are placed, what abilities you have, how dexterous you are.
I have an issue with that that no amount of "he fatigues me to death" can solve. Enter melee with this fighter and you are dead. That is cool for the fighter but sucks for literally anything else. And you have no chance of defending yourself, or stopping the single ability - on the first round mind you.
Now, something like "does attack and (if hits) bypasses DR of STR" works for me. So does extra damage or something on a hit. But on a miss NOTHING is acceptable to me as an answer - that is the point of a miss. The fighter could walk into town and snap his fingers, his strength bonus will kill that human in melee range.
As long as the fighter can deal 3 HP, with the goblins having the same - why give him a weapon at all. Why not give him a +1000 damage or instant kill (on a hit). Even those make more sense* to me, so long as he had to roll and hit you first.
*More sense, not a lot, but more.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
There are three major flaws with the "taking on the town blindfolded":
1) Fireball, and spells like it, do the same thing. "A creature takes 6d6 fire damage on a failed save, and half as much damage on a successful one." It cannot be evaded/dodged...that was in 3e. In 5e, as far as I can recall, nobody can evade/dodge it, and even if they could, no peasant in your example could anyway.
2) Due to bounded accuracy, taking on a town of people is pretty guaranteed death. They can hit you. They can hit you without even rolling a natural 20. In fact, they have advantage on attacking you, and they will likely attack you with ranged weapons. And they will do damage to you. You won't last 10 rounds, and will take down at most 10 of them. Plus you won't be very good at targeting anyone with a melee attack if you cannot see where they are - and you must target them and be in melee range to use the ability to begin with.
2) It's not an example based in genuine game-play. It's the very sort of example that reinforces my argument that you should play with a rule before picking apart that rule, because real life play provides a lot more insight than simply reading something and theorizing it. The example you gave wouldn't come up, and wouldn't play out like that if it did. Likely the DM would probably get pissed at the player for behaving like a jackass and disrupting the game to begin with. The rules don't have to deal with this situation, because normal human socialization deals with it just fine. It's the perfect example of why you don't need a rule for everything, because players and DMs are not so foolish as to be slaves to the rules for such bizarre corner cases.
Of course you do. Don't get in the fighter's melee range. It's a pretty common tactic, and abilities like cunning action and flight and burrowing and swimming and pit traps are just for such situations. Also, mirror image, and other illusion spells, deals with it pretty well, as does anything that denies the fighter the ability to target you, like full cover. Lots of things deal with it. It's really common to deal with situations where you don't want something to get a melee attack off against you.
And the town can see the fighter coming and decide to snap their fingers and kill him pretty easily, from range with a hail of rocks and sling stones and whatever, and laugh at the blind fighter who cannot even get into melee range with anyone, particularly while he is blind.
Neither is a realistic scenario, though I think I do recall that later scene from one of the Wheel of Time novels.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
- Locked
