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

[Li Shenron]

* Is this really the point that stains credulity for you above everything else (in a game with magic...)?

For me, yes.

Seven pages of attempts to convince me that it is "logical" and "realistic" on one hand, or that it works gamist-ly on the other hand, have only actually convinced me of the incredible boringness of this fighter feature.

Really, it's this kind of "small issues" that, taken together once they reach a personal threshold amount, that can make the difference between love or hate a RPG. Because if despite of the gamist explanations about why "it works" and the simulationist explanations why "it makes sense", if it still feels a stupid idea in the end, then it makes me feel stupid for playing the game, and that's the last feeling I want to get from a hobby...

It seems to me that they need to get rid of damage on a miss, because those who like it don't like it as much as those who hate it hate it.

So get rid of it.

Indeed, simple as that. If something even this small is causing this much controversy among gamers, removing it would mean doing the game a service.

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.

This is a trick to be aware of: you loved it because it boosted your PC. It's like extra sugar in your donut, you love it when you eat it, one day you'll wake up with diabetes. It's a cheap trick by RPG designers to make characters appear ever slightly more powerful than before. It's understandable, they have to market every edition or revision as "better" than before, and power creep gives you the illusion by mixing up "better game" with "more powerful characters".

Problem is, you have little control over those select few. It's easy to think you'll just ignore things later, and forget that there are other players and DMs who won't. There will always be someone coming up with a Silence spell every fight to universally neutralize spellcasters, if the designers are condescending some of its mechanics because "it's always just an option" or "you don't have to use this in your game".

Critics of this damage-on-a-miss feature are simply looking at the bigger picture. They are not only looking at how cool and special a (low-level) Fighter is with this, they are looking at long-term and large-scale implications on the game and fantasy setting. Unfortunately it pays off to focus on short-term and small-scale, after all it is WotC's interest to both boost excitement at the launch of new books and ignore long-term issues which are the best guarantee for the need of ever new revisions and new editions.

That is cool for the fighter but sucks for literally anything else.

Yep.

 

[Kobold Stew]

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.

(emphasis added)

Fortunately, no player is this villager. Ever. You might be a villager (Commoner or Artisan background) but you have the choice of a suite of abilities, and your starting hit points are always above this threshold.

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.

How you are placed: Unless you stay more than 10 feet away from him.
What abilities you have: You, as a PC, will be fine. Always. No matter how dextrous you are.

Really, it's this kind of "small issues" that, taken together once they reach a personal threshold amount, that can make the difference between love or hate a RPG. Because if despite of the gamist explanations about why "it works" and the simulationist explanations why "it makes sense", if it still feels a stupid idea in the end, then it makes me feel stupid for playing the game, and that's the last feeling I want to get from a hobby...

Believe me, I get that people don't like the rule, and I agree that a number of small annoying rules do have a cumulative effect. For myself, I don't really see this rule as a particularly desirable option, and (as a ref) I always have the option of houseruling the one of the five fighting style options away, or to write a different one. Baby and Bathwater. Nothing gamist, nothing simulationist: if it feels wrong it can be removed, and there are no repercussions beyond a slightly reduced suite of options that will affect one or two players at the table. That's why, for me, this rule doesn't rub as wrong as it seems to for others.

 

[Klaus]

Think of "engaged in melee" as a condition. In the case of a warrior-type specialized in two-handed weapons, anyone he engages in melee loses Str-modifier hit points per round, or weapon-based damage if he hits. You could call it "taxing offense", and in 4e you could even frame it as an aura.

 

[wedgeski]

This is a trick to be aware of: you loved it because it boosted your PC. It's like extra sugar in your donut, you love it when you eat it, one day you'll wake up with diabetes. It's a cheap trick by RPG designers to make characters appear ever slightly more powerful than before. It's understandable, they have to market every edition or revision as "better" than before, and power creep gives you the illusion by mixing up "better game" with "more powerful characters".

Oh, please. Having fun is not a con we're just too stupid to see through. What a ridiculous comment.

Critics of this damage-on-a-miss feature are simply looking at the bigger picture. They are not only looking at how cool and special a (low-level) Fighter is with this, they are looking at long-term and large-scale implications on the game and fantasy setting. Unfortunately it pays off to focus on short-term and small-scale, after all it is WotC's interest to both boost excitement at the launch of new books and ignore long-term issues which are the best guarantee for the need of ever new revisions and new editions.

Now the developers are baking in bad design to guarantee the market for the next edition?? You're in tin-foil hat territory.

Edit: Apologies for nerdrage!

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Indeed, simple as that. If something even this small is causing this much controversy among gamers, removing it would mean doing the game a service.

I fear though that if they listen to every vocal minority that we would have no rules left. That would do the game the ultimate disservice.

I hope that they come up with multiple fighting styles for each "configuration" of weapon(s) and/or shield. That way you'll be able to drop the automatic damage in your campaigns and still have other options for fighters using a two-handed weapon. Give the players more choices and the DM more room to remove things that bother him.

 

[Iosue]

Think of "engaged in melee" as a condition. In the case of a warrior-type specialized in two-handed weapons, anyone he engages in melee loses Str-modifier hit points per round, or weapon-based damage if he hits. You could call it "taxing offense", and in 4e you could even frame it as an aura.

Very true. But then, I don't think many 4e fans have an issue with it.

Basically, the idea is a big, strong guy swinging at least a three foot weapon at you from less than five feet away. At that range, anyone with a modicum of skill is not going to whiff. They may not get the cleanest or most optimal hit, they may not draw blood on an armored foe, but they aren't going to whiff. It's an AoE ability with an area of effect of five square feet.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Or you simply assert that a blindfolded, non-aiming fighter doesn't have the fictional positioning to declare an actual attack, no more than he can declare an attack through a stone wall. Arbitrating fictional positioning is the job of the DM in every playstyle.

 

[TwoSix]

This is a trick to be aware of: you loved it because it boosted your PC. It's like extra sugar in your donut, you love it when you eat it, one day you'll wake up with diabetes. It's a cheap trick by RPG designers to make characters appear ever slightly more powerful than before. It's understandable, they have to market every edition or revision as "better" than before, and power creep gives you the illusion by mixing up "better game" with "more powerful characters".

Wow, I'm totally getting flashbacks to the 2e DMG that I'll love playing characters with tons of low ability scores because then I'm "really roleplaying". D&D isn't a health regimen, it's supposed to be the donut!

 

[Gadget]

The PC rules are not a fantasy world physics simulator. Nor should they try to be. That just leads to overly fiddly subsystems popping up left and right that bog down the game. Any fighter with a couple of levels under his belt in any edition of D&D could go into a village full of commoners and clean house, unless the DM sprinkled higher level NPCs throughout the place, which would work fine as a solution in 5e as well. In fact, if bounded accuracy does what it is designed to do, this will actually be harder to do in 5e with the same impunity as the nigh on untouchable gods of previous editions. So, I'm still not seeing a 'realism' problem with this that wasn't present in spades in all previous editions. I do have concerns with this ability, as expressed above, but those are more about balance and gamest play flow than anything.

 

[Weather Report]

The problem is for those that want to specialise in great weapon fighting, but do not want to do damage on a miss.

For now I would grant +1/2 modifier bonus or + modifier bonus damage on a hit.

As other have said, including it would bother a lot more than not including it, so I say ditch it, or make it an option.