D&D 5E Reducing Power Gaming

[Guest 7037866]

AC 10+dex+whatevery magical deflection is "miss" attack.
then you have 2+ AC for shield, when you block with a shield
above is a glance off armor.

I.E:

half plate with shield and +1 ring for AC

AC: 10+2+1+2+5, total 20

attack roll under 13(dex+ring) is complete miss,
roll 13&14 is deflected by shield,
roll 15-19 is glance of the armor.

OFC, it would be tiresome to remember all of those values, but it's an example how to describe a "miss".

Actually, it really isn't that big a deal if you care to track it.

This is a clip from my 2nd Edition custom character sheet:

Surprised: no dex
Shield-less: well, um... no shield
Rear: no dex, no shield

So, if you want to track it just put the different ACs on the character sheet or even in the creature stat blocks.

I mean, of course, for most people it isn't that big an issue and not worth the extra space. Also, neither 5E (nor the prior character sheet from 2E) accounts for target skill to parry, etc. which is also part of AC (but never passively factored in).

The easiest way to say "clean miss" is if you miss by 10 or more. So, in your example with AC 20, any total of 10 or less would be a clean miss. It doesn't factor in the dodge element of DEX, but is an easy rule to work with.

It’s all about the narrative framing by the DM.

Agree! Which is why I said not to be an asshat about it.

We all have different styles. I deleted my previous posts because this topic seems to strike a nerve. My experiences have been that there’s a popular GM style that consistently interprets failures as character incompetence, rather than bad luck or oppositional force or “oh well, you missed, moving on”. I explained that I can see why some players power game because such DMs can often feel antagonistic that way.

IME any DM who is antagonistic in such a way will not have a game for long unless the players can go with it and riff on each other as well, and on the DM when creature wiff.

This isn’t necessarily about “over empowering the players” or “players are special snowflakes who can’t handle failure ever “. It’s about how we frame these events, contextualize them.

Sure, but sometimes it certainly comes across that way...

Some DM styles can intentionally or not, create the friction of player vs. DM. If that’s what you want, good for you. It’s just one possible reason why some players may want to powergame though.

Powergaming won't help it, though. It might make you miss a bit less often, but if the DM acts like that when you miss, you will still miss on occassion and they will still act like that.

Frankly, I find the turn of the discussiion a bit ironic. PCs miss so rarely IME (65% average hit rate, often much higher...) that how often does this even come up??

 

[TwoSix]

Frankly, I find the turn of the discussiion a bit ironic. PCs miss so rarely IME (65% average hit rate, often much higher...) that how often does this even come up??

Even if your hit rate is 90%, you still roll a 1 5% of the time.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Even if your hit rate is 90%, you still roll a 1 5% of the time.

Did I miss something? Was this just about when someone rolls a natural 1?

 

[TwoSix]

Did I miss something? Was this just about when someone rolls a natural 1?

My take was that the complaint was about DMs assigning farcical incompetent narrations on rolls of a natural 1.

If the DM is narrating even standard misses as pratfall comedy, that's even worse!

 

[Guest 7037866]

My take was that the complaint was about DMs assigning farcical incompetent narrations on rolls of a natural 1.

If the DM is narrating even standard misses as pratfall comedy, that's even worse!

Quite possibly, I suppose, but IMO on a natural 1 makes it much less of a big deal (to me anyway). Players love awesome narrations on natural 20s for crits and a comical (or semi-comical) farse on a natural 1 just balances that out.

So, I was under the assumption this was a DM who did such narrations on any possible miss... I could have missed the natural 1 caveat.

 

[TwoSix]

Quite possibly, I suppose, but IMO on a natural 1 makes it much less of a big deal (to me anyway). Players love awesome narrations on natural 20s for crits and a comical (or semi-comical) farse on a natural 1 just balances that out.

So, I was under the assumption this was a DM who did such narrations on any possible miss... I could have missed the natural 1 caveat.

I had been responding to this post:

I despise it when another DM gets annoyed that my PC is good at what they’re made to do. Especially when they see me roll a 1 and use it as an opportunity to describe my character as an incompetent buffoon, to the point that they encourage the other PCs to start ongoing jokes about that incompetence (ie, bad luck).

Basically I’ve experienced DMs who interpret failed skill checks as comical farce and failed attack rolls as ludicrous whiffing (“your character swings wildly, swooshing in the air and your opponent laughs at your inaccuracy”). I can understand why some players power game: to battle asshat DMs who give the impression that they are, in fact, their opponent.

But it does also seem like the conversation expanded past that in the interim.

 

[NotAYakk]

As the last several post are for fighter,

EK is OK, RK is ok,

just merge champion and BM into single sub class and that could make it not boring as hell.

Sadly I think the combo remains relatively boring. 2024 champion is a bit better, with natural athlete at 3, which encourages use of some skills.

Making the Champion be a simple, effective and not boring fighter is a challenge. I keep on going back to doing stuff like "when you take a second wind, you can make a weapon attack", because it is sort of simple but has non-zero tactical depth. Or giving the Champion a "reroll on a miss" 1/turn (like Gloomstalker 11 has); a simple reactive accuracy boost.

The Brute's +1d4 damage, maybe extended to other situations, could be fun; but too much "the player forgot to roll the die" makes me leery. Like: Champions get a Champion die, which they add to weapon damage, attacks, str dex con and cha attribute checks and saves (including initiative). This die starts as a 1d4 and grows in size up to 1d12 by level 20.

Quite possibly, I suppose, but IMO on a natural 1 makes it much less of a big deal (to me anyway). Players love awesome narrations on natural 20s for crits and a comical (or semi-comical) farse on a natural 1 just balances that out.

So, I was under the assumption this was a DM who did such narrations on any possible miss... I could have missed the natural 1 caveat.

Natural 1s being fumbles doesn't balance 20s being awesome.

Making more attacks is one measure of skill in D&D (especially 5e). More attacks means more 20s means more skill means more awesome.

But more attacks also means more 1s. So suddenly more skill means more comical farce failures?

This is why fumble tables are not a good idea in a game where more skill means more attacks; you get the nonsense of elite fighters constantly rolling on fumble tables.

And this is both a concrete problem (I've seen it happen) and a known problem (I've seen advice in rulebooks specifically calling it out as a problem).

 

[Mort]

Sadly I think the combo remains relatively boring. 2024 champion is a bit better, with natural athlete at 3, which encourages use of some skills.

Making the Champion be a simple, effective and not boring fighter is a challenge. I keep on going back to doing stuff like "when you take a second wind, you can make a weapon attack", because it is sort of simple but has non-zero tactical depth. Or giving the Champion a "reroll on a miss" 1/turn (like Gloomstalker 11 has); a simple reactive accuracy boost.

The Brute's +1d4 damage, maybe extended to other situations, could be fun; but too much "the player forgot to roll the die" makes me leery. Like: Champions get a Champion die, which they add to weapon damage, attacks, str dex con and cha attribute checks and saves (including initiative). This die starts as a 1d4 and grows in size up to 1d12 by level 20.


Natural 1s being fumbles doesn't balance 20s being awesome.

Making more attacks is one measure of skill in D&D (especially 5e). More attacks means more 20s means more skill means more awesome.

But more attacks also means more 1s. So suddenly more skill means more comical farce failures?

This is why fumble tables are not a good idea in a game where more skill means more attacks; you get the nonsense of elite fighters constantly rolling on fumble tables.

And this is both a concrete problem (I've seen it happen) and a known problem (I've seen advice in rulebooks specifically calling it out as a problem).

^Great way to sum up the issue!

A 1 being an auto-miss, that's fine, sometimes attacks miss. A 1 being a critical fumble that can lead to drastically bad results? That just penalizes the classes that rely on attacks as their schtick. Casters can easily avoid having to make attack rolls if they need to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Way to present me as being awful.

I described a situation. If you have a player or players who are easily demoralized by failure and you insist on characterizing the extremely vague resolution D&Doids do to emphasize that failure, that is pretty awful as far as I'm concerned. If that's not the people you're dealing with, its a different situation and doesn't apply.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Natural 1s being fumbles doesn't balance 20s being awesome.

Making more attacks is one measure of skill in D&D (especially 5e). More attacks means more 20s means more skill means more awesome.

But more attacks also means more 1s. So suddenly more skill means more comical farce failures?

This is why fumble tables are not a good idea in a game where more skill means more attacks; you get the nonsense of elite fighters constantly rolling on fumble tables.

And this is both a concrete problem (I've seen it happen) and a known problem (I've seen advice in rulebooks specifically calling it out as a problem).

You're conflating the issue. It is not 1 being a "critical fumble" of any sort. It is a 1 being a miss and occasionally being described comicly for relief. If the DM does this, hopefully they do the same for creatures under their control when they roll a 1 (or miss in general if that is the issue).

And yes, I know all the maths behind the more attacks == more chances for disaster argument concerning games who play with actual critical fumbles. So, let's not waste time going there? It isn't the issue I've been discussing, at least.