|
So a couple things came up in the playtest rules namely Magic missile cantrip and Slayer theme that I would like to talk about. For instance the magic missile is like the 3E MM except its a cantrip you can cast it all day long and at 100 ft to boot. Then there is the slayer theme that allows you to do Str mod damage on a miss swing. How do you feel about the idea of auto damage at-will attacks?
I understand that goblins and kobolds are supposed to be weak and pathetic. Auto killing them can feel pretty bad ass. However, dropping an ogre on a miss swing seems so anti-climatic. Personally I do not like auto damage. It has nothing to do with flavor or believability. I just like PCs and enemies to stand a chance of living through an attack by dice roll.
I am ok with MM or martial dailies granting auto damage(please don't flame me) as long as its a limited resource. I know martial dailies is not going to fly so that's out. Maybe the slayer does non-lethal on a miss? Not sure what I can suggest I don't want to stop the fighter from having nice things. As for MM, Id say give it an attack roll but we seen how that turned out. Moving MM back to a level 1 spell out of line?
In honor of the spirit of D&D:N I am willing to roll with auto damage rules. I just hope auto damage isn't too difficult to dial out or to houserule away. If they continue to add features that grant it may be too much trouble for a guy like me to bother with. I would like to hear what yall think now.
It doesnt bother me, although personally I would have preferred d6-3 auto damage or something (so it wasnt automatic damage but you still got a 'consolation roll' on a miss).
I havent minded it in 4E, but it's proved important to remember that combat and hit points are abstract - a hit doesnt necessarily mean making contact and failing to hit doenst necessarily mean you missed.
For those who treat 1hp damage as a slight nick with a sword and 50hp as a walloping (or something) I could appreciate the mechanic feeling weird.
|
|
It doesnt bother me, although personally I would have preferred d6-3 auto damage or something (so it wasnt automatic damage but you still got a 'consolation roll' on a miss).
I havent minded it in 4E, but it's proved important to remember that combat and hit points are abstract - a hit doesnt necessarily mean making contact and failing to hit doenst necessarily mean you missed.
For those who treat 1hp damage as a slight nick with a sword and 50hp as a walloping (or something) I could appreciate the mechanic feeling weird.
That is part of what I was getting at with the flavor or believability. I understand that HP are an abstract. I like the roll of the dice deciding fate. Auto damage kind of takes some of that away.
Maybe its not a big deal like a lot of people say its powerful at level 1 but slowly losses power as you level. I have a hard time seeing its purpose if it doesn't get better. MM scales as you level currently. Im just hoping its not a trend. If it is part of the overall design I hope the game is not unplayable if I want to strip it out.
There's a 23+ page thread over on the WotC boards discussing the same thing. And I'll say here what I said there:
A Miss doesn't mean 'wiff' unless it's a natural 1. I'm ok with this because this precident has been in D&D for as long as I can remember. I don't think it (meaning the Reaper feat)should be used when the attack has Disadvantage, because this illustrates the difficulty imposed by specific factors that hurt your chances of an attack. I also don't think it should be used if the target has full or even 3/4 cover. Doing damage to someone around a wall, behind a door, behind the desk-makshift-wall does break a certain amount of realism. Ergo, we make those changes to the Feat. It still works well, it still works with Melee and Ranged.
I think this solution is the best way of keeping the ability mostly as-is yet retaining the realism with a "Miss". A lot of people like it, a lot don't (for opposite reasons).
As for magic missile, I think the range needs to drop by 3/4 (make it 25 feet + 5 feet every damage bump). Sadly because it's magic there's really no way to marginalize it's effects like the Reaper feat, BUT the main thing is that the Reaper feat is just that, a feat and usable by anyone where as Magic Missile is a Wizard only thing.
I think the "damage on a miss" mechanic is completely unacceptable. If monsters had such a mechanic, players would be howling in protest.
I don't have a problem with the cantrip magic missile, as long as you have to roll to hit. The auto-damage aspect if used by monsters would elicit the same response as the "damage on a miss".
I think it would depend on the players. In 4E there are monsters which have a similar mechanic (plenty have auras, for example). I've never noticed anyone complain about them particularly vigorously.
Again though - if you think "miss" means your sword doesnt make contact with the enemy and "hit" means your sword does, then it doesnt really make sense.
|
I don't think hit points have ever been more than an abstract measurement, never a simulation of actually flesh wounds a character can take. If the latter were the case, characters would be gaining more flesh as they levelled.
Also, cure light wounds doesn't really make sense if you assume HP as a simulation: why can this single spell, which cures LIGHT wounds, represent nearly 50% of a character's HP at low levels and only count as a minor band-auf at higher levels?
Once you get out of the HP=points of meat mindset, dealing damage on a miss makes perfect sense. Also, all editions of D&D have had at least some kind of damage on a miss mechanic: fireball and similar area attacks have always dealt half damage on a miss (okay, on a successful save, but it's basically the same mechanic turned the other way around and with different numbers).
From a gamey point of view, I think it's acceptable for Fighters, but not for Wizards. Magic missile should either be a 1st-level spell, with cantrips saved for actually minor effects, or require an attack roll. Otherwise it steps too muc on the Fighter's toes, since damage is supposed to be the Fighter's thing in Next.
"These days, with a 6-second round, if you are expected to be able to do all the things a combat round allows you to do, you aren't swinging your weapon more than once per attack. A miss is a miss."
*shrug* like I say - if you think each attack is a sword swing which either connects and hits or doesn't connect and misses, then youre going to struggle to reconcile the automatic damage. If hit points are abstract you can justify it. We don't take a simulationist approach at all with RPGs so it doesn't even seem peculiar to us.
"So the dwarven fighter is so mighty that even though he missed the 2 hp kobold completely, the wind from his axe cut the poor little thing in half?
Buzz. Wrong answer. Try again."
I don't think anyone is justifying it as the wind - I see hit points as an entirely abstract concept encapsulating all kinds of things from brute mass to resilience to combat expertise... The fact they decay when you're fighting a skilled warrior is, in my mind, a purely abstract way to model the fact that he's going to grind you down eventually if you don't finish him off quickly.
|
It was one of the things I fought hard against in the feedback survey. Let's see if they listen.
It feels wrong to me, and the largest part of this new edition is bringing back the DnD feel, as IMO 4E lost so much of it. I turned to Pathfinder for an authentic DnD feel, and here I'll stay if Next doesn't recapture enough of it.
|
These days, with a 6-second round, if you are expected to be able to do all the things a combat round allows you to do, you aren't swinging your weapon more than once per attack. A miss is a miss.
I think you could definitely get in a few swings with a sword in a 6 second combat round (or even 3 seconds).
So the dwarven fighter is so mighty that even though he missed the 2 hp kobold completely, the wind from his axe cut the poor little thing in half?
Although its not spelt out in D&D Next (yet?) but there is still the concept that missing the AC of a foe doesn't necessarily mean missing them completely (in 3.5 its the difference between Touch AC and regular AC), so a "miss" may actually mean the Slayer fails to find a weak point in the armour (the axe blade doesn't penetrate) but he is so strong that he knocks the foe off balance (the foe still has > half HP), or perhaps fractures a few ribs, possibly even breaking a few (foe has < half HP).
I can see the auto damage being fairly able to explain with the abstract nature of HP - you could even argue that the fighter's ferocious display (despite not actually getting a strike in) simply intimidates a foe so much that they crumble and don't continue to fight (i.e. they are reduced to zero HP).
Unfortunately D&D Next still hasn't totally divorced HP from the idea of physical injuries - I see HP more as a measure of how much fight a character still has left in them, how long they can stay on their feet and continue to adventure; and whilst injuries can reduce that, so can taunts (4e's Vicious Mockery).
|
|
The real problem with equating HP with some sort of abstraction is that they still require healing. And the more HP you have, the more healing you require. This doesn't make sense unless HP represent a real physical aspect of the character.
This is something that IMHO 4e got so right. Healing Surges were a proportion of a character's total HP (one quarter), so a power that allowed a character to spend a healing surge always "heals" one quarter HP.
|
|
One should also remember that HP isn't the only abstraction in D&D. AC is a factor of both how much armor you're wearing AND of how quick you are at dodging blows. Because of this it's unnecessary to assume that a miss in D&D is always a miss in the sense of "did not connect," unless you also assume that full plate suddenly makes you an acrobatic prodigy who dodges blows left and right.
With this in mind, a miss that deals damage becomes "the goblin's armor got in the way of the blow, but the Fighter hit it with such force that the goblin had the wind knocked out of his lungs."
|
Here is my problem with these two mechanics:
Reaper - Short answer is that miss = damage is too simple to be believable. It breaks immersion. But there is an easy solution - compare the attack to the touch AC (if that still exists) and if it hits then it deals the Reaper damage. Is that work worth the payoff? You could even stack that by adding back in the weapon/AC rules, allowing weapon + Str damage.
Another option would be a "recover" attack - if the attack misses the touch AC, then the character has completely missed and can regain momentum for a follow-up attack (re-roll).
At-Will Magic Missile - First off, magic missile should be 1d4+1 and must auto-hit (4e Essentials admitted the latter). It's the "magic is better than mundane" routine).
I understand the desire to give the mage their own "weapon" but just make it an Eldritch Blast (my own houserule is 1d6+highest level spell slot left). Leave magic missile as a proper spell for those "must hit" moments.
Jal Dorak, while I agree with the spirit of your suggestion re: touch AC, I suspect strongly that the core rules of D&D Next won't feature touch or flat-footed AC, or 4e-style defenses, for the sake of simplicity (a choice that I agree with, incidentally - leave that stuff for tactical modules).
The Reaper ability doesn't break immersion horribly for me. I think of it as the dwarf fighter swinging her axe, missing with the head, and then reversing the trajectory of her swing to bash the target with the haft or deliver a glancing blow with a kick or a shield bash. I also don't mind the ability to auto-drop low-level foes, or indeed to finish off a severely weakened opponent who is much stronger to begin with. Simply put, fighters are badasses and should be treated as such.
Now, the problem I DO foresee with Reaper is that if other backgrounds/themes (can't remember offhand which grants this ability) don't measure up to this ability in base utility, then the chances of a fighter taking any other choice in lieu of Reaper are slim to none. I also think it should apply solely to melee damage, because as it's now written it also works with ranged attacks. Allowing such damage on a ranged attack should be tied into a separate background/theme.
On the issue of magic missile: my current objection to it is much the same as it was in 4E, which is that in a vast majority of situations, it's the best thing the pre-gen wizard can do, and doing the same thing round after round is just boring. Either the other cantrips need to be made as useful in most combat situations, or magic missile needs to be dialed back - or perhaps just elevated to a 1st-level spell, with the rate at which additional missiles are gained advanced accordingly. (I suppose they could also rule that the cantrip magic missile requires an attack roll, but I think a lot of traditionalists will scream bloody murder at that like they did in 4E, which is why it got changed to auto-hit in Essentials.)
One other angle to consider could be allowing mages to pick multiple backgrounds in the same manner that they currently suggest fighters could do, and then give a large variety of magical backgrounds that offer different damaging effects, not dissimilar to how sorcerer bloodlines work in Pathfinder. I like this better than just a flat eldritch blast mechanic because it allows for greater personalization and helps flesh out the character's backstory.
|
|
The real problem with equating HP with some sort of abstraction is that they still require healing. And the more HP you have, the more healing you require. This doesn't make sense unless HP represent a real physical aspect of the character.
A while back, my current Pathfinder GM decided that she was tired of the discrepancy between abstract HP and real healing. She ruled that a cure light wounds healed (1d8+1 per CL max 5) x the recipient's level. Other cure spells were treated the same way.
So what happened when you cast a cure spell on a character was the same, percentage-wise, regardless of level.
And natural healing was likewise modified by the character's level.
This prevented the abstract nature of hit points from screwing over high-level characters. (Which is what happens under the normal system.)
She eventually went back to the regular way because players were getting confused by the idea ("it's not in the rulebook!"), but the idea of it is sound.
The Alexandrian is probably the source of that change.
I agree with the analysis of hit points - in short, that higher level characters can turn previously deadly blows (1d8+1 with a longsword) into proportionately trivial injuries.
But the conclusion breaks down when you ramp up the power of the cure spells to compensate for "equal physical healing", making them far more valuable than any 1st-level damage spell. Should the inflict spells likewise be inflated? There already is a method of compensate for increased character power - higher level cure spells. 2d8+3 is overkill for a 1st-level character, but pretty good for a 3rd-level.
Really it comes back to the "sequence of attacks" per attack roll, and the concept of a "hit point", ie. one point of contact. 1d8+1 does not represent one sword blow dealing 2-9 damage, it represents 2-9 successful sword blows dealing 1 damage each. Some of these points of contact may be a single effective blow, but not all of them.
So its not the 1d8+1 that is getting deflated by level, it's each individual hit point. So 2-9 blows to a 1st-level are deep gashes, but to a 10th-level they are mere scratches. By extension, a basic cure light wounds heals 2-9 separate injuries, or hit points, therefore it doesn't matter if they are scratches or deep gashes, it can only affect a certain number (or use multiple hit points to knit together a single larger (for the higher level character, proportionately smaller) wound).
|
|
Here is my problem with these two mechanics:
Reaper - Short answer is that miss = damage is too simple to be believable. It breaks immersion. But there is an easy solution - compare the attack to the touch AC (if that still exists) and if it hits then it deals the Reaper damage. Is that work worth the payoff? You could even stack that by adding back in the weapon/AC rules, allowing weapon + Str damage.
I don't know, touch AC always felt like an unnecessary layer of complexity in an otherwise abstract system. For purely gameplay related reasons, I'd rather see it gone for good. It's just too fiddly.
However, I understand your point about it breaking immersion, but that's a matter of communication and expectation: D&D's combat system, especially in relation to AC and HP, has always been very abstract. Because of the abstract nature of AC and HP, an attack that "hits" might not actually make a single scratch on the enemy, but represent a melee where you're winning and thus forcing your opponent to exert their resources. This is pretty much how it should go at high levels, because what would be even more immersion-breaking, at least to myself, would be to narrate a fight between two characters in excess of 50 hit points hitting each other with two-handed swords for a many minutes with each "hit" as a blow that connects. It doesn't make sense.
Similarly, because AC also factors in armor, a "miss" might in fact be a blow that connects which glances off the enemy's armor/shield, and not a miss in the sense of "did not connect." (as posted above)
Once one factors in the abstract nature of HP and AC it becomes very easy to narrate melee characters with misses that deal damage: maybe the attack DID connect with the enemy's armor and/or shield, but the Fighter is just so tough that the Fighter doesn't care. Maybe the Fighter's blows didn't connect, but because of the Fighter's aggressive fighting style the enemy was forced to exert themself in order to avoid the attacks.
The biggest problem I can see with this is Reaper characters killing minion-type enemies (those with in the range of 2-3 hit points) automatically, but for reasons of narrative I see this as a feature and not a bug: the Reaper Fighter should be able to mow down the minions of the BBEG at a steady rate of one per round, because that is often how it works in media in the style of D&D.
Also, for purely gamey reasons again, I think automatic damage on a miss will reduce a lot of grind, especially now that the game seems to assume a quick and dirty combat system where PCs will often fight more than four foes at a time.
I understand the desire to give the mage their own "weapon" but just make it an Eldritch Blast (my own houserule is 1d6+highest level spell slot left). Leave magic missile as a proper spell for those "must hit" moments.
This I am in complete agreement with: magic missile should be a proper spell instead of the auto-hit cantrip it is at the moment. However, instead of introducing Eldritch Blast as an at-will spell, I'd personally remove all purely damaging spells from the cantrip list and instead provide a number of utility spells which would have potential uses in combat. For an example, the "ignite" cantrip could be used to set any flammable equipment in possession of the opponent on fire with a successful roll, dealing fire damage as appropriate. Spells that are purely damage-based shouldn't be on the cantrips list. I think at some point the designers spoke of something to this effect, and I hope they implement it.
That's just IMO, though.
EDIT: Also, this feels as relevant to post as ever:
It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).
|
|
Jal Dorak, while I agree with the spirit of your suggestion re: touch AC, I suspect strongly that the core rules of D&D Next won't feature touch or flat-footed AC, or 4e-style defenses, for the sake of simplicity (a choice that I agree with, incidentally - leave that stuff for tactical modules).
The Reaper ability doesn't break immersion horribly for me. I think of it as the dwarf fighter swinging her axe, missing with the head, and then reversing the trajectory of her swing to bash the target with the haft or deliver a glancing blow with a kick or a shield bash. I also don't mind the ability to auto-drop low-level foes, or indeed to finish off a severely weakened opponent who is much stronger to begin with. Simply put, fighters are badasses and should be treated as such.
Yeah, I was thinking they would do away with the multiple AC problem, which is fine I never really liked it anyway, I prefer circumstantial modifiers. My guess is that they see it as the fighter wailing away at the opponent so hard that even if he doesn't land a solid blow or two, he still puts some dents in the armor and such. I guess it's not too bad, it just needs some clarification.
On the issue of magic missile: my current objection to it is much the same as it was in 4E, which is that in a vast majority of situations, it's the best thing the pre-gen wizard can do, and doing the same thing round after round is just boring. Either the other cantrips need to be made as useful in most combat situations, or magic missile needs to be dialed back - or perhaps just elevated to a 1st-level spell, with the rate at which additional missiles are gained advanced accordingly. (I suppose they could also rule that the cantrip magic missile requires an attack roll, but I think a lot of traditionalists will scream bloody murder at that like they did in 4E, which is why it got changed to auto-hit in Essentials.)
For me the default Eldritch Blast is just that, a default that could be swapped out for something else. On the issue of it becoming stale, I would say no more so than the fighters attacks. At least it isn't magic missile or something else flashy that becomes boring, its something innocuous but still magical.
You could even throw in some feats or theme abilities to improve it the same way the fighter can improve his weapons. Have a fire spell prepared? You can make it a fiery blast. Divination spell? Get a bonus on your attack roll instead of damage. Doesn't have to be vanilla.
|
|
Reaper - Short answer is that miss = damage is too simple to be believable. It breaks immersion. But there is an easy solution - compare the attack to the touch AC (if that still exists) and if it hits then it deals the Reaper damage. Is that work worth the payoff? You could even stack that by adding back in the weapon/AC rules, allowing weapon + Str damage.
Probably not worth the effort for the 3 points of damage that will be inflicted. It breaks immersion for me no more than Armour Class does already (i.e. the chance to hit and do damage takes account the armour a target is wearing but it doesn't take into account any armour penetration capability of the weapon being used).
At-Will Magic Missile - First off, magic missile should be 1d4+1 and must auto-hit (4e Essentials admitted the latter).
I actually hated this change in Essentials and even stopped updating my offline character builder so I wouldn't receive the change - to me it made using the Wizard's At Will ability boring - no manoeuvring to avoid cover penalties, no excitement of rolling a critical etc, just "4 damage on that monster and I will stay where I am, Jim its your go".
I understand the desire to give the mage their own "weapon" but just make it an Eldritch Blast (my own houserule is 1d6+highest level spell slot left). Leave magic missile as a proper spell for those "must hit" moments.
I agree for the reason I didn't like the 4e change to Magic Missile - an auto hit spell as an At Will is boring, but could be very useful and interesting as a limited use spell (i.e. make it a first level spell in D&D Next).
And apparently in earlier playtests WotC did try to make the Wizard At Will damaging spell something other than Magic Missile (a Fire Javelin or something) but apparently the feedback was it wasn't liked, hence Magic Missile being made an At Will. A pity, but maybe something that could change again.
|
|
Of course, we end up agreeing while I'm posting during your post!
This I am in complete agreement with: magic missile should be a proper spell instead of the auto-hit cantrip it is at the moment. However, instead of introducing Eldritch Blast as an at-will spell, I'd personally remove all purely damaging spells from the cantrip list and instead provide a number of utility spells which would have potential uses in combat. For an example, the "ignite" cantrip could be used to set any flammable equipment in possession of the opponent on fire with a successful roll, dealing fire damage as appropriate. Spells that are purely damage-based shouldn't be on the cantrips list. I think at some point the designers spoke of something to this effect, and I hope they implement it.
I'd really like them to go this route, because it takes away some of the emphasis on combat. An ignite cantrip as you described could be useful for combat, exploration, or stealth (creating a distraction). Plus it encourages creative play, rather than being just another +X (1dY+Z) damage effect.
On a related note, my Pathfinder group recently engaged an Iron Golem. The fight came down to the druid using Overrun, and the wizards using acid splash to take it down from afar. That session was a horrible grind, and really put the final nail in the coffin for at-will cantrips (at least, those dealing with hit points).
|
|
Of course, we end up agreeing while I'm posting during your post!
This I am in complete agreement with: magic missile should be a proper spell instead of the auto-hit cantrip it is at the moment. However, instead of introducing Eldritch Blast as an at-will spell, I'd personally remove all purely damaging spells from the cantrip list and instead provide a number of utility spells which would have potential uses in combat. For an example, the "ignite" cantrip could be used to set any flammable equipment in possession of the opponent on fire with a successful roll, dealing fire damage as appropriate. Spells that are purely damage-based shouldn't be on the cantrips list. I think at some point the designers spoke of something to this effect, and I hope they implement it.I'd really like them to go this route, because it takes away some of the emphasis on combat. An ignite cantrip as you described could be useful for combat, exploration, or stealth (creating a distraction). Plus it encourages creative play, rather than being just another +X (1dY+Z) damage effect.
Yeah, I really like the idea of cantrips as minor, not directly offensive magic, with lots of room for improvization. I recall back in the days of playing Rolemaster, one of the 1st-level fire spells was boil. Not very useful in and of itself, but when it's all you can do as a first level Wizard, players will come up with creative solutions, like heating bottles of water to boiling point (while wearing oven mitts for safety!) and tossing bottles of scalding hot water on enemies.
|
|
This I am in complete agreement with: magic missile should be a proper spell instead of the auto-hit cantrip it is at the moment. However, instead of introducing Eldritch Blast as an at-will spell, I'd personally remove all purely damaging spells from the cantrip list and instead provide a number of utility spells which would have potential uses in combat. For an example, the "ignite" cantrip could be used to set any flammable equipment in possession of the opponent on fire with a successful roll, dealing fire damage as appropriate. Spells that are purely damage-based shouldn't be on the cantrips list. I think at some point the designers spoke of something to this effect, and I hope they implement it.That sort of defeats the intent of making sure the caster has something to do every round in a fight. Damage always works. Sometimes you'll be able to come up with clever uses for the utility spells in combat, but they won't always be there - if they are, then you're just back to damaging cantrips.
That's actually a really good point. However, I'm not 100% sold on the "Everyone should have something to do during every round of combat" point. The only edition of D&D where this holds true is D&D 4e, and while 4e was extremely balanced in that regard it was also a major departure from tradition. However, it is a good idea and I don't see any harm coming from it, provided the Wizard isn't dealing damage on par with the Fighter with their cantrips.
I guess what I'm objecting to is the change of magic missile from a 1st-level spell to a cantrip. I know that magic missile was an at-will spell in 4e, but I think it was okay in 4e because 4e was already such a major departure from the shared language of D&D that it was excusable. However, since Next is largely about a return to the pre-4e D&D framework, I'd rather they keep magic missile as a 1st-level spell, like it's always been.
If they must look for a combat utility cantrip for the Wizard, I'd rather they'd look to options that are already there, instead of revamping magic missile as a cantrip: acid splash, ray of frost (okay, it's there, but it's vastly different from what it was before), touch of fatigue, daze, etc.
EDIT: Related to the point about "everyone should have something to do in combat every round," I recently heard the complaint from one of the players in my Labyrinth Lord group that his Magic-User didn't really have much to do in combat beyond casting magic missile once per day. Well, after obviously chiding him for taking magic missile (Really, who doesn't take sleep?) I started writing down a list of things his character could do in combat when he ran out of spells, including stuff like throwing bottles of burning oil, fighting from afar with thrown daggers or a sling, etc.
I mean, there's plenty of stuff for Wizards to do every round. The main problem, I think, is that the Wizard doesn't have magicky stuff to do every round. At-will cantrips are a good way to work around this, but I'd just rather they left magic missile alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man. This is off-topic, but I reposted some of my thoughts written above in a Facebook forum that is read by D&D Next enthusiasts and a handful of WotC designers, and immediately had some nut jump on me for violating the confidentiality agreement and attempting corporate espionage to help out "the guys that want to put D&D in a shallow grave along a roadside somewhere".
I reposted the section of the playtest FAQ that states we can discuss our experiences publicly and told him to stop shouting bogeyman over nothing.
Some people, man. Some people.
|
|
Oh man. This is off-topic, but I reposted some of my thoughts written above in a Facebook forum that is read by D&D Next enthusiasts and a handful of WotC designers, and immediately had some nut jump on me for violating the confidentiality agreement and attempting corporate espionage to help out "the guys that want to put D&D in a shallow grave along a roadside somewhere".
I reposted the section of the playtest FAQ that states we can discuss our experiences publicly and told him to stop shouting bogeyman over nothing.
Some people, man. Some people.
It's actually because of the confidentiality agreement that I've made a point of not quoting the rules of the game verbatim and only speaking in the broadest of term about the contents of the playtest documents (or at least tried to exercise caution in those regards), but even if someone were to do just that I don't think Wizards would actually lawyer down on any one.
Someone copying the rules and concepts of the playtest and implementing them into their own, commercial product would probably be a different situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather not have magic missile as an at-will spell, but it wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me. Same with a fighter doing damage on a miss.
The big thing I'd rather not have is a system where everything does some sort of hit point damage. I don't want color spray to take away hit points, no matter what the explanation is. That's one thing I hope this game veers away from.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A far better solution is to say that a miss is a miss, and damage can't be done on a miss.
It's very simple and it doesn't violate common sense.
But then again, in a system where a "hit" may be a bunch of blows that don't connect but only tax the enemy's stamina and ability to reliably dodge blows and a "miss" may actually connect but just not make a scratch, as is the case with a system where AC and HP are as abstract as they are, what doesn't violate common sense?
To me, dealing damage on a miss only builds upon the already abstract nature of the combat mechanic in a way that breaks immersion no more than hit points that represent everything from physical resilience to luck and ability to turn a blow into a scratch and armor class that represents everything from ability to avoid blows to how much protective gear you're wearing AND how thick your skin is.
Besides, the Slayer theme is the only exception to the rule of "no damage on a miss" within the game that we know of. If dealing damage on a miss stays within the realm of one feat granted by one theme, I don't really think it's that bad.
I mean, beyond fireballs, dragon breath, burning hands and other area of effect attacks dealing damage on a miss, obviously.
EDIT: Really, the only thing that a hit in D&D represents is that "the opponent takes damage." The only thing that a miss represents in D&D is "the opponent doesn't take damage." HP only represents "how much damage you can take." Beyond that, damage can be anything from a minor scratch, forcing the enemy to go on the defensive, loss of stamina, loss of divine favour, and decapitation, depending on the circumstances as is appropriately narrated by the DM.
|
|
In general, I'm starting to agree with you Ratpick, but it all depends on what kinds of situational modifiers apply. The best example so far is if the opponent is behind cover. How can you "overwhelm" the opponent if a stone wall is blocking your attack.
Similarly, if you weapon is poisoned, is the defender exposed?
Does the damage overcome DR or not, or is it just raw physical damage? If it is just physical, can you use magic to enhance your natural attacks? What if you are attacking a mimic or similar creature? Are you stuck, or is it your weapon?
Obviously I'm exacerbating things with this specific issue, but I just want to avoid these sorts of arguments at the table if I do end up playing 5e.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I like it simple.
Regardless of what happens or how you want to describe damage, a "miss" should be the very definition that 'no damage has been dealt'. Otherwise it isn't a miss.
I'm not sure if I like abilities that automatically turn a miss into a "not-miss" without investment of some kind of resource, even if the damage is negligible.
I'd have to experience it in play to make a better opinion, but I don't like the concept at first glance. At any case, I don't like the idea of the warrior that never ever misses a swing.
As for at-will auto-hit spells...
Actually, I don't like at-will spells in a context of Vancian magic, period. Magic being a finite resource has been a central part of D&D before Pathfinder and 4e, although I do understand the gamist interest to have reliable magic at all time.
I'd rather have a wizard that's a bit better at doing stuff without magic all the time than a wizard that uses magic for everything, all the time.
|
|
In general, I'm starting to agree with you Ratpick, but it all depends on what kinds of situational modifiers apply. The best example so far is if the opponent is behind cover. How can you "overwhelm" the opponent if a stone wall is blocking your attack.
Similarly, if you weapon is poisoned, is the defender exposed?
Does the damage overcome DR or not, or is it just raw physical damage? If it is just physical, can you use magic to enhance your natural attacks? What if you are attacking a mimic or similar creature? Are you stuck, or is it your weapon?
Obviously I'm exacerbating things with this specific issue, but I just want to avoid these sorts of arguments at the table if I do end up playing 5e.
Yeah, all of those questions would be worth answering in the final rules. As far as DR goes, I'm not sure if it's in the game any more. At least none of the creatures in the bestiary have it, the closest thing to it being vulnerability/resistance.
I'm not sure if I like abilities that automatically turn a miss into a "not-miss" without investment of some kind of resource, even if the damage is negligible.
Well, seeing as the ability isn't automatic for all Fighters (it's a feat gained through the Slayer theme, so any character without said theme/feat wouldn't deal damage on a miss. So, yeah, there's the investment.
To me, dealing damage on a miss only builds upon the already abstract nature of the combat mechanic in a way that breaks immersion no more than hit points that represent everything from physical resilience to luck and ability to turn a blow into a scratch and armor class that represents everything from ability to avoid blows to how much protective gear you're wearing AND how thick your skin is.
To elaborate on this, I actually like the 'damage on a miss' abilities because it drives home the fact that hit points are an abstraction. Hits points have always been an abstraction, but it was easy to overlook. These abilities actually work perfectly with how hit points have always been presented, they just make the intended abstraction clearer.
|
|
A far better solution is to say that a miss is a miss, and damage can't be done on a miss.
It's very simple and it doesn't violate common sense.
Regardless of what happens or how you want to describe damage, a "miss" should be the very definition that 'no damage has been dealt'. Otherwise it isn't a miss.
You see I think the core of the problem is the terminology and the fact that Armour increases the difficulty, rather than reduce damage (like most other RPGs). The use of the term "Miss" is potentially incorrect depending upon the roll.
Using 3.5 / PF as an example, if a foe has a Touch AC of 15 and an AC of 18 then when you swing with your sword and roll a total of 21 then its obviously a hit - bit it is actually more than that - its a hit that also does damage (unless the foe has DR to cancel it out).
If you roll 16, then you don't get to roll damage but its not actually a miss - you exceeded their Touch AC and so its logical to conclude you made contact.
If you roll 12 then you didn't even get Touch AC and so this is a genuine "Miss".
So really we shouldn't be using two terms: "Hit" and "Miss" rather we should be using three terms, something like "Penetrating Hit", "Non-penetrating Hit" and "Miss".
If we used these terms then an ability that inflicts a couple of points of damage even on a "Non-penetrating Hit" doesn't sound so illogical.
Of course the problem in terms of D&D Next is that it doesn't seem to be using the idea of a Touch AC, so you cannot distinguish between a "Non-penetrating Hit" and a "Miss". But I am happy to go with the ease of play and say in either case the Slayer gets to do a few extra points of damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the positive outcomes of the Slayer theme I can see is that, if they keep using hit points as an encounter-scaling tool like they've implied, the Slayer will be able to reduce some of the grind of fighting enemies with lots of hit points by being able to deal at least some damage every round.
When that Slayer charges into battle he swings his axe so brutally that his foes are lucky if they can scramble out of the way off balance, or if their armour deflects some of the damage that his heavy swing can do!
I like it :)
Also it would be interesting to see some math on the fighters to hit/ Dmg per round compared to a wizard throwing magic missiles every round? I'm no mathematician but who knows the fighter might still be winning.
|
|
I actually did some calculations to see who has the highest average damage per round, a Slayer Fighter or the Rogue. The Fighter came clearly on top, even when assuming that the Rogue has advantage and gets a sneak attack, which they'll only be able to do every other round.
I'm going to be really busy for the next couple of days, since I have two graveyard shifts coming, but I guess I could extend my calculations to the Wizard. I'm pretty sure the Fighter will come out on top in terms of raw damage output.
5E and at-will auto damage. You cool with it?
Nope.
..
.
Well... I suppose they could design it where such a thing was tolerable. They would have to properly (explicitly and clearly) define what hit points are meant to be. Then they'd have to go and re-change and re-update everything related to hit points throughout the rules, and make sure all references to hit points took the proper definition into account. So... maybe.
And it would have to affect and be available to both PCs and NPCs. No exceptions.
(I have a bigger problem with at-will auto-hit magic missile. Infinite spammable auto-hits from range blow. Period. If wizards want to "do something magicky every round", then can have this "magic blade" thing and melee with the rest of them. If they want infinite spam at range, then it should be a normal to-hit roll required, and the range should be no more than 15-20 ft. Always damage? C'mere, then.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if I like abilities that automatically turn a miss into a "not-miss" without investment of some kind of resource, even if the damage is negligible.Well, seeing as the ability isn't automatic for all Fighters (it's a feat gained through the Slayer theme, so any character without said theme/feat wouldn't deal damage on a miss. So, yeah, there's the investment.
Yes, it is an investment, but not a spendable (and possibly renewable) resource, which is what I meant - and you knew that ;)
I do agree on the debate about what is a "hit" and what is a "miss" however, and that combat nomenclature should be redefined.
I'm not too keen on the notion of "penetrating hit" because as it was stated before, hit points work as an abstraction and therefore, a hit does not necessarily mean that your defenses were penetrated (since you spent hit points to make sure of that).
However, D&D has always been struggling with abstraction of hit point up to 4 ed, not so much as damage (lost of hit points) but in the way they were gained back. Rejuvenation of hit point was always described as something concrete; one would regain lost hit point trough time, which either seems very long for someone who performed a series of taxing parries and dodges, or very short for someone who has to mend broken bones. Also, this should imply a certain connection between low hit points and fatigue, but it doesn't. [edit] to be fair, 4e did with the bloodied condition, but again with a connotation that the character has been wounded...
The main source of rejuvenation of hit point is trough healing spells, which descriptively "heal wounds" although the abstract nature of damage means that perhaps there weren't any wounds. While I agree that this is easy to re-fluff/reinterpret, it isn't surprising that the connection between damage=wounds has been present since 1st edition.
Part of the problem is that D&D has no other mechanics to represent someone who has actually been wounded. So while encouragements, hope and 'second winds' should allow a character to regain hit points, it makes it hard to believe that it could mend bones overnight.
Perhaps a simple 'wounded' condition which could only be healed trough time, surgery or magic could provide a quick fix but as long as the system does not make the difference between "a series of taxing dodges" and "a sword through your spleen", I'd rather stay to the notion that hit = damage (abstract or not) and miss = no damage dealt.
I'm also uncomfortable with auto-hit and auto-damage and conditions dealt through damage (like poison) and actions made more difficult when you've taken damage recently (like spellcasting). Even if the resulting roll is virtually an auto-success, I hope the designers will eliminate such unnecessary rolls.
That off course is my personal opinion.
'findel
|
So a couple things came up in the playtest rules namely Magic missile cantrip and Slayer theme that I would like to talk about. For instance the magic missile is like the 3E MM except its a cantrip you can cast it all day long and at 100 ft to boot. Then there is the slayer theme that allows you to do Str mod damage on a miss swing. How do you feel about the idea of auto damage at-will attacks?
It's utter crap and a deal breaker for me.
If anything these miss=damage rules should be reserved for a 4e rules supplement and not be in their core playtest. Bad move on their part.Same goes for martial dailies - this is all just starting to look like a simplified 3rd ed (re-skinned to make stat blocks look a lot like 1st and 2nd ed) with 4e trappings and I think the Wotc minds are already set on this.
We may see some variation but my guess is that things are going to be pretty much as I described them, in other words - crap.
When that Slayer charges into battle he swings his axe so brutally that his foes are lucky if they can scramble out of the way off balance, or if their armour deflects some of the damage that his heavy swing can do!
I like it :)
Also it would be interesting to see some math on the fighters to hit/ Dmg per round compared to a wizard throwing magic missiles every round? I'm no mathematician but who knows the fighter might still be winning.
Well...I don't like it very much - less so on the fighter than on the Wizard (full disclosure -- I tend to play caster classes, but my view of this is from a verisimilitude perspective I think, not from my natural preference towards casters. I would be fine, for example, requiring MM a to-hit roll.). However, I think that the way I will handle it in my games is simply this -- you can't kill with Reaper auto-damage, but instead it would knock them unconscious (thus making it considered non-lethal damage). Your descriptive of the axe-swinging raging slayer just running all amok and 'bashing' into things would be perfect for such a description, I think. That way they aren't cheated from the benefit, but neither are they getting free autokills which I find to be a very ham-handed approach.
And for later levels, any Reaper damage previously done to a monster that is killed with an actual attack would essentially 'convert' to lethal damage (otherwise, every 'killing' blow would just knock someone out. Oh hey look, the dragon's sleeping peacefully now!)