D&D 5E Now that "damage on a miss" is most likely out of the picture, are you happy?

[darjr]

In a game powered by imagination "window dressing" is the meat and potatoes of play. If mechanics are in the forefront then the game has already failed.

I think there is theme to D&D, and the rules should match that theme. I'll play boardgames that are good that really have nothing to do with it's theme, but D&D is different. I'm going to make a huge investment in time and effort. The rules better match the theme, or be able to easily get bent to do so. And I realize that theme could be very different depending upon the person playing or the group or even the desire.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Except the fireball always lands right where you want it to. Not long, short, left or right in any degree of mattering, and always in the perfect shape/area.

So?

Every time your argue tries to compare the swing of a sword to the detonation of a fireball, it shows just how badly you are grasping at straws here. You aren't comparing like for like.

 

[Brock Landers]

Yeah, the people that cry out (spew?) fireball does damage on a miss are obviously reaching (it is also so disingenuous it's mind-blowing), fireball has no attack roll, it simply does damage, but creatures get a reactionary roll to mitigate the damage.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

An attack and a saving throw are both functionally the same thing. The only difference is who makes the d20 roll.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I still can't wrap my head around why 'Damage On A Miss' horrifies people so much.
Let's go back in time to a time before the 'blasphemies' of 4e existed....

I remember a player missing with his attack, and me saying something to the effect of: Your strike is blocked by the enemy's shield, glances off his armor, or is absorbed by the beast's thick hide. Every hit was not a total whiff that cut through nothing but air.

Is it that immersion-ruining to say: The Orc Chieftain blocks your attack with his shield, some of the force of the blow damages him a little, but the attack is mostly deflected.

Are there other examples where damage-on-a-miss becomes so 'artificial' it ruins the fun?
Maybe there are, but it never seemed that bad, and I like 2e and 3e better than 4e.

Any way, I really don't care that it's gone. I'd prefer the Fighter's '2 Handed' style to add 1.5 STR modifier to damage anyway.

 

[Rygar]

An attack and a saving throw are both functionally the same thing. The only difference is who makes the d20 roll.

No they aren't. An attack roll is an attempt to do damage, a saving throw is an attempt to reduce or avoid damage. Just because you roll a D20 for both of them doesn't make them functionally identical. For that to be true, they have to have the same result, which they don't.

Until you put in DOAM, then a hammer is the functional equivalent of a Fireball, which makes absolutely no sense. I can't imagine anyone would ever try to make the claim that a hammer and a fireball are functionally identical.

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, the people that cry out (spew?) fireball does damage on a miss are obviously reaching (it is also so disingenuous it's mind-blowing), fireball has no attack roll, it simply does damage, but creatures get a reactionary roll to mitigate the damage.

That's arbitrary, though, isn't it? Picking who rolls what?

It'd be just as well to make a roll to avoid a sword blow, or make a roll to target a spell properly. Nothing disingenuous about it.

No they aren't. An attack roll is an attempt to do damage, a saving throw is an attempt to reduce or avoid damage. Just because you roll a D20 for both of them doesn't make them functionally identical. For that to be true, they have to have the same result, which they don't.

Until you put in DOAM, then a hammer is the functional equivalent of a Fireball, which makes absolutely no sense. I can't imagine anyone would ever try to make the claim that a hammer and a fireball are functionally identical.

You're assigning a lot more meaning to the peculiarities of who-rolls-what than is warranted.

 

[billd91]

You're assigning a lot more meaning to the peculiarities of who-rolls-what than is warranted.

You may think so, but the concepts are distinct and have distinct histories. A saving throw is a last ditch attempt to save your sorry behind from something that otherwise will cause you great harm. They are the game's way of giving you an improbable escape from certain doom. That's not merely the flip side of making an attack.

 

[Obryn]

You may think so, but the concepts are distinct and have distinct histories. A saving throw is a last ditch attempt to save your sorry behind from something that otherwise will cause you great harm.

...harm such as, say, a big greataxe going straight towards your head?

No; the times when D&D gives you Active vs. Passive defense are completely arbitrary.

 

[Mistwell]

No they aren't. An attack roll is an attempt to do damage, a saving throw is an attempt to reduce or avoid damage.

Something that resolves an attack to do damage IS THE SAME THING as something that resolves an attempt to avoid taking damage from an attack. Both are a roll of a die vs a difficulty class (armor class or saving throw number) to determine the exact same thing, which is "does he take damage"?

It's literally only a difference between whose hand is rolling the die. The mechanic is identical, and the purpose is identical.

Just because you roll a D20 for both of them doesn't make them functionally identical. For that to be true, they have to have the same result, which they don't.-

They do - either you take damage, or you do not take damage. Same result being decided by both. Fair warning, this response of mine is a trap for you.

Until you put in DOAM, then a hammer is the functional equivalent of a Fireball, which makes absolutely no sense. I can't imagine anyone would ever try to make the claim that a hammer and a fireball are functionally identical.

It's funny, when people want to talk about the difference between the two, they often use fireball. But that's not a good example as it doesn't encompass nearly the quantity of things covered by the concept - in fact it happens to be the least objectionable thing covered, which is no coincidence I suspect.

No it also covers a straight-line attack like a lightning bolt (why does it do half-damage if you dodge it?), a spell which requires an attack roll like Fire Seeds, and a weapon that does splash damage like Alchemist Fire. All of those raise serious issues. For example, evasion eliminates all damage on a save even with no cover in a narrow corridor while the guy with the best dex and reflex save on the planet still takes at least half damage even if he has nearby cover (this makes no sense and isn't a corner case - it comes up in most parties where the rogue has evasion but no cover to dodge behind but someone else with a good dex has something to dodge behind but still takes half damage). Alchemist Fire damages someone with a force field in effect that would prevent even the most devastating blow from a deity (this makes no sense - why do first level minor cheap splash weapons pierce all protection?). And spells like Fire Seeds requires an attack roll, just like Great Weapon Fighter (but nobody ever objected to it all these years).

This combination of factors which are all rolled up into the "acceptable" damage on a miss mechanics from prior editions makes the whole concept far more questionable than merely saying "fireball".

So no, the hammer is not equivalent to fireball. But it is equivalent to some of these other far more sketchy things that are included under the larger umbrella of "acceptable damage on a miss mechanics" that you were fine with all these years, and that's where this debate really focuses, and not on the easy example of fireball.