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

[Warbringer]

...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.

Which is why I've been using the concept of "active story" for the last 8 years ... Players roll all d20s be they attacks or defense rolls... It's their story ...

And my players love it

(I think I stole it from unearthed arcana)

 

[Texicles]

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 simultaneously agree and disagree with you completely. I take the mechanics of D&D to be akin to the laws of physics in the game world. They are what give the story a common thread for resolving actions. Without the mechanics, D&D would be group story-telling (not necessarily bad) with the possibility for players to do whatever they want, at the expense of the story (I'd say that's almost always bad).

Therefore, I want a firm foundation of mechanics underpinning my game, primarily for action resolution, but mechanics that bring fun, balance, ease-of-use, et al are also alright by me if someone's going to the trouble of codifying mechanics. I don't require the mechanics to perfectly simulate real life, just that they give some coherent structure to the game without being unfun in normal play.

I couldn't care less about corner cases, hypotheticals or thought experiments that take rules to the breaking point. Referring to my mechanics as game "physics" example, these are like quantum mechanics. Sure, they're a thing, but have little bearing on my daily life. And just as I don't feel the need to constantly observe my cat, lest she be both alive and dead, I don't feel the need to worry about Asmodeus dying to lvl 1 Fighters.

Then, I get to go nuts with the "window dressing!" I can (and do) use my imagination to reconcile the mechanics with the game world as I envision it. This is why I never had a problem with abstract HP, DoaM or the abstractions found throughout attacks, saves, "hits" or "misses". I can very easily reconcile those mechanical concepts with my imagined exploits of fantastic heroes.

Granted, no matter how many times I might try to explain the way I actually imagine the mechanics into action, some will say that I'm pathetically grasping at straws, trying to hopelessly justify something that doesn't make sense (to them, and therefore to everyone). Thankfully, by accepting a window for what it is, I can apply all the dressing I want, with no need "to show or prove to be right or reasonable" my choice of drapery.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

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

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Do you not understand how an explosion works? I don't have to hit you, as long as it hits in area that you occupy, then there is a chance you are taking full damage or partial.

You are really really grasping here.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Do you not understand how an explosion works? I don't have to hit you, as long as it hits in area that you occupy, then there is a chance you are taking full damage or partial.

You are really really grasping here.

Unless I'm a Rogue with evasion, then I take no damage on a save, even if I'm locked in a 5'x5' box with nothing inside it except me and whatever it causing said "explosion"(which I doubt a fireball is, because aside from combusting flammable objects, it doesn't affect the environment at all aside from it suddenly being on fire).

Meanwhile, the nimblest of all Fighters who is also hiding 90% of his body behind a tower shield and has only his toes in the blast can never take less than half damage, no matter how well he rolls on a Reflex save.

Because logic apparently.

 

[Balesir]

I couldn't care less about corner cases, hypotheticals or thought experiments that take rules to the breaking point. Referring to my mechanics as game "physics" example, these are like quantum mechanics. Sure, they're a thing, but have little bearing on my daily life.

Given that this post was evidently typed into a computing device of some sort, this is (probably inadvertently) quite amusing!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Unless I'm a Rogue with evasion, then I take no damage on a save, even if I'm locked in a 5'x5' box with nothing inside it except me and whatever it causing said "explosion"(which I doubt a fireball is, because aside from combusting flammable objects, it doesn't affect the environment at all aside from it suddenly being on fire).

Meanwhile, the nimblest of all Fighters who is also hiding 90% of his body behind a tower shield and has only his toes in the blast can never take less than half damage, no matter how well he rolls on a Reflex save.

Because logic apparently.

Evasion can nullified by rule 0 in those cases where it wouldn't logically apply. Please re-read the rules on it and get back to us.

 

[Brock Landers]

An attack roll is voluntary, a saving throw is reactionary, totally different concept.

 

[darjr]

Unless I'm a Rogue with evasion, then I take no damage on a save, even if I'm locked in a 5'x5' box with nothing inside it except me and whatever it causing said "explosion"(which I doubt a fireball is, because aside from combusting flammable objects, it doesn't affect the environment at all aside from it suddenly being on fire).

Meanwhile, the nimblest of all Fighters who is also hiding 90% of his body behind a tower shield and has only his toes in the blast can never take less than half damage, no matter how well he rolls on a Reflex save.

Because logic apparently.

Besides the other issues, which I may or may not agree with about your comparison, saving fits the theme of D&D, at least for me. Since almost the very begining saving throws have been a kind of favor of the gods or some other kind of miracle.

Damage on a miss doesn't fit the theme.

 

[Mistwell]

An attack roll is voluntary, a saving throw is reactionary, totally different concept.

Saving throws are also voluntary, and some character builds late in the 3.5e cycle even depended on that fact (like failing a save vs. shadow illusion).

Attack rolls are also usually reactions to things like "Monsters trying to eat us" and "PC's trying to kill us monsters".

I don't see "reaction vs. voluntary" as a meaningful difference here between the two. Both are usually reactions, and both are ultimately voluntary (but usually advisable if you don't want to die).

 

[Obryn]

An attack roll is voluntary, a saving throw is reactionary, totally different concept.

It's voluntary to cast a spell.

It's reactionary to try not to get hit by a greataxe swinging at your head.

Try again.