Uh... since when was this an issue.

[FireLance]

In most Turn Based Tactical/Strategy video games ranged units can chew up a melee unit before it even gets close. Of course... this is where cav shines, which is rock-paper-scissored by pikemen, which are defeated by swordsmen and ranged untis, and round and round it goes...

Apparently, this happens in Real Life, too.

See also: David vs. Goliath.

 

[Tovec]

This is presumable how it failed to interact in 4e. What about 5e? Does 5e have minion rules or the advantage/disadvantage mechanic?

I would like to quote the full mechanic to properly illustrate what I'm talking about but I don't remember if that is allowed.

As far as minion rules - people are saying, even supporters of the mechanic, that it shouldn't apply to minions. No I don't think the title minions actually exists in 5e, but using the 4e framework they require to be hit before they can die (one solid hit and dead, specifically) and many are calling for this to be ported over to this mechanic since it would require the last hit that would kill a creature to be one that actually does hit.
Now, are you further asking how adv/disadv works for minions? Because I don't think it has a relation at all. As for how adv/disadv works in relation to this mechanic - well I've already pointed out, this mechanic works when you fail. But the adv/disadv is supposed to increase those changes but with this mechanic it doesn't matter. It is like a certain style, let's say bows for some reason are able to protect the fighter from the "fatigue" condition. Why can it do that? Well the problem isn't that this is intentional, it is an undescribed side effect that I seriously doubt WotC put thought into addressing and isn't addressed in the brief description of the power.

Some of those examples don't make sense. How does it fail to interact with high dodging or high natural armor creatures, by this I'm guessing you mean anything with a high AC no matter the source. Those type of creatures seem to be the reason for the rule. It is damage on a miss so creatures that are easy to hit this rule rarely comes up with, but hard to hit creatures the rule works perfectly against. Poison and extra damage should be written in the rule so I'm not seeing a problem there. I would guess that they don't apply but people argue they could to muddy the waters.

I gave you a number of ways they don't make sense. They don't all stack, they apply individually. The concerns about high dodge are different than the ones for high natural armor. But this is where giving the full mechanical description would be helpful. I will say that the way it describes the "hit" is that it is so strong as to damage the target through their armor. But with creatures without armor it immediately breaks down. How does it transition through? What about those who have ZERO armor where a miss would be a complete whiff because ANY kind of hit would be deadly? So, no I don't mean high AC no matter the source, I mean two different situations that involve high AC where this mechanic breaks down. The description seemingly only applies to high AC from worn armor.

Poison and extra damage are not covered at all. The effect of poison is usually to the effect of a hitting the target takes [poison effect], so is this a hit for that purpose or not? Clearly contact IS made since damage is being dealt. Do the poison damage/save effects apply? Is the poisoned blade somehow is strong enough to go through the armor, even though the description says it is just forceful enough blow of knenetic energy that I suspect shouldn't transfer that poison? I don't know.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters. I'm asking what happens when perfectly normal abilities that already exist in the game interact with this ability and the answer is almost universally that it doesn't interact as described. Or shouldn't. If the power is written more clearly so it makes sense to hit the high dodge and high natural armored creatures then I suspect the poison effect should universally go through. At present I don't know what is supposed to happen.
(To me muddying the waters is TRYING to ruleslawyer what is supposed to happen to my benefit, but at the moment I just don't have a solid answer of what is RAW or RAI on these topics, that's why I say I don't think I am.)

If that's true then with a thousands of creative minsd floating around the hobby I'm suprised someone hasn't come up with an explanation that works.

Many have tried, pemerton keeps trying. Their/His explanations don't work for me. Besides WotC are the ones who do need to try, but they haven't. It isn't a mater of justification. Justifications that pemerton does are akin to houserules. I certainly could use those houserules for my game, but with the release of the official rules coming up I expect the actual game designers to give me the answer and so far they've done a poor job.

What I stated is circular reasoning which can be an aspect of the Paranoia RPG.

Um.. okay? I still only learned of its existence a few days ago so I'll have to take your word for how it works and how it relates to this thread.

A subforum and Wizards banning of the topic was not because the subject is toxic. It is because people arguing it are misbehaving and we get trolling on the subject. Don't confuse people behaving badly on the internet as a reason for or against anything.

What metric do you judge toxicity? I judge it by the outcry of people I see actually calling for something to change. You seem to have a different view, what would define it? The threads weren't closed due to trolling. They were closed due to censorship, WotC being very bad about that in the past few years - especially if something dominates their forum. I recognize that the internet may be an echo chamber and a small sample showing its bias. But it is the only sample I can access. And from the polls we did before there was a split (I don't recall the ratio) between people who would buy the game with this mechanic and for those whom this mechanic poisons the game and makes them less likely to buy it. Those numbers weren't lopsided towards the 'no big deal, I'll buy it anyway' camp. So, since a fair number seem to hold it in contention I'm willing to call it highly contested and debated and given people's adamant disagreement on the subject and what it does to forums and moderation.. I say it is toxic. What is your reasoning that it isn't except for your say so? Where do I lose you? I'm okay with disagreement I'm just curious.

How is DoaM magical? Is it actually listed as a supernatural or magical ability or something like that?

The ONLY examples that people can throw that seem to model the damage on a miss mechanic (except for the specific one we are debating) is that of magic, or splash/explosions (in earlier editions), or 4e/13th age where it is exceedingly common.

If the closest example is that of magic, then it seems magical to me.
If the next closest is splash/explosions and alchemical - that still isn't purely mundane but a semi-supernatural effect employed (in game terms) of alchemy, debatably another type of magic.
If the final example is that of 4e, a system disliked for seeming to make all classes magical (not by 4e fans obviously, but from the haters) then this ALSO strikes me as magical even if unintentionally magical. Go look up the "martial is another type of magic" thread from a couple months ago.
And the case of 13th age - well the entire game is apparently built with this as a central mechanic and so there it may not be magical but that is only because ALL classes do it.

So, regardless whether or not it is listed as magical, if the only and closest examples are purely magical (fireball, etc.) then YES I'm calling it magical. And the fighter shouldn't be using magic to win his fights. Especially as a base mechanic.

Bad rules do matter. People sound like D&D was the perfect game until DoaM came around. And right now DoaM is not toxic. There is nothing else in the game that anyone has pointed out that DoaM has ruined. All we have is pure guesswork that if DoaM is in the rules that somehow it is going to seep into everything else and ruin them.

*scratches head* None of this has a bearing on whether or not DoaM is a bad mechanic. I'm not saying that 5e is perfect, or any edition is perfect. If it were we would have stopped at that edition and never had to innovate ever again. Clearly that didn't happen. God knows that 3e (my preferred game) has its problems. DoaM isn't the first bad thing to come around. It IS still a bad thing.

If something doesn't work because people are not playing by the rules then it is not the rules that are to blame. If you have defined HP in such a way that it goes against the way the game defines it then it is your own definition that is toxic.

What? No. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that THIS ONE MECHANIC defines the game differently than the GAME does. No other class gets (mundane/non-magical) damage on a miss - except the fighter. No one else gets to play around with the concept that this mechanic does. I don't think touch AC or flat-footed AC even exist in 5e. But this mechanic seems to scream for those definitions. It just doesn't work like the rest of the game. It is a triangle piece of lego in a world of only rectangular pieces.

The game defines HP and AC in a certain way, this mechanic defines it in another way. The first way is consistent with how I have always played the game. The second is horribly inconsistent, with both ME and with the GAME. That makes for a bad mechanic.

Even if it were just my issues with AC and HP... how does that make my definition toxic?

 

[evileeyore]

The game defines HP and AC in a certain way, this mechanic defines it in another way. The first way is consistent with how I have always played the game. The second is horribly inconsistent, with both ME and with the GAME. That makes for a bad mechanic.

That the game defines HP and AC in a broad manner that happens to include your narrow definition of them is not a flaw. It also includes DoaM, this is a feature of the definition.

Your narrow definition however does not redefine HP and AC. That is the mistake you're making. You obvious don't like it, but there it is.

 

[Emerikol]

That the game defines HP and AC in a broad manner that happens to include your narrow definition of them is not a flaw. It also includes DoaM, this is a feature of the definition.

Your narrow definition however does not redefine HP and AC. That is the mistake you're making. You obvious don't like it, but there it is.

The game handled hit points one way through 3e and changed to a different way from 4e on and now into 5e.

I don't like the new way. Nuff said.

 

[evileeyore]

The game handled hit points one way through 3e and changed to a different way from 4e on and now into 5e..

I disagree.

In my opinion the game systems simply never accounted for an expanded healing role until 4e (and I'm likely wrong here, I haven't combed every single splat book, 3rd party publisher, or set of house rules to know if there were "morale heals" available).

However not once were the rules "HP is meat". Even in OD&D hit points never purely represented "meat", otherwise Ogres wouldn't only do half damage to Dwarves on a hit, because Dwarves are small and thus harder to hit (in case you don't understand, Dwarves basically had DR vs Giants and Ogres based on how well they could dodge "big guys" - not because they hads "tougher meats").

 

[Tovec]

That the game defines HP and AC in a broad manner that happens to include your narrow definition of them is not a flaw. It also includes DoaM, this is a feature of the definition.

Your narrow definition however does not redefine HP and AC. That is the mistake you're making. You obvious don't like it, but there it is.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I said that REGARDLESS of my definition, the game defines HP a certain way and then this one specific rule defines it a different and conflicting way. That makes for a bad rule. It would be equally bad for example to have all fire effects have they keyword [fire] except fires in a campfire that would have the keyword [cold]. It goes against the logic of the game that the GAME sets up.

However not once were the rules "HP is meat". Even in OD&D hit points never purely represented "meat", otherwise Ogres wouldn't only do half damage to Dwarves on a hit, because Dwarves are small and thus harder to hit (in case you don't understand, Dwarves basically had DR vs Giants and Ogres based on how well they could dodge "big guys" - not because they hads "tougher meats").

Two major things. First, just because I believe that HP equals meat doesn't mean I think that ALL HP ("purely represented") are meat. Some must be, or else poison wouldn't work, and it does once you equate HP = meat. Second, Damage Reduction and Dodge/AC aren't the same as HP either. I don't even know how you make that jump. I find it silly to give dwarves DR vs giants, but that doesn't at all affect their HP of meat. Armor could be DR (instead of AC) and HP can still be meat. So, having bonuses against giants on the defensive end (AC/DR) doesn't equate to tougher meats, you are right, but the game isn't suggesting it and yet you think we are saying it does, so you are also wrong.

 

[evileeyore]

-- stuff that misses the point --

No, I saying that if it's okay when Ogres and Giants fight Dwarves they do half damage on a hit then it is okay for Fighters to be so good with one weapon style they still do some damage on a miss.

 

[Uller]

No, I saying that if it's okay when Ogres and Giants fight Dwarves they do half damage on a hit then it is okay for Fighters to be so good with one weapon style they still do some damage on a miss.

I'm not "for" DoaM. But like many many things in D&D (or any other reasonably complicated game I've ever played) there are rules I find that are off. But so what?

No matter what example you come up with to show that DoaM is not outside of the realm of rules in previous iterations of the game, the folks who think it completely and irreparably breaks the system will tell you "that's different".

To play D&D you have to be able to wrap your head around the notion that a rogue can non-magically climb a smooth, sheer surface just because he's that skilled. But apparently wrapping your head around a fighter missing with his great axe but catching the foe with the handle, or stomping on his ankle or landing an unexpected headbutt or a glancing blow or any other numerable possible explanations is too much.

 

[Ahnehnois]

To play D&D you have to be able to wrap your head around the notion that a rogue can non-magically climb a smooth, sheer surface just because he's that skilled.

Wait, what? That sounds like the sort of thing that a DM might simply declare impossible (and indeed, might be a textbook example of an impossible action). I don't see that you have to accept that to play D&D at all.

And I certainly don't think you have to accept a rogue of modest skill gaining an ability that allows him to (slowly) climb any wall, even if he fails the DC by quite a bit.

But apparently wrapping your head around a fighter missing with his great axe but catching the foe with the handle, or stomping on his ankle or landing an unexpected headbutt or a glancing blow or any other numerable possible explanations is too much.

No it isn't too much. Trying to figure out how the character is doing damage when none of those things happened is, however, definitely too much. And if the attack roll is below the target's AC, then definitionally, none of those things happened. The glancing blow and its ilk simply fall under ways that a hit could be narrated for anyone.

Trying to figure out how the character became so skilled that he can't genuinely miss regardless of the relative difficulty of hitting the target, that's a tough one to figure too.

 

[evileeyore]

No matter what example you come up with to show that DoaM is not outside of the realm of rules in previous iterations of the game, the folks who think it completely and irreparably breaks the system will tell you "that's different".

When I'm presented with a "logical" argument I respond with logic. So far Tovec has been good enough to present his opinion's and back them with decent logical reasons why DoaM doesn't fit into his vision of D&D.

I've been trying to present logical arguments as to why DoaM has always fit into D&D and shift his vision.

Call me Don Quixote and find me a Sancho!

Trying to figure out how the character became so skilled that he can't genuinely miss regardless of the relative difficulty of hitting the target, that's a tough one to figure too.

It is?

It's easy for me. But then I'm willing to accept Elves all up in the mix too so, maybe I'm more "anything goes".*






* Except Monks. I hate Monks. Monks don't belong in Eurotrash fantasy, except cloistered in monastaries making solemn vows and such.