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

Milky said:

What a childish, petty little thread. Is this the kind of discussion encouraged here these days? "Nanny nanny boo boo". Pathetic.

Click to expand...

EnglishLanguage said:

I for one am glad.

Wizard Fireballs and Lightning Bolts always doing damage even when you crit saves has always been ridiculous and immersion breaking, so I'm glad that's finally being removed.

Click to expand...

XunValdorl_of_Kilsek said:

Actually, the concepts of "hit" and "miss" were defined until 4th edition came along. It was 4th edition that introduced the concept of doing damage on a miss outside of explosions and magic. The meaning of those two words began to blur.

Click to expand...

3.5 Player's Handbook said:

hit: Make a successful attack roll.

attack roll: A roll to determine whether an attack hits. To make an attack roll, roll 1d20 and add the appropriate modifiers for the attack type, as follows: melee attack roll = 1d20 + base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier; ranged attack roll = 1d20 + base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty. In either case, the attack hits if the result is at least as high as the target’s Armor Class.

Click to expand...

Lokiare said:

If you miss on a Lightning Bolt you should deal no damage.

You shouldn't be able to miss on a fireball unless someone is very close to some physical cover.

Click to expand...

XunValdorl_of_Kilsek said:

I disagree.

You can still have hit points be what ever you want. Damage on a miss never made sense to start with. Missing something but killing it anyway makes people just shake their heads, swallow it and try not to wrap their brains around it.

Click to expand...

SteveC said:

Well of course you disagree, since you're more of a traditional minded person (edit: gaming terms only! broader speculation not intended!). Of course I can still pretend hit points are whatever I like, but this is another example of how the designers are agreeing with hit points as meat. The game concept of hit points as meat means that it makes no sense to miss and still cause damage.

And it makes perfect sense if you believe that concepts like "hit" and "miss" are general ideas rather than being set in stone.

I can believe whatever I want about hit points, but if the designers disagree, the rules have fewer options: the design space shrinks if hit points are meat. I believe that's bad.

Don't want attacks to cause damage on a miss? Don't play a character that has those powers. Pretty simple, and inclusive.

Click to expand...