D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[Wicht]

But it is relevant to the discussion. People seem to hold damage on a miss as A-Okay for explosions but the embodiment of evil for attack rolls. It's hypocritical and that needs to be pointed out.

Rule of thumb: attacks that don't require a "to hit" roll can't actually "miss." Attacks that require such a roll can miss.

Lava, explosions, and the like never "miss;" you are either damaged by them or you are not. Reflex saves mirror the ability to avoid the brunt of the explosion, or else not be in the area of damage. Damage that is unavoidable (falling in lava) offers no such save because you can't avoid the damage. It never misses.

So the idea that some people are fine with damage on a "miss" for explosions is erroneous. Explosions that miss you completely do no damage at all to you.

 

[n00bdragon]

But in any case, even if it is hypocritical, that only suggests that the two opinions are inconsistent, not that the mechanics for hits should be the ones disregarded in favor of the mechanics for explosions.

I'd obviously much prefer if the game tossed any pretense of "realism" out the window and went with whatever played the best but I can understand how people could argue otherwise. Find the game that fits you. What doesn't fit in any game is a bizarre incoherence between how similar things are handled. The game needs to choose whether it's going to be simulationist and allow all attacks to miss/be dodged or whether it's going to be gamist and open the door for anything and everything as long as it plays fine. This "Fine for thine but not for I" just makes the game objectively worse.

 

[Burninator]

I'm not sure if anyone will believe me, when I say I've implemented fluid and gas dynamics in simulations, as well as hard-body collisions, and I can assure you they are completely different phenomena and are modelled completely differently.

Hardbody collisions aren't done at all in the same way as air pressure and temperature gradients expanding during an explosion. Even explosions aren't do not perfectly uniformly distribute their energy in all directions, as a general rule. Especially not those that land on the ground at various angles, with other objects around. No way. If you were to gauge the likelihood of survival of an explosion, it'd have to be done statistically or via a supercomputer. Hardbody collision detection can be done in realtime on an xbox 360 at 60 fps.

Two completely different processes with different equations governing their behavior and influence on objects they interact with.

 

[Wicht]

I'd obviously much prefer if the game tossed any pretense of "realism" out the window and went with whatever played the best...

I have that game. Its called Toon. Very fun with the right crowd, but not what I want with Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Tovec]

It's not quite the same, just the closest precedent I could find.

Certainly, on the character creation level, the incentives are reversed. Evasion rewards a good ref save. Improved evasion rewards a bad ref save.

I don't get this particular thorn in your side. I just don't. I get that you dislike how it "rewards failure" but it is put in as a stopgap method for how damage scales. I had this conversation recently with someone I know in real life and the best reason we could figure after discussion was that the rogue is going to get damaged less and less because how reflex saves scale vs. the DC from the wizard. Therefore the chances of him failing his save (and taking damage) is low. But in the case that he DOES fail, it makes sense if he has an ability to help him out and not get totally fried.

Meaning, at lower levels the rogue is saving on an 11 (at 1st level - if he somehow had evasion) and it is a 9 by 5th level, and a 6 by 10th level. At 1st level the wizard (again IF he could somehow cast a first level fireball - already impossible.) would be doing 1d6, at 5th the wizard is doing 5d6, and at 10 he is doing 10d6. So, it matters so long as the damage scales based on the wizard's level.

So every person who has ever dodged behind something to avoid an explosion has the evasion ability? Have all the characters who lack the evasion ability mysteriously lost the ability to 'hit the dirt' so to speak? There is simply no good real-life reason why an explosion or other area of effect should totally guarantee damage even on the "miss" of passed save. It's pure gaming abstraction held over from the game's Chainmail and wargaming roots. It's just silly that attack rolls are held to some higher level of "verisimilitude" (god D&D forums have taught me to hate that word) than explosions.

In 3e? Yes.

But it is relevant to the discussion. People seem to hold damage on a miss as A-Okay for explosions but the embodiment of evil for attack rolls. It's hypocritical and that needs to be pointed out.

As already stated, an explosion fills the area. That is why people USE them as a form of attack. However it also requires more resources and hurts EVERYONE in the area. A single attack must by how it works only target one person at a time and can't reliably hit others. It isn't a burst that fills the square, it simply isn't.

If you are really confused by this let me link you a youtube video of an explosion in slow motion versus a sword swing in slow motion.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'd obviously much prefer if the game tossed any pretense of "realism" out the window and went with whatever played the best but I can understand how people could argue otherwise. Find the game that fits you. What doesn't fit in any game is a bizarre incoherence between how similar things are handled. The game needs to choose whether it's going to be simulationist and allow all attacks to miss/be dodged or whether it's going to be gamist and open the door for anything and everything as long as it plays fine.

Well, at least you're actually arguing the point.

AFAIC, the d20 system is a simulator at heart, and rpg rules in general primarily serve that function. A person's individual game may or may not maintain any sense of reality or even internal consistency, but the published rules ought to; that's what rules are for. If you say that sometimes the goals behind the rules are ambiguous or conflicting and that it would be better to have a clear mission statement, I agree on that. Obviously, we have different mission statements.

 

[n00bdragon]

[MENTION=95493]Tovec[/MENTION] + [MENTION=83533]Burninator[/MENTION]

No one is implying that accurately modeling an explosion and a sword swing should be done the same way. If you really want to be accurate you need a calculator and some free time on your hands (or a computer). But the exact details and impact analysis are not necessary here. We have some number of dice to determine how likely it is that event A causes creature X to lose hit points and if so how many. In the case of Joe Blow the commoner jumping away from a sword there's a chance the sword will miss entirely, modified by his dexterity and any armor he's wearing. The damage, oddly, doesn't seem to give a flying **** about either of these things. If Joe only has 5 hit points then there is a chance he may survive the attack (via it missing). Now, if a wizard shoots a fireball at him and he leaps behind a wall or other improvisational cover why does he have zero chance of survival? It does not matter what he or the wizard rolls. His saving throw has no bearing on whether he is about to perish and even if it did his particular ability to dodge fiery explosions has no bearing on the damage the wizard rolls out. You cannot say with a straight face that these things are consistent.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I get that you dislike how it "rewards failure" but it is put in as a stopgap method for how damage scales.

True. Since we're talking about a new edition in theory, it seems to me that damage scaling ought to be designed such that these kinds of patches aren't needed.

I had this conversation recently with someone I know in real life and the best reason we could figure after discussion was that the rogue is going to get damaged less and less because how reflex saves scale vs. the DC from the wizard. Therefore the chances of him failing his save (and taking damage) is low. But in the case that he DOES fail, it makes sense if he has an ability to help him out and not get totally fried.

I think a better approach than redefining failure as a qualified success would simply be to reduce the odds of failure. Of course, simple bonuses can do this, but nonlinear scaling and contingency-based abilities could have a role as well.

 

[Tovec]

Replying out of order as one does not relate to the other.

True. Since we're talking about a new edition in theory, it seems to me that damage scaling ought to be designed such that these kinds of patches aren't needed.

Right.
And in 3e, if wizards still got 5d6 at level 10 (even if the DC went up) then the rogue would likely not need improved evasion. All I'm saying is that in THAT case there was a problem for improved evasion to be the solution. In general I would agree that I find it odd to reward failure in such a way.

I think a better approach than redefining failure as a qualified success would simply be to reduce the odds of failure. Of course, simple bonuses can do this, but nonlinear scaling and contingency-based abilities could have a role as well.

That would be an option too. It has been discussed many times that a flat "auto" doesn't do the best job in all situations. Things that modify the outcome can do better. And thus I recall in many "fixes" where evasion became a +10 bonus to reflex, where improved evasion became +20.

So... \/ \/ \/ is NOT related to ^^^^^

No one is implying that accurately modeling an explosion and a sword swing should be done the same way.

You kind of did:

It's just silly that attack rolls are held to some higher level of "verisimilitude" (god D&D forums have taught me to hate that word) than explosions.

If you really want to be accurate you need a calculator and some free time on your hands (or a computer).

Didn't say I wanted to be accurate. If I wanted accuracy I would play something FAR more simulation than D&D.

But the exact details and impact analysis are not necessary here. We have some number of dice to determine how likely it is that event A causes creature X to lose hit points and if so how many.

But this level of abstraction does a disservice to those who do not prefer it. It isn't as simple as X hp versus Y hp. HOW those hp are lost is important to many of us. If the fighter were throwing a grenade at the villagers and killed them I would have no objections to him hitting and killing each. If he uses his sword, he should have a chance of missing. Right now, he doesn't. He hits, or hit hits harder.

In the case of Joe Blow the commoner jumping away from a sword there's a chance the sword will miss entirely, modified by his dexterity and any armor he's wearing.

Again, no there isn't. That is my problem. With this ability he can't jump out of the way of the ability. As Jester Canuck said, the fighter essentially has a aura that causes villagers in melee to die.

The damage, oddly, doesn't seem to give a flying **** about either of these things. If Joe only has 5 hit points then there is a chance he may survive the attack (via it missing).

Right, because the fighter does 3 (our example was a STR 16 or STR 18 fighter) or 4 damage. Humans villagers have 4, kobolds and goblins have 3. They can't NOT get hit and killed via missing.

Now, if a wizard shoots a fireball at him and he leaps behind a wall or other improvisational cover why does he have zero chance of survival?

Well, I think that 5e should (if it doesn't already) have the 3e rule that jumping behind cover giving the person evasion. Meaning, if the person truly is behind a wall and they make their save they should NOT get killed. They should get 0 damage.

But beyond this, if they are in the open and getting hit by the explosion (which is able to fill ALL of the 5 foot square they are in) then they should get hit for the damage. That is the point of a grenade - it has a burst, an "explosion" if you will. When swords do that let me know.

It does not matter what he or the wizard rolls.

Actually here I have to think that 3e has the solution. If the wizard had to roll to get his tiny pea-sized fireball .. ball.. through a small opening he did have to roll to make sure it hit the square. The wizard then HIT the square, causing everyone else to roll saves vs. the thing in the squares nearby.

His saving throw has no bearing on whether he is about to perish and even if it did his particular ability to dodge fiery explosions has no bearing on the damage the wizard rolls out. You cannot say with a straight face that these things are consistent.

Well, again I disagree here.

It doesn't matter BECAUSE the fire engulfs the area. Just like (I think it was upthread on this one) when someone talked of Lava. Either you are standing in the lava and taking damage or you aren't. If you are standing in the lava, you might be REALLY burned or you might be moderately burned. There is no condition, when standing in the lava, where you are NOT burned. A sword swing =/= lava. A sword swings. It then either connects or it does not connect. It might connect softly or powerfully. But ultimately if it misses, it is like NOT standing in lava.

 

[Burninator]

GWF style rewards failure, that's going in as #20

Once we make a solid list and get it vetted, we need to create an open letter to Mearls and make sure he reads it.

I'm not going to spend another thousand dollars on an edition after spending a year beta-testing it without them knowing how I feel about this, and I intend to campaign and make websites, newsletters, petitions, etc, around getting everyone I possibly can on board to nuke this mechanic from the game.

They are so close to having the very best D&D edition ever, but this to me is like dropping a few nuggets from the cat litter in my stew. The stew might still look / smell alright, but I ain't eating it this is in there. I'm not giving in without a fight. I want to play D&D again, not Pathfinder, and don't want to be told I should be happy with houseruling the PHB when it's not too late to avoid a serious misstep.