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

[Mistwell]

Sure, and so is THAC0, but no on is arguing that it be re-inserted to the game,

I know of many who are asking for that to be put back in the game. Want a link to the forum where I see that argument made a lot?

In addition, we're far from consensus on finding this a bad mechanic. Indeed, WOTC says their feedback on it shows a majority like it.

but there are other 2e influences that are making it back. No one is arguing nothing from 4e be included -[RECORD SCRATCH]ok well that's a bold face lie, I take that back, some are arguing just that, BUT many of us would like to see some of design philosophy that so strongly informed 4e dialed back a bit to not so strongly define 5e. We're not against anything that reeks of 4e, though.

This whole damage on a miss element just seems to be a lightning rod for people to define exactly what kind of design philosophy they want to guide the game. I think it might be a better to leave such contentious ideas out of the basic core.

Some of what were "advances" with 4e for some were steps back for others. I personally liked them well enough for 4e, but not for a "unifying" edition. Minus a few well tested and approved additions like advantage and bounded accuracy, the whole premise behind 5e was to step back to what (loosely) everyone could say "felt" like D&D and from there you can add "advanced" modules to add what you felt were good for your game.

I am voting against it just because my players didn't like it. But, I still don't understand why adding an additional offensive option for that big weapon fighter, instead of replacing the existing one, is the only solution. I really have trouble understanding why someone else playing with an ability you guys dislike takes something away from your enjoyment of the game, as long as you have an option that you do like. What's wrong with more options, to cover different playstyles?

 

[TwoSix]

A 4e fireball didn't even set matches on fire, since it couldn't damage objects with fire damage. 5e is much better, BECAUSE they reverted to their old effects which did precisely that.

AGGGHHHH!!!! Where's [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] when you need him?

 

[billd91]

Why are some of you still pretending that we are going to get this 'unification' edition we heard in the beginning?

More wishful thinking?

Maybe they'll succeed. Maybe they won't. But I'll give them credit for recognizing their mistakes with 4e and trying to do better. The creative team has done a lot of fence mending over the last couple of years in my opinion and, for the most part, I appreciate where their efforts are leading. Moreover, though I have been a serious critic of 4e over the last 5 years, I understand D&D isn't just about me and I am willing to accept that I will need to face compromises even if I argue that specific ones are bad ideas.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

No, we just have very different ideas of what "unification" means. So far I'm getting a lot of the game I want.
You can't please everyone, of course. As is well evident.

That's great but we don't know if you are getting what you want because it's a new game.

If they truly wanted unification then a lot of this stuff would be optional.

 

[urLordy]

AGGGHHHH!!!! Where's @pemerton when you need him?

Oh ya!? Well, I'll summon Weather Report!

(Well, not really, that was just a bluff)

 

[TwoSix]

Oh ya!? Well, I'll summon Weather Report!

(Well, not really, that was just a bluff)

That's a horrible conflation of two posters who don't just have dissimilar opinions, but vastly different posting styles. I simply invoked [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] because I know that the (false) argument that fire spells don't set things on fire is one his biggest pet peeves.

 

[billd91]

I am voting against it just because my players didn't like it. But, I still don't understand why adding an additional offensive option for that big weapon fighter, instead of replacing the existing one, is the only solution. I really have trouble understanding why someone else playing with an ability you guys dislike takes something away from your enjoyment of the game, as long as you have an option that you do like. What's wrong with more options, to cover different playstyles?

I would question whether doing damage on a miss really indicates a different play style. I would also suggest that the presence of an ability quite like that in the rules, even if I choose to not include it in my campaigns, could make elements of the rules murkier to comprehend. In this case, it undermines what meaning a "miss" or a "hit" really has.

 

[Burninator]

Prove it, then.

Show the power from 4e, and copy+paste the spell description of Fireball from every edition.

You'll see I'm right. 4e powers don't ever target objects or areas, they target creatures or enemies or allies in a zone. Objects are explicitly excluded / untouched by pretty much every attack power in 4e. Without taking any damage, fire damage isn't dealt. Therefore a match is not set on fire (without a houserule, obviously).

 

[urLordy]

That's a horrible conflation of two posters who don't just have dissimilar opinions, but vastly different posting styles. I simply invoked @pemerton because I know that the (false) argument that fire spells don't set things on fire is one his biggest pet peeves.

It was a joke. You know, black humour?

 

[Mistwell]

I would question whether doing damage on a miss really indicates a different play style. I would also suggest that the presence of an ability quite like that in the rules, even if I choose to not include it in my campaigns, could make elements of the rules murkier to comprehend. In this case, it undermines what meaning a "miss" or a "hit" really has.

A ton of people have spoken out explaining why they like it. The playtest survey reports indicate a large number of people like it. It's a playstyle issue. Lots of people who liked 4e, like that sort of ability. They view it as a style of play where characters trade a higher amount of potential damage for a lower amount of certain damage. You can not like that style (and obviously don't like it), but it's definitely a style of play some people like.

I also am not aware of anyone having trouble understanding the rules of hits and misses and damage, because one of these abilities still does damage on a miss. Wizards do it all day long, and nobody seems to care. The "it's magic" answer is satisfactory to them, but this argument that it suddenly becomes harder to understand hits and misses and damage? That would still crop up regardless of the "it's magic" issue. And it's never come up for magic missile, or fireball, or even spells like Ice Knife that I brought up earlier. So obviously, people can understand what a hit, miss, and damage are even if you have some things in the game that do it automatically even on a miss.