D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[ForeverSlayer]

Let's look at this:

1: Hit - target is hit and takes loads of damage. The mighty swing from the orc went through some of the hero's armour and left a large gash across the ribs.

2: Hit - target is hit but loses very little HP and has loads left. The heroes armour deflected most of the hit but the force from the impact caused a little pain.

Those two descriptions leaves damage on a miss with nothing. Everything you try and describe with damage on a miss sounds exactly like being hit but losing very little HP while still retaining a lot.

Even doing a little damage on a creature with a hit, who is almost dead and finishes them off, makes more sense.

 

[TwoSix]

Do you want to be known as that guy?

Or even worse, just another one of those guys?

 

[Mistwell]

-Second the killing part, because the target lost the last little bit of luck, stamina, skill, or divine intervention that was keeping him going. Also note nothing says that the monster going to 0 h.p = it being beheaded or anything as the DM you can narrate the monster getting taken out of the fight anyway you want to. He could be knocked out, just collapses from exhaustion, dies from some unlucky happenstance, or something else...anything else this is a game of imagination remember.

You swing ferociously at the Gnoll for 6 seconds, missing with blow after blow as the Gnoll dances around and jumps back and forth cackling with glee. Then, just as it's about to retaliate, it realizes it took one step too far back, and has tripped on it's own leather-bound boot, looses balance, and awkwardly falls. With a crunch, you hear it's neck break, as the Goddess of fate smiles cruelly on the wicked beast.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You can try. But, you'll continue to fail. When people make good arguments, and you just hand-waive dismiss them, you're not persuading anyone of anything, or informing anyone of anything, or establishing credibility, or anything positive on your behalf or on behalf of your position or the game. When people see you group a long detailed logical and understanding reply and simply respond with "I dismiss this", it's about the equivalent of a schoolyard kid saying "I know you are but what am I".

Do you want to be known as that guy?

I've already dismissed it and it's already been proven to be irrelevant but you try and hang on to it for dear life. It's like a few posters using "abstraction" like it's the universal answer

 

[Mistwell]

Let's look at this:

1: Hit - target is hit and takes loads of damage. The mighty swing from the orc went through some of the hero's armour and left a large gash across the ribs.

2: Hit - target is hit but loses very little HP and has loads left. The heroes armour deflected most of the hit but the force from the impact caused a little pain.

Those two descriptions leaves damage on a miss with nothing. Everything you try and describe with damage on a miss sounds exactly like being hit but losing very little HP while still retaining a lot.

Even doing a little damage on a creature with a hit, who is almost dead and finishes them off, makes more sense.

I'll wait for you to reply to the response I already gave you. I'm not sure why you thought you could simply fiat around any response and then just repeat yourself and declare nobody had a good answer, but that game is both silly and gaining you no points or credibility. You don't get to have a one-person conversation.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You swing ferociously at the Gnoll for 6 seconds, missing with blow after blow as the Gnoll dances around and jumps back and forth cackling with glee. Then, just as it's about to retaliate, it realizes it took one step too far back, and has tripped on it's own leather-bound boot, looses balance, and awkwardly falls. With a crunch, you hear it's neck break, as the Goddess of fate smiles cruelly on the wicked beast.

Emmmmm no..... Now you are trying to use 4th editions design flaw by announcing what the gnoll did instead of the gnoll himself (the DM).

Sounds to me like the gnoll gets a reflex save. You don't get to declare what the gnoll is doing just so you can make this horrid mechanic try and make sense.

 

[Mistwell]

I've already dismissed it and it's already been proven to be irrelevant but you try and hang on to it for dear life. It's like a few posters using "abstraction" like it's the universal answer

You didn't "prove" anything. All you did was dismiss it, and then declare you had proven something with your dismissal. Can you imagine yourself reacting positively towards someone doing that to what you wrote?

Here, I will try it, let's see how you react:

I dismiss your answer, and therefore it's automatically proven to be relevant.

See how that works?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'll wait for you to reply to the response I already gave you. I'm not sure why you thought you could simply fiat around any response and then just repeat yourself and declare nobody had a good answer, but that game is both silly and gaining you no points or credibility. You don't get to have a one-person conversation.

My point has already been proven.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You didn't "prove" anything. All you did was dismiss it, and then declare you had proven something with your dismissal. Can you imagine yourself reacting positively towards someone doing that to what you wrote?

Here, I will try it, let's see how you react:

I dismiss your answer, and therefore it's automatically proven to be relevant.

See how that works?

You can dismiss it all day long but it doesn't change anything.

I don't care what you do to be honest.

 

[Mistwell]

Emmmmm no..... Now you are trying to use 4th editions design flaw by announcing what the gnoll did instead of the gnoll himself (the DM).

In case it was not clear, that was the DM talking. That's why it was phrased "You swing...." and not "I swing" or "My character swings".

But, let's be clear. This is not some commentary on 4th edition. If you want to simply bash 4e and claim it had design flaws for the fun of it, I am sure there are many fine forums for you to do that in, but I am pretty sure this isn't one of them. We're talking about a specific 5e fighter sub-class ability.

You can dismiss it all day long but it doesn't change anything.

Ah, so you understand the concept? But still, you fail to see the irony apparently.

I don't care what you do to be honest.

Cool. You know where the ignore user button is, right?

My point has already been proven.

You think "proof" is you simply declaring something to be so? LOL good one! I think I will try that next time I am in front of a judge. Your honor, I dismiss their case as irrelevant and declare it to be so. Having proven my case, we rest.