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

[dmgorgon]

The mechanic is not removed. I don't see this one character suddenly removing misses from the game. And I feel that the wording could be improved. Making it vague like "Your relentless onslaught always causes your foe harm, either from your weapon or from trying to get out of the way."

Also, hyperbolic much? Abomination? What do you guys stand for anyways?

When does GWF actually miss? You can roll 1000 times and he will do damage 1000 times. After you finish rolling let me know if "missing" was removed from the game for him.

 

[Mistwell]

And every creature not within 5 ft. (i.e. the creatures you miss) don't.

By definition, the alchemist fire lands within 5 feet of the creature you were aiming for, if you miss. So, the guy you missed takes auto damage. That is, in fact, how it works. Take a look at the chart for where missed grenade-like objects land. It's 5 feet from the square you aimed for, in a random direction.

Even though these are inappropriate examples to begin with-none of them is talking about anything like the damage on a miss discussed in this thread-they don't even hold up.

Alchemist fire does hold up. I described it correctly.

 

[Mistwell]

Even if you go back to the rule books from all pre-4e editions and find another rule that fits your argument, all you're going to do is convince people that the rule you found is flawed and needs to be corrected.

NOBODY thought alchemist fire was flawed and needed to be corrected, at the time. I still think everyone uses it just fine for Pathfinder and 3.5 and 3e. And it's not the only example - that's how a lot of alchemy items worked. Heck, I think it's how flaming oil worked too!

 

[Mistwell]

What JRRNeiklot says.

he was wrong

Plus it isn't a melee weapon. I seem to recall saying that this ability would be best defined as a grenade effect - but since claymores are generally not explosives they shouldn't get the effect.

The fact that one is a ranged attack with a 10' range, and the other is a melee weapon, seems inconsequential to me. Both are non-magical forms of attack. The argument was "it's magic" in response to things like magic missile and fireball. Not "it's ranged". Or would you be fine if the fighter threw a dagger and did auto-damage on a miss with a thrown dagger? I doubt it.

The fighter ability is being described like splash damage. But, everyone's upset about describing it that way. For some reason they are fine with a small vial of liquid hitting every single spot across a 15' area exactly evenly without any ability to dodge it or have armor prevent damage from it, but they're not OK with a fighter hitting everyone in a single 5' square with their big weapon, with at least a glancing blow.

And I don't get that. Throw a bottle of something and watch it break - the splash almost always goes in the direction of the momentum of the bottle, and never evenly disperses across a 15' area.

I'd say hitting everyone in a five foot area with a sword, with at least a glancing blow, is more realistic than alchemist fire hitting everyone in a 15' square exactly evenly with no ability to dodge it or have plate armor prevent damage from it.

 

[The Human Target]

I have several problems with it, only one of which was under discussion in that post.

You just damaged my feelings on a miss.

 

[herrozerro]

When does GWF actually miss? You can roll 1000 times and he will do damage 1000 times. After you finish rolling let me know if "missing" was removed from the game for him.

Well when he "misses" he deals damage less than the worst damage roll possible when he hits, so there is that. Also, unless you take "hit" to mean contact and "miss" to mean no contact, there is no actual standard of contact being made.

My example wording above handles this well. If you didn't hit them, they took damage in some way getting out of your swing's path.

 

[dmgorgon]

NOBODY thought alchemist fire was flawed and needed to be corrected, at the time. I still think everyone uses it just fine for Pathfinder and 3.5 and 3e. And it's not the only example - that's how a lot of alchemy items worked. Heck, I think it's how flaming oil worked too!

First of all, you are not even reading the rules correctly.
...
You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. (You can’t target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you’re aiming at the creature.)

If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 being straight back at you and 2 through 8 counting clockwise around the grid intersection or target creature. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw.

After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in adjacent squares.

In other words, you can miss if there are no adjacent creatures. That's how you miss with such a weapon. You don't always do damage with it.

2e was the same way.

If a missile is off-target, it is important to know where it landed--an errant grenade-like missile could present a hazard to other characters, start a fire, or eat a hole in the floor. The process of finding where it lands is known as "scatter." First roll 1d10 and consult the Scatter Diagram.

The damage taken from a grenade-like attacks depends on whether a direct hit was scored or the target was in the splash area. Table 45 lists the area of effect for a direct hit and damages from direct and splash hits.


The "area of effect" is the amount of space covered by a direct hit. Any creature in the area of effect will suffer damage according to the Direct Hit column. All creatures within 3' of the area of effect are subject to splash damage.


So unlike GWF, which NEVER misses, grenade-like weapons DO miss. You're not even comparing apples to apples here.

There reason people had no problem with it was because you can miss with them. Furthermore, some grenade-like missiles required you to roll an item saving throw (to see if the flask broke).

 

[dmgorgon]

Well when he "misses" he deals damage less than the worst damage roll possible when he hits, so there is that. Also, unless you take "hit" to mean contact and "miss" to mean no contact, there is no actual standard of contact being made.

My example wording above handles this well. If you didn't hit them, they took damage in some way getting out of your swing's path.

Let me ask you again but in another way.

At what point does the GWF never do damage?

 

[herrozerro]

Let me ask you again but in another way.

At what point does the GWF never do damage?

When he has a valid target within reach? Never. Well unless you count instances of hitting DR or other effects that would reduce damage.

But that's what it is simulating, a fighter who's weapon style is so relentless/wild/unpredictable/overbearing that you take damage unless you get the hell away.

 

[dmgorgon]

he was wrong



The fact that one is a ranged attack with a 10' range, and the other is a melee weapon, seems inconsequential to me. Both are non-magical forms of attack. The argument was "it's magic" in response to things like magic missile and fireball. Not "it's ranged". Or would you be fine if the fighter threw a dagger and did auto-damage on a miss with a thrown dagger? I doubt it.

The fighter ability is being described like splash damage. But, everyone's upset about describing it that way. For some reason they are fine with a small vial of liquid hitting every single spot across a 15' area exactly evenly without any ability to dodge it or have armor prevent damage from it, but they're not OK with a fighter hitting everyone in a single 5' square with their big weapon, with at least a glancing blow.

And I don't get that. Throw a bottle of something and watch it break - the splash almost always goes in the direction of the momentum of the bottle, and never evenly disperses across a 15' area.

I'd say hitting everyone in a five foot area with a sword, with at least a glancing blow, is more realistic than alchemist fire hitting everyone in a 15' square exactly evenly with no ability to dodge it or have plate armor prevent damage from it.

Does the fighter roll a d8 when he misses to determine which direction his great sword swing went?