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

[bogmad]

Again, never said it was "the same" or "identical". I have repeatedly said it's simply "similar" and "an analogy".

Your saying that it is similar repeatedly does not convince me that it isn't dis-similar.
I don't find a sword swing and splash damage or an explosion similar enough for that to be a convincing analogy for why GWF makes sense.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, you've already been answered, but I'll take a swing at it.

The damage from a splash weapon, alchemist's fire in this case, a resource which must be purchased, unless gained as loot,

They were cheap (cheaper than a two-handed melee weapon) and some characters could make them for free or very little. So it's a difference, but is it really a meaningful one? I mean, if this ability said "You have to invest 20gp every time you use this ability) would that suddenly make it OK in your mind? Somehow I suspect the consumption of a minor resource isn't really the objection here. But if you say it is your objection, I will believe you.

is mirroring an explosion and an area effect. Sure, at close range (within 10 feet) you are always going to do some damage to your target, but at any distance greater than 10 feet, the target is pretty much guaranteed to take no damage on a miss.

You cannot really effectively throw these things much more than that anyway though. They have very short range increments. They're intended as very short range attacks. Just as two-handed weapons (like polearms) are intended for roughly that same range. We're talking about, on average, about the same range for most circumstances, for both items. So, it's a difference, but is it really a meaningful one?

The miss effect is also non-partial, it will damage friends (including yourself) and foes alike.

Yes, it's a drawback. So, if there were a drawback to the use of this fighter ability, like "if you roll a 1-5 on your attack roll, you also deal the damage to yourself" would that help make the ability more believable or palatable?

I am starting to sense that the theme of these objections are not really believability, but balance. That people think it's somehow unfair to deal damage on a miss. Which, if that is the objection, it's important to say that so we can try and address it.

So there are at least four potential detriments to the use of the alchemist's fire: it expends a resource, there is the possibility, at ranges greater than 10 feet to completely miss the target; there is the possibility at a range of only 5 feet to do damage to yourself, and there is the possibility of doing damage to your friends if they get to close, or are within the scatter range.

But most of those are not typical, right? For example, all you're saying is splash weapons are MORE versatile than this 5e fighter ability since it could possibly apply to a greater range than the 5e fighter ability, but still people had no issues with it. It does expend a resource, but it's such a minor one I think it's not particularly meaningful (but maybe you do think it is). And yes, it can damage allies, so would you be OK if this 5e fighter ability damaged allies too?

So, to summarize, differences which make one palatable and the other not:

Ah, so it IS an issue of "palatability" rather than "believability". See now that is a very significant shift from what's been said thus-far. That implies there are things which could be introduced to make it more "fair" without changing the fact it can do damage on a miss even though it's not magic.

• One is a limited resource which has an in-game cost and the other is always on.
• One has the possibility of an unproductive round and the other does not.

• 
  
  When comparing range-to-range, it always does damage on a miss. Saying splash-items are even more versatile and can apply to targets even further away than melee range isn't really an argument in your favor I think, as nobody objected to the splash weapons but they could apparently do even more?
  
  

  [*]One can potentially hurt you on a miss, and the other can not.
  [*]One can potentially hurt your friends on a miss, and the other can not.
  [*]One mirrors an explosion, and the other does not.

All true. Not sure the last is meaningful, but for the other two they address issues of fairness and drawbacks, which is a different approach to this topic than others have taken so far. I think we can deal with the fairness issue, if that is the heart of the objections.

The problem is not the potential of doing damage on a failed roll, the problem is the guarantee of doing damage on a failed roll every-time, with no possibility of an unproductive round mirroring simply not being good enough (at that moment) of hurting the enemy.

But, at the same ranges, splash weapons did this same thing. There is no possibility of an "unproductive round mirroring simply not being good enough at that moment of hurting the enemy" with the splash weapon at that same range. If they were at the same range as a melee target, and you tossed alchemist fire at them, they took the damage every time no matter what. It's possible unintended targets also took the damage, but that's an issue of "fairness" and not "believability", though I've argued splash weapons splashing in that manner and hurting everyone exactly equally no matter what itself lacks a great amount of believability.

 

[Wicht]

If you are at the same range using a splash weapon as you are using a sword, you are dealing damage to yourself every time you successfully hit, and on a miss have a 1 in 8 chance of setting yourself on fire.

And I'm okay with that.

 

[Wicht]

They were cheap (cheaper than a two-handed melee weapon) and some characters could make them for free or very little. So it's a difference, but is it really a meaningful one? I mean, if this ability said "You have to invest 20gp every time you use this ability) would that suddenly make it OK in your mind? Somehow I suspect the consumption of a minor resource isn't really the objection here. But if you say it is your objection, I will believe you.

It is not THE objection, it is AN objection. It is meaningful to have to expend resources, even minor ones, and it is believable in its own way.

I can believe in a vial of fire exploding like a grenade. I cannot believe in a fighter that never, ever, ever, even with his eyes gouged out, misses.

Yes, it's a drawback. So, if there were a drawback to the use of this fighter ability, like "if you roll a 1-5 on your attack roll, you also deal the damage to yourself" would that help make the ability more believable or palatable?

That would make it a better mechanic. It would not make it entirely believable unless the damage was done only to self on the case of a botch.

I am starting to sense that the theme of these objections are not really believability, but balance.

The problem is that it is both believability and balance. Fixing the latter does not fix the former in and of itself.

, so would you be OK if this 5e fighter ability damaged allies too?

That would be a better mechanic if a miss with a heavy two handed (non-reach) weapon resulted in a random attack to an adjacent square. I wouldn't mind a feat like that.

Ah, so it IS an issue of "palatability" rather than "believability".

Again - it is both unpalatable and unbelievable.

But, at the same ranges, splash weapons did this same thing. There is no possibility of an "unproductive round mirroring simply not being good enough at that moment of hurting the enemy" with the splash weapon at that same range.

I think the potential to set yourself on fire qualifies as an "unproductive" round.

 

[Vinicius_Zoio]

A tricky poll. "Believablity" is not the only standard one needs to apply to decide if a mechanic must be kept. Also, there are degrees of "realism".

The author of the poll could easily have adressed such problems if it kept the word "enough" used in the title: as in "I find the mechanic believable enough, so keep it."

With that in mind as an objection, I've voted for the first option.

 

[Tovec]

Tovec, stop being a jerk. You just removed the context from my comment, and then pretended I had said something dismissive that didn't have the reasons for my comment. Not cool man. You want to argue about what I say, then quote what I say, and not just a snip of a section out of context like that.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, even if that is what is unintentionally being perceived.

As far as removing context goes - I cut your comments down for a few reasons. The first is to not turn these replies into monstrously long ones (as you yourself have noted and objected to). The second is to reply to the specific sentence or comment that I actually am replying to. Third, you did it first. You cut my replies down to one sentences as well - and then criticized things that I actually didn't say.

Finally, the wonderful benefit for forums is that people can go back and look at the full arguments made - with a handy button to go look up the full description of what we both said if something was taken out of context.

I am not dismissing it, I am saying I never claimed it is identical, just similar. Again, you first claimed I never said it was identical, and then the very next sentence talked about how it was not the same. You realize the definition of identical is the same, right? I am waiting for you to explain why the difference you note is meaningful for this discussion?

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying when I said "you dismissed it." You did not prove JRR wrong, and when I pointed that out you replied that you didn't try to prove him wrong, that you merely say he is wrong (because he is wrong apparently). That is what I found dismissive - an issue that you seem to address in others that I merely noticed you doing.

Now, do you know what 'similar' means? It means 'having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical.'
So, when you give an example I look up the qualities that 'have resemblance in appearance' without making it identical. Namely what qualities are the same, but not that those things are identical things. But mostly, if you object to the word itself, then I think you miss the context of what I am saying.

WHAT reasons? All you are saying is they are not the same...not why the differences are meaningful for this discussion.

I am saying the examples you have given, magical fireball and alchemical fire, have qualities - namely explosion and splash - which are important to why we find this ability different from that of a mundane sword swing by a fighter. I cite qualities of limited resources, which you also find inconsequential. I find it difficult to give you such qualities that you seek when you simply say that the qualities I'm giving you are inconsequential.

None of that is inherently a problem. I don't know about "not work as described" as I don't know what you mean by that. But for the others, you seem to think the problem with those things is self-evident. They are not. You're skipping the most crucial step to your argument - why those things are meaningful. I've explained why an ability that does not miss, even on a 1, was present in 3e and nobody had a problem with it (with at least three types of things: 1) spells, 2) traps, 3) mundane splash attacks). There is nothing inherently bad about modeling a splash effect with a melee weapon, and in fact I think that is a good thing to add to the game. And there is nothing inherently bad about it working every round (you can also throw a splash weapon every round, for example - they are very cheap or even free, depending on the character and feats or classes they take).

I wasn't addressing spells or traps. I was merely replying to you why I think people have no problems with splash weapons (alchemists fire) and that such reasons aren't what you seem to think they are.

Also, how can you get them free? I'm intrigued? You can PM me as I'm more curious for character creation reasons as opposed to disagreeing if you could do it.

As for the splash weapons, I disagree. They no more require an attack roll than this 5e fighter ability we're discussing (it also requires an attack roll).

I have to break this up. They do require an attack roll. They can miss. At ranges further than 5 feet they require a roll and are likely to miss, and certainly do not ALWAYS hit (especially on a roll of 1).

And as already pointed out, if they are at the 5 foot range then it hits the fighter/thrower as well. A level of damage that the GWF does not ever try to account for, even though he supposedly "strains" the enemy.

And it is no more limited use than this fighter ability (both are inexpensive weapons you buy with gold - anyone can afford oil or alchemist fire, particularly as you increase levels, and some classes could even make those splash weapons as an ability).

One is a single (relatively minor) investment. The other is a continual investment and can be limited by the number you have on you at any given time. Even if they are free to make, thy would presumably require time to craft. As such you can only do it so many times in a row before you run out. The only limit the fighter has apparently is HP.

And both do damage on a miss. It's a fair analogy to be making.

But again, the definition of HOW they do damage on a miss is not the same. One is an explosion of damage that harms everyone, the enemy, friends the thrower themself if they are in the range. The other is a swing of a sword that can never fail to harm the enemy, and only the enemy.

Why would it have to take up a 5x5x5 square to be satisfactory (you want it to be MORE powerful?) and what other issues does it fail to address? Again, you seem to think we can all read your mind and figure out what you're thinking or something.

You ask why it is acceptable. I give that is acceptable in the game's fiction because it is modeling an explosion which is impossible to escape. Or a splash that causes secondary damage to the squares around it, also impossible to escape. Both of which create a 5x5x5 effect that engulfs the full square the enemy is standing in.

Then you wonder why I have a problem with a fighter ability, which is not an explosion, yet somehow has an effect that is only replicated via explosions. I submit that it would be the same problem I would have if the fighter's ability caused 3 points of fire damage - it isn't a fire effect it shouldn't do that damage. It isn't an explosion it shouldn't ALWAYS HIT everything in the square.

You raise concerns over balance. I don't. I think it breaks the believability of the game. The only way I would find it palatable is by adding many different restrictions and modifications to the ability. And honestly with the amount of changes that need to be made they should either DO those changes, or give up on the ability.

 

[Herschel]

I'm not done with 5e at all, but I pretty much agree with the problems Tovec raises.

What gives you the impression I was referring to you? You don't even have a post above it on the same page, nor do you have a signature that says you're "done with 5E".

If you're interested and want input I have no issue with that, but at the heart of the Edition Wars even is a lot of people who have something they claim they like, yet spend a lot of time spamming message boards, online review sites, blogs, etc. attacking things the have no intention of even reading, trying or purchasing in some twisted vendetta rather than just enjoying what they have and leaving others to enjoy what they have.

Seriously, this is a big "what's wrong" with the human friggin' race. When humanity has run its course it won't matter how, really, because all/ any actual intelligent beings in the universe will just be thankful we're gone.

 

[Herschel]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, even if that is what is unintentionally being perceived.

If you're here complaining about a part of something you're "done with" then yeah, you're "being a jerk" because the people who actually are interested are trying to get the game they want. "They're" voice is important.

 

[Wicht]

i'm not sure that calling people names helps raise the bars of civil discourse.

Even the voice of detractors can be important, if the issues they raise are valid and affects the broader appeal of the game. Dismissing them leads to an echo-chamber effect and, in worse case scenarios, a very narrow appeal.

WotC has yet to sell me on 5e and, when the game is finished, damage on a miss is going to be a constant irritant to me if it is included and will greatly diminish my enthusiasm for buying the game, writing for the game (assuming it is in fact OGL), or playing the game extensively. Prior to 4e, I bought a good chunk of what WotC made. After 4e, their disdain for me as a customer, and their opinion of my opinion, meant I haven't bought an rpg product from them in years. I do think that WotC is doing much better this time around with their sales technique, but dyed-in-the-wool fans telling others to get out of the conversation has a way of rubbing people the wrong way and tainting the very product being defended.

 

[bogmad]

What gives you the impression I was referring to you? You don't even have a post above it on the same page, nor do you have a signature that says you're "done with 5E".

If you're interested and want input I have no issue with that, but at the heart of the Edition Wars even is a lot of people who have something they claim they like, yet spend a lot of time spamming message boards, online review sites, blogs, etc. attacking things the have no intention of even reading, trying or purchasing in some twisted vendetta rather than just enjoying what they have and leaving others to enjoy what they have.

Seriously, this is a big "what's wrong" with the human friggin' race. When humanity has run its course it won't matter how, really, because all/ any actual intelligent beings in the universe will just be thankful we're gone.

No need to cast aspersions, man. All I was doing was saying that there were some issues in his post I agree with. I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing that he's being a jerk or anything.
The fact that he's "done with 5e" doesn't mean I can't agree with issues he's raised.
I've raised some of the same issues in this thread and others, whether I've done so on the same page of a thread is not relevant.
I'm currently playing a pathfinder game, 4e, and plan on playing the next edition. I got no stake in edition warring and am just kind of confused at the vitriol in the "what's wrong with the human race" bit.