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

[The Human Target]

What the hell is wrong with keeping a miss as a miss?

See the kinds of threads and arguing this causes? If the mechanic tested so well then we wouldn't be seeing this kind of reaction.

Ha!

 

[bogmad]

Ugh! If I never see "Touch AC" again it will be too soon.

I'm not a big fan of Touch AC either, but being able to have a guy dodge out of the way sometimes is a plus for me.

You can do that by just having a hit = no damage and narrating the miss however you want, or you could have a near miss, or at the very least a critical fail mechanic, though a fumble implies it's all the attacker's screw up and not the defender dodging any.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Epic logic fail 101.

I see two threads on the first page about this subject, both started by you. A vocal minority does not constitute a majority. Heck, everyone on this site put together is a small minority.

Not just on this site I'm afraid.

There are people over on the WoTc website, RPG.net and even Mearls has decided to take a look at the mechanic.

If trying to convince yourself that there is only a small minority helps you sleep at night then you go ahead and enjoy it while you can.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What would be the difference in me hitting and doing 5 points of damage and me missing and doing 4?

Me hitting could be I hit you so hard that I rattle you in your armour. What if the creature only had 10 hp? I just dropped that by half by both examples so there really is no difference between the two.

 

[herrozerro]

What would be the difference in me hitting and doing 5 points of damage and me missing and doing 4?

Me hitting could be I hit you so hard that I rattle you in your armour. What if the creature only had 10 hp? I just dropped that by half by both examples so there really is no difference between the two.

1 point of damage and the possibility of all sorts of riders on a successful hit.

 

[Manbearcat]

And that's fine for an air elemental. I don't know that the RAW needs to deal with very possible special condition a monster might have. If we go down that road, we wind up with a rule system that reads like stereo instructions*. And, as much as I loved the system, the 4E books were written just so.

*with apologies to Beetlejuice.

Elder Air Elemental = the apex stand-in for the archetype of dextrous, fast, nimble, lightly (or no) armored Swashbuckler or Monk that is almost impossible to "hit" but if you do, you're doing damage.

Tarrasque = the apex stand-in for the large, slow, plodding, tank that is impossible to "miss" but is almost equally as impossible to damage.

They're just the most extreme examples to convey the mandate of malleable fictional positioning inherent to the D&D "hit:miss" paradigm:

- When you "miss" an air elemental/swashbuckler/monk, the traditional fictional positioning says "no collision between two objects is occurring." Or, put another way, the Dodge portion of AC is leveraged in the fictional positioning.

- When you "miss" a Tarrasque/Paladin in plate and shield/Earth Elemental, the traditional fictional positioning says "a collision between two objects is occurring but the blow is being fully mitigated due to thick hide/armor." Or, put another way, the Armor portion of AC is leveraged in the fictional positioning.

 

[Mistwell]

What the hell is wrong with keeping a miss as a miss?

See the kinds of threads and arguing this causes? If the mechanic tested so well then we wouldn't be seeing this kind of reaction.

There are about 5 people that seem pretty upset about this mechanic. I don't think that's good evidence of it not testing well.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

There are about 5 people that seem pretty upset about this mechanic. I don't think that's good evidence of it not testing well.

I see we are in the denial stage.

I see you can't follow rules. Keep it civil, don't get personal. - Lwaxy

 

[bogmad]

There are about 5 people that seem pretty upset about this mechanic. I don't think that's good evidence of it not testing well.

and at last (unscientific) count...

88 people that like it
103 that don't like it
and
29 who just don't care much at all.

So what was your point?
"Upset" can mean a lot of things. Do you count yourself in that number? Because as far as I can tell there are only about 5 of us who care enough to post in these same two or three threads. Is that what you mean by upset? I'm not going to cry about it, but apparently we both think it's worth discussing.

 

[Mistwell]

and at last (unscientific) count...

88 people that like it
103 that don't like it
and
29 who just don't care much at all.

So what was your point?
"Upset" can mean a lot of things. Do you count yourself in that number? Because as far as I can tell there are only about 5 of us who care enough to post in these same two or three threads. Is that what you mean by upset? I'm not going to cry about it, but apparently we both think it's worth discussing.

My point is that I don't think we have enough evidence to claim that WOTC was lying, or incorrect about the data they've received, when they said it tested well. It's worth discussing, I just don't think it's worth making accusations like that about the designers.