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

[pemerton]

You don't "miss" anything in the area of a AoE. You hit everything and characters have the ability to save and mitigate the damage.

Except they don't. A kobold cannot mitigate the damage from a fireball. It is auto-death.

 

[Weather Report]

Except they don't. A kobold cannot mitigate the damage from a fireball. It is auto-death.

Depends on the kobold, and some things automatically die in a ball of fire (makes sense), not because something swung a large weapon at them (does not make sense).

 

[pemerton]

Depends on the kobold, and some things automatically die in a ball of fire (makes sense), not because something swung a large weapon at them (does not make sense).

If the kobold was on the edge, why couldn't it jump clear?

And if the fireball is intense enough to kill all human commoners with no chance of survival (8 or better on 6d6, which is 46649 in 46656 fireballs, or more than 99.98% of them), how is that the blast is incapable of killing a carnivorous ape caught within it (hp 37, per Bestiary p 1)? What sort of explosion or fireball is that? It does not resemble any explosion or fireball I am familiar with from real life.

 

[Vinicius_Zoio]

If the kobold was on the edge, why couldn't it jump clear?

And if the fireball is intense enough to kill all human commoners with no chance of survival (8 or better on 6d6, which is 46649 in 46656 fireballs, or more than 99.98% of them), how is that the blast is incapable of killing a carnivorous ape caught within it (hp 37, per Bestiary p 1)? What sort of explosion or fireball is that? It does not resemble any explosion or fireball I am familiar with from real life.

Ah, I love when people who know math make their points! ^^

I am finding the whole debacle about GWF a sad thing to see and a "poster-child example" of the "simulationists" (although many label themselves as such because of Emerikol, the term isn't really appropriate) own idiosyncrasies.

Damage on a miss is "unbeliavable". Every other unrealistic nonsense that has existed in D&D from day 1 (and that they readily accept) is swept under the rug.

You can't get more "double standards" than this ;P.

Go for it Pemerton!

 

[Vinicius_Zoio]

Is the thread locked or some such? My previous post didn't appear .

Pardon me if I'm making a confusion about the board's mechanics XP

 

[Imaro]

Again, though, Imaro, how much are we actually negating here? How often, at the table, is the GWF interacting with the Graceful Dodger? Additionally, how often is the GWF missing? That's a pretty darn narrow slice of narrative that's being lost when you're gaining narrative space for rolling a miss on every other opponent.

I don't think the point is how often or not they interact... the point is that by using this mechanic, the game has decided for all groups that the relentless GWF narrative trumps the graceful dodger. I feel like this is what dice are for, to decide something like this, yet the GWF can't ever miss...

After all, there's really only two narratives on a miss - you either clean miss (whiff) or clang off it's protective shell (armor, thick hide, shield, etc). That's it.

With this, you lose those two options, but gain "Your attacks batter the opponent". So, from a narrative standpoint, it's pretty much a wash. You lose some, you gain some.

My point is why loose either one, neither narrative is inherently better than the other? IMO, the point of rolling the dice is to determine outcomes that are in question, this certainly seems like it would be a situation where the outcome should be in question. At first I said I didn't care either way whether the mechanic was in the game or not, but the more I dwell on it the more I'm starting not to like it because of it's absolute nature.

 

[sheadunne]

. . . yet the GWF can't ever miss...

Can't ever miss, or can't ever not damage?

 

[Imaro]

How does 3E handle this with respect to fireball spells and grenade-like missiles? For the latter, I don't know that it does. For fireball spells, via Evasion and Improved Evasion, which are inherited and slightly generalised from the AD&D monk.

Evasion/Improved Evasion covers spells like fireballs and I don't think thrown/splash weapons need to handle this in a special way in 3.x. For grenade-like missiles there is still a chance to totally miss an opponent (through making the attack roll, though it is admittedly slim) as well as the other inherent dangers in the use of a ranged attack (Such as AoO). I'm not sure bringing 3.x into the discussion makes any type of point as it wasn't concerned with emulating narratives as one of its design goals. In the end though, the difference is that the GWF has no chance whatsoever of doing no damage to an engaged opponent and thrown/splash weapons can still completely miss.

Presumably something similar could be done in D&Dnext. One or more posters upthread - perhaps @TwoSix? - have suggested that the "dodging pixie" might get a DEX save to avoid damage dealt on a miss. An alternativ would be for it to be able to ignore the first X hp of miss damage. (This sort of approach would have the advantage of also dealing with the auto-damage from spells issue.)

Yes but now we're in the realm of what if's... the question is, how is this handled in the actual playtest rules as they stand. I'm not going to say I am ok with a rule because it might be changed to account for the things I don't like. We've been talking about judging it as it stands, and I don't see this problem fixed as the mechanic stands now.

Another way that the game currently handles this sort of thing is via its movement rules - eg the rogue's cunning action.

I'm a little unclear on how this would mitigate the GWF's damage on a miss ability, could you elaborate?

And yet another option would be simply to incorporate the dodge capability into hit points - the reason the pixie has so many hit points isn't because it's meaty, but because it dodges a lot. Though I think that would be less popular than some version of active defence for dodgers.

Ugh, just no... so how does this differentiate a graceful dodger (mechanically) from a brute who can take alot of damage? This essentially makes the Juggernaut and Gambit/Longshot mechanically the same. It just feels lazy and wrong.

 

[Imaro]

Can't ever miss, or can't ever not damage?

I think this distinction in the context of the graceful dodger narrative is pointless... in the same way that a relentless fighter can batter opponents for damage every round (regardless of how you describe it)... a graceful dodger should be able to avoid damage every round (regardless of the specifics of how it is described). With the mechanic for damage on a miss right now that is not possible. I don't want to get into a pedantic argument about the meaning of miss and hit in D&D, I want to discuss the greater point that I am putting forth.

 

[Imaro]

If the kobold was on the edge, why couldn't it jump clear?

Well if the kobold was a rogue in 3.x with Evasion and/or Improved Evasion... he could. Otherwise he's just not quick enough... same goes for the "commoners".