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

[dmgorgon]

Well yes, if I stab you with two hands wielding a giant spear, it is probably a wider arc / bigger swing than if I jab at you with a single handed lance while quickly moving by. The latter is far more about finesse than the former...

A wider arc through a portcullis? Give me a break...

 

[Imaro]

I'd assume that he/she is exerting less effort in the attack than you are in the defence, particularly if you're emphasising whole body movement to avoid blows. It's a well known fact in martial arts circles that defence is usually a lot more tiring than offence. There are exceptions, of course, for example in boxing where some fighters will take a defensive stance and wait while their opponent exhausts themselves attacking, but that's practical mostly because of the restricted target areas and low lethality that the rules of boxing prescribe.

And this is where I get confused... either we are talking genre tropes, conceits, etc. or we are going with simulation... but saying... hey this mechanic allows me to express a character common to genre tropes, conceits, etc.... and then using a simulationist argument to say why another highly genre appropriate character type should be nerfed or shouldn't work the way he usually does in genre doesn't make sense.

 

[Cybit]

A wider arc through a portcullis? Give me a break...

Portcullis? I feel like I missed something....I am fairly sure that you cannot make melee attacks through a portcullis?

 

[Weather Report]

Well, that *an* attack does damage on a miss does not say that the overall outcome of the encounter is determined.

Yes, well, try not to be too aggressive, and trying too hard to spark things off...

 

[dmgorgon]

Portcullis? I feel like I missed something....I am fairly sure that you cannot make melee attacks through a portcullis?

What about from behind cover? Or in a narrow tunnel? A wide arc should not be assumed for all two handed attacks. That's just stupid IMO.

Still, if you can't jam a spear through a portcullis something is seriously wrong with the rules. That's the main function of a portcullis, it gives the defender that advantage.

 

[Cybit]

What about from behind cover? Or in a narrow tunnel? A wide arc should not be assumed for all two handed attacks. That's just stupid IMO.

Still, if you can't jam a spear through a portcullis something is seriously wrong with the rules. That's the main function of a portcullis, it gives the defender that advantage.

A) That would mean any fireball fired into a small hallway with no cover should not allow any saves (Be careful about how "realistic" one gets, as D&D Magic is a far, FAR greater violator of common sense. Don't even get me started on how 3.5E dwarves & orcs shoot lasers out of their eyes.)

B) 2 handed weapons do occupy far more killing space in a given area - even in a "narrow" tunnel - which is probably 5 feet wide at a minimum anyway. (if it is less, then you are taking a penalty to attacks anyway, as you are squeezing if you are medium sized)

C) Reading through 4E; you can attack through a portcullis, just a penalty to attack / bonus to AC.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

A) That would mean any fireball fired into a small hallway with no cover should not allow any saves (Be careful about how "realistic" one gets, as D&D Magic is a far, FAR greater violator of common sense. Don't even get me started on how 3.5E dwarves & orcs shoot lasers out of their eyes.)

B) 2 handed weapons do occupy far more killing space in a given area - even in a "narrow" tunnel - which is probably 5 feet wide at a minimum anyway. (if it is less, then you are taking a penalty to attacks anyway, as you are squeezing if you are medium sized)

C) Reading through 4E; you can attack through a portcullis, just a penalty to attack / bonus to AC.

3rd editions "evasion" didn't work if you had no where to go. If you were crawling through a tunnel then evasion wouldn't work. At least with a reflex save you can narrate that you threw up your arms or grabbed a piece of wood or something to that effect.

 

[dmgorgon]

A) That would mean any fireball fired into a small hallway with no cover should not allow any saves (Be careful about how "realistic" one gets, as D&D Magic is a far, FAR greater violator of common sense. Don't even get me started on how 3.5E dwarves & orcs shoot lasers out of their eyes.)

B) 2 handed weapons do occupy far more killing space in a given area - even in a "narrow" tunnel - which is probably 5 feet wide at a minimum anyway. (if it is less, then you are taking a penalty to attacks anyway, as you are squeezing if you are medium sized)

C) Reading through 4E; you can attack through a portcullis, just a penalty to attack / bonus to AC.

In the edition I play you don't get a penalty to an attack unless it's a weapon that requires to you swing. A spear or a pike can be used in a tunnel without issue.

As for fireballs and magic, the saving throw (at least in the edition I play) is your one mercy roll to save from certain death. Heck even lightning bolts bounce off the walls in the edition I play. I'll have to review the rules for casting fireballs in confined spaces, but I think there might be a rule for it in the Dungeoneer's survival guide. In addition, we play with a house rule that requires you to have space beside you to use a two handed sword. Otherwise, you might hit your friend.

Still, I'm not going to use a bad mechanic to justify another, I'll gladly agree to fix a problem with magic if need be.

 

[Cybit]

In the edition I play you don't get a penalty to an attack unless it's a weapon that requires to you swing. A spear or a pike can be used in a tunnel without issue.

As for fireballs and magic, the saving throw (at least in the edition I play) is your one mercy roll to save from certain death. Heck even lightning bolts bounce off the walls in the edition I play. I'll have to review the rules for casting fireballs in confined spaces, but I think there might be a rule for it in the Dungeoneer's survival guide. In addition, we play with a house rule that requires you to have space beside you to use a two handed sword. Otherwise, you might hit your friend.

Still, I'm not going to use a bad mechanic to justify another, I'll gladly agree to fix a problem with magic if need be.

Aye, I mean, I'm fine with it being gamist enough to be functional, and having enough cognitive dissonance for the game to feel "real" to me. Everyone's levels are sort of different in that respect. (Cheekily speaking, 3E Darkvision, btw, annihilates any and all credence to the idea of 3E being realistic. )

5-6 years ago I might have loved a game like that, but as I have gotten older, the appeal of a simpler game grows.

 

[Umbran]

I still think you're missing my point, let me try explaining it differently.

Fair enough. I'll try to see if I understand better.

In empowering a "relentless GWF" by making it impossible for him to not do damage to a graceful dodger... you are making it so that a graceful dodger will never have the narrative control, appear as cool, etc. as the GWF does in the same scene because I can never not take damage from him and well the same way his shtick is expressed through always dealing damage mine would be expressed in avoiding it... only I can't ever against him.

Okay. If I may - you seem to be inserting absolutes that look unfounded to me.

Yes, if he attacks, you're taking at least some damage. But:

1) That does not seem to imply that you "will *never* have narrative control" - in a turn-based system, you pretty much only have narrative control on your own turn - you didn't have narrative when the GWF is attacking, whether or not he uses damage on a miss!

2) I just don't agree that taking damage on a miss means you'll *never* look at cool as that GWF. If you beat the GWF despite that damage on a miss, you look cool. If the GWF beats you, but you die defending the Prince/Princess, you look cool. "Looking cool" is not directly related to whether or not you take damage on a particular round.

3) I don't buy the basic logic of "there's *one* kind of opponent I have difficulty with, and therefore the entire thing must be scrapped". If it turns out that damage on a miss is a very common thing throughout the game, you might have an argument. But I reiterate that having chosen a specific style, you are *supposed* to have weaknesses!

This is where I tend to dislike the absolute nature of damage on a miss and feel randomness and dice should play a certain role in the resolution of the outcome between these two.

Dice and player choices still play a role! I will repeat - damage on a miss doesn't mean the Graceful Dodger automatically loses the entire fight! It just makes the situation riskier, more difficult for him or her. Damage on a miss means the GD is taking some damage, but not necessarily tons. If the GD has good AC, that may be the only damage the GD takes, and maybe the GD dishes out enough of his or her own to win! If the GD finds other tactics to use beyond "stand and deliver toe-to-toe for many rounds", the GD may still win!

One power does not an entire fight make!