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

[Weather Report]

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

Reaction time not good enough, was not aware, any number of reasons, really.

 

[pemerton]

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

As I understand the rules - set out upthread by [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] - this isn't correct. That is, in at least some circumstances alchemical fire is auto-damage to everyone in the AoE.

But I don't have my own books ready to hand to confirm this.

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

The graceful dodger closes, attacks, then uses Cunning Action to Disenage back out of range. The graceful dodger thereby avoids taking any damage from the GWF.

 

[billd91]

As I understand the rules - set out upthread by [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] - this isn't correct. That is, in at least some circumstances alchemical fire is auto-damage to everyone in the AoE.

It may do auto damage to anyone in the area of effect, but if the initial target is missed, the location of that area of effect is determined by the scatter rolls. So it is possible to totally miss an opponent. It is not possible to completely miss anyone in the eventual area of effect.

 

[pemerton]

I thought expertise dice were removed from the playtest a couple of revisions back? I could have misinterpreted comments though; I am not involved in the playtest.

The fighter has a "spring back" ability which permits graceful dodging along the lines of a rogue's cunning action.

It's not a feat. It's a build option.

A feat is a build option too! It's an option that appears on a list for three classes. If you don't like it you choose something else - much like a feat.

What we need are alternative versions of GWF that don't exclude other playstyles.

Sure. I haven't seen anyone dispute that.

My 2e player has a GWF and he has the Two Handed Style Prof. What should I tell him when he converts his character over to D&D Next?

Initially, I'd suggest taking Defensive style - +1 AC seems like one way of emulating greater speed. Another option would be to houserule in a +2 to initiative. (I'm relying here on the C&T Two-handed specialisation, which grants a speed factor bonus. That's the only form of Two Handed Style Prof that I know from AD&D 2nd ed.)

Reaction time not good enough, was not aware, any number of reasons, really.

Because of your traditional posting style, I cannot tell whether you are being ironic here or not.

If that sort of fortune in the middle is OK for fireballs, though, then I don't understand why it's not OK for GWF.

 

[billd91]

The graceful dodger closes, attacks, then uses Cunning Action to Disenage back out of range. The graceful dodger thereby avoids taking any damage from the GWF.

That presumes that his half-move is farther than the GWF can move and still attack. If it's not, he's still taking the damage from the GWF. But this isn't exactly an answer to the critique as much as it's a side step. It's not the dodger's defenses that are protecting him when he's on the defensive, it's his actions taken on his own turn that are doing so by denying the GWF an attack on him. It may be tactically sound in some circumstances to do that, but it's not addressing the issue directly.

 

[pemerton]

It may do auto damage to anyone in the area of effect, but if the initial target is missed, the location of that area of effect is determined by the scatter rolls. So it is possible to totally miss an opponent. It is not possible to completely miss anyone in the eventual area of effect.

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]'s point is that, if the range increment is 5' and the splash is 5' then the target never gets missed, because the grenade lands no more than 5' away and then splashes the target.

 

[pemerton]

That presumes that his half-move is farther than the GWF can move and still attack.

No it doesn't. Because D&Dnext permits breaking up a move with an attack, it can also be done by a graceful dodger who starts his/her round less than a full move away from the GWF.

Furthermore, a graceful dodger might be expected to use jumping, acrobatics and the like to exploit terrain - moving over difficult terrain at full speed while forcing the GWF to move at half speed.

But this isn't exactly an answer to the critique as much as it's a side step. It's not the dodger's defenses that are protecting him when he's on the defensive, it's his actions taken on his own turn that are doing so by denying the GWF an attack on him.

Huh? The division of the combat round into "turns" and "actions" is (at least as I understand it) a purely mechanical overlay onto the fiction. In the fiction, the graceful dodger does not get hurt by the GWF because s/he is too quick, and continually moves out of range, darts in and attacks before falling back, perhaps lures the GWF into a disadvantageous position, etc.

Isn't this how a graceful dodger should look in the fiction?

 

[Imaro]

@Mistwell's point is that, if the range increment is 5' and the splash is 5' then the target never gets missed, because the grenade lands no more than 5' away and then splashes the target.

this is, strictly speaking, incorrect since if you miss it can come straight back at you and if you were trying to do splash damage to a target by hitting an intersection the target could be 10' away from the point where it actually lands and can in fact be missed. So a miss is hard but still possible even with a splash weapon with 5' range.

 

[billd91]

Huh? The division of the combat round into "turns" and "actions" is (at least as I understand it) a purely mechanical overlay onto the fiction. In the fiction, the graceful dodger does not get hurt by the GWF because s/he is too quick, and continually moves out of range, darts in and attacks before falling back, perhaps lures the GWF into a disadvantageous position, etc.

Isn't this how a graceful dodger should look in the fiction?

Is it? What about the graceful dodger who stays engaged with the opponent but ducks and bobs to avoid the attacks rather than continually zipping in and out?

And yes, the division of combat into actions and rounds is a mechanical overlay, but with things like GWF you're forced to rely on one aspect of the mechanics - the ones that require the player to really work at plotting out his moves and playing a careful tactical game (which takes time) to keep from being damaged rather than having a broader set of options that include your preferred movement and action options as well as more passive build or equipment options that don't require such constant maintenance to work.

 

[Imaro]

The graceful dodger closes, attacks, then uses Cunning Action to Disenage back out of range. The graceful dodger thereby avoids taking any damage from the GWF.

[MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] is right... What stops the GWF from closing and engaging once the graceful dodger partially moves away? I'm having a hard time seeing how that helped the graceful dodger in this situation in a significant way?

And to address your point about the graceful dodger having to use terrain and jumping and acrobatics (with chances of failure) to realize his narrative... is that fair? I mean the relentless attacker gets to auto-win his narrative without even trying... what makes his narrative more deserving of that than the graceful dodger?