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

[Imaro]

Evasion and uncanny dodge have nothing to do with melee combat, I'd point out. They allow you to avoid area of effect attacks. Improved Feint allowed you to make an opponent flat footed, which allowed you to hit him better, but, did nothing to protect you. So, we've got Dodge and mobility. Not a whole lot of modeling going on here. +1 AC vs a single target and +4 AC against AOO's.

I'm realizing you've switched goalposts since your original statement was incorrect... So that now you get to decide the level of modeling and whether it's "a whole lot"... your initial statement was that the earlier editions did not model it... apparently they do in some ways... and "graceful dodger" doesn't have to just apply to melee combat it can apply to other types of attacks as well, if the mechanical support is there for the player to choose it. Also, let's not forget there are more examples in the tons of sourcebooks for 3.5 but I don't have the time nor inclination to scour them all. I proved my point some editions do model it.

Yup. Which is exactly my point. The rules never modeled a graceful dodger particularly well. You got extra hit points for gaining levels. But, for some reason, your defenses never went up. Only your HP. You never became harder to hit, no matter what level you were. But, you sure can take a lot more hits when you're higher level.

That's wrong increase Dex, pick the right feats, etc. in certain editions and your AC goes up... you get harder to hit. I don't think there's any question about that. But again you've fallen back to a subjective argument which I have no interest in because there is no way to judge whether something is modeled well or not in an rpg... I say it is, you say it isn't... it all rests on the individual player and whether it does it for them or not.

Oh, please. Hrm, at best, in 3e, I've gained a +1 Str in ten levels. And how does a higher jump check translate to making me physically resist damage better? You're telling me that a 10th level character goes from being a bit tougher than a normal human to able to take blows that would outright kill a grizzly bear because he's undergone physical changes that would make him tougher than a bear?

You're seriously going to suggest that?

That's strange because you should have gotten a +1 at 4th level and another at 8th level then again at 12th level oh and again at 16th level and finally another at 20th level... so a possible increase of +5 and you're saying that's not a difference or the attribute changing?? What is it then?

Ah, I see again we've gone subjective and put words in my mouth. you claimed...

Physically, there is nothing to differentiate my 1st level fighter with 10 HP and my 10th level fighter with 100 HP. Side by side, they are identical.

Everything I've posted proves this statement wrong so now you want to get into the minutiae of it all, not interested. I'll say this, just as hit points have never been defined as pure meat or pure toughness... they were never defined as pure dodging, however the fact that they are based off Con as opposed to Dex seems to make your "pure dodging blows" definition an outlier at best.

That aside... so now were getting into the subjective judgement area... where before it was that these things didn't happen. Now, you don't feel they represent stuff well enough for you, that's your pejorative, but don't claim these things didn't take place because they don't meet Hussar's arbitrary level at which they are accepted. The fact is these tings change.

 

[Herschel]

Can the melee fighter set himself on fire if he misses?

[aside]That's my houserule for rolling a 1 with a Flaming Weapon. [/aside]

 

[Mistwell]

Well besides the fact that you were espousing a "know the rules before you jump in a convo making statements" philosophy earlier... It shows that you are wrong and that it is in fact possible to do no damage to targets that are 5 feet away if you are aiming at the intersection as opposed to a single target with a splash weapon that has a range of 5'. Is this right or wrong?

You're right. You get a cookie. Do a victory lap, and when you're done we can talk about the topic.

Always= all the time with no chance of failure...
Always!= possible in some circumstances but not in others. So you are wrong in your rules knowledge and in your statement.

I never said always in all circumstances, as there were numerous limitations on what I was talking about. And one of them was targeting a creature in 5' of you. Which is the identical circumstance to the GWF option we're talking about - targeting a creature within five feet of you.

The thing you're right about is meaningless for this discussion. You can also target the ceiling and miss, or swallow alchemist fire and miss, and those also have nothing at all to do with the discussion we're having. Can we please talk about targeting a creature within five feet of you, the analogous situation, rather than continuing to distract from the topic?

EDIT: And to top it off you are wrong about the range increment of alchemical fire... it's not 5' it's 10'.

I am not...you need to read back up thread where I talk about that issue. Or, you could pretend I didn't mention it earlier and then do more victory laps about a total strawman.

 

[Mistwell]

Can the melee fighter set himself on fire if he misses?

Yes, an issue of fairness and balance, not believability.

 

[Mistwell]

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. If you can't see the difference between burning off a resource, and taking a chance on setting yourself and your friends on fire vs. not expending a consumable resource and not setting yourself or your friends on fire, then I don't know what I can say to make you understand the difference.

Because you're comparing alchemist fire to it's drawbacks in isolation, rather than asking how that sum of drawbacks compares to the sum of drawbacks for GWF. You can never go back and change the option you choose as a Ranger, Fighter, or Paladin. For the entire length of your existence as a PC, you will have chosen an increasingly very sub-optimal choice, locked in to what will become essentially meaningless at higher levels, while others chose something that becomes increasingly even more meaningful at higher levels - but was always meaningful even at low levels.

This, I think, is at least an equal drawback, if not a greater one, to alchemist fire. The later just costs a minor sum of resources, a cost which becomes meaningless at higher levels, and is never going to cost a PC a major class option.

Given the contexts of each thing, I think the balance/fairness issue is at least roughly equal.

 

[The Human Target]

Well this has devolved into proper circularity.

 

[Imaro]

You're right. You get a cookie. Do a victory lap, and when you're done we can talk about the topic.



I never said always in all circumstances, as there were numerous limitations on what I was talking about. And one of them was targeting a creature in 5' of you. Which is the identical circumstance to the GWF option we're talking about - targeting a creature within five feet of you.

The thing you're right about is meaningless for this discussion. You can also target the ceiling and miss, or swallow alchemist fire and miss, and those also have nothing at all to do with the discussion we're having. Can we please talk about targeting a creature within five feet of you, the analogous situation, rather than continuing to distract from the topic?



I am not...you need to read back up thread where I talk about that issue. Or, you could pretend I didn't mention it earlier and then do more victory laps about a total strawman.

Wait so your point is that if you set up the perfect situation for a weapon not to miss... it never misses... What?? Ok if I have a fighter who has a +8 attack bonus and I attack a helpless foe who has an AC of 10 with Dex adjustment of +3... I can never miss!! Why doesn't anyone have a problem with this but everyone has a problem with the GWF being able to do auto-damage?? Aren't they the same thing...

Yes for almost any attack if you can dictate the specifics of the scenario in question you can create one where it won't ever miss... but what's the point of stating the obvious?

 

[Wicht]

Yes, an issue of fairness and balance, not believability.

Huh? I find it highly believable that a person messing around with explosives and trying to only throw it 5 feet is going to set himself on fire some of the time (and take that splash damage himself more often than not.

It is a matter of BOTH believability and balance. I'm not quite sure why you keep trying to make it one or the other.

 

[billd91]

Well this has devolved into proper circularity.

It pretty much always does.

Edit:
I really should elaborate. I think it's a function of the format as much as anything else. Even if you manage to come to some kind of understanding in a messageboard discussion, some miscommunication will arise that will start the debate all over again when, in a face to face conversation, we could just say "Wait, wait, wait... what was that?" and the other person would be able to fairly quickly elaborate and the conversation could move on.

Plus, it's the interwebz and people get nuttier than a Nutty Buddy on the interwebz.

 

[Wicht]

Because you're comparing alchemist fire to it's drawbacks in isolation, rather than asking how that sum of drawbacks compares to the sum of drawbacks for GWF. You can never go back and change the option you choose as a Ranger, Fighter, or Paladin. For the entire length of your existence as a PC, you will have chosen an increasingly very sub-optimal choice, locked in to what will become essentially meaningless at higher levels, while others chose something that becomes increasingly even more meaningful at higher levels - but was always meaningful even at low levels.

This, I think, is at least an equal drawback, if not a greater one, to alchemist fire. The later just costs a minor sum of resources, a cost which becomes meaningless at higher levels, and is never going to cost a PC a major class option.

Given the contexts of each thing, I think the balance/fairness issue is at least roughly equal.

Your position that the fact is that its suboptimal somehow balances it is less than compelling.

You are basically telling me that you are arguing for a choice you don't like, which is not balanced, is not believable and is bad for the game. Which makes me wonder what exactly you see in the rule that would make you want to argue for it?

Part of the difficulty here is that you are trying to make some equivalencies that, to my mind, are simply false. Trying to compare a "feat" like mechanic to a consumable resource, balance wise, is a tricky sort of proposition in any event, but in this case, I just don't see it. The one is always on. The other is not. The one is going to be used, in the course of a campaign, hundreds and thousands of times. The other, quite simply, is not. As an always on mechanic, the power is far more powerful than alchemist fire. As a melee mechanic, it has no potential to produce a negative or unproductive round. The ability to harm yourself is simply absent the mechanic. The fact that other mechanics may provide greater long-term benefit does not validate this choice as a good mechanic. Again, if you cannot see the distinction, we're just going to have to agree to disagree because you are being far from convincing to me and though I think I am making good sense, you don't seem to see any distinction between what to me is rather obvious differences.