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

[Umbran]

Okay. I'll stop it.

Weather Report won't be taking part in this conversation (or any other) any more. Please continue as if he won't be responding in the future.

 

[billd91]

Actually, GWF is basically an area attack, just a smaller area. The GWF knows they may not hit an "exposed" or "vital" area but they're swinging at the target's area hard enough that even if they don't hit a joint/crease that armor isn't going to absorb the whole blow. It doesn't require a precision thrust of a rapier or dagger to have an effect due to the pure force of the blow.

So if the wizard's familiar were in the same square as the target, trying to trip him up or something, it would hit him too? If your buddy were lying helpless in the same square as your target stood above him, it would hit him too? If not, it's not an area attack.

 

[Bluenose]

If some effect was previously only available with certain types of magic, I think it's fair to assume there was probably a reason for that.

Would you also agree that if an effect wasn't previously achievable with magic, there should never be an expansion of what magic can achieve to make it possible, because there was probably a reason for that too? Because I flatly guarantee that magic can do more after nearly forty years of additional spells than it could originally. And that splat books adding more spells are not going to stop happening.

 

[Umbran]

Would you also agree that if an effect wasn't previously achievable with magic, there should never be an expansion of what magic can achieve to make it possible, because there was probably a reason for that too? Because I flatly guarantee that magic can do more after nearly forty years of additional spells than it could originally. And that splat books adding more spells are not going to stop happening.

Dude has a point here. "Because it was always done that way" is not itself a solid support. We must elucidate what the reason actually was, and see if it still applies, not just suppose it must have been there and assume it sacrosanct.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Would you also agree that if an effect wasn't previously achievable with magic, there should never be an expansion of what magic can achieve to make it possible, because there was probably a reason for that too? Because I flatly guarantee that magic can do more after nearly forty years of additional spells than it could originally. And that splat books adding more spells are not going to stop happening.

Not the same thing. It does stand to reason that new capabilities should be added with caution, but the capabilities of characters don't have to be static in the absence of reason (see below).

However, if I postulate the following: any effect achievable through a magical ability should be achievable through a nonmagical ability, do you think that's true? I hope not. Because that's the premise I was responding to.

Dude has a point here. "Because it was always done that way" is not itself a solid support. We must elucidate what the reason actually was, and see if it still applies, not just suppose it must have been there and assume it sacrosanct.

True. I'd say the reason in this particular case boils down to realism. An explosion that instantaneously fills an area may not be avoidable by a normal human being, but a sword, even if used skillfully, will fail to inflict harm at least 5% of the time (rolling a 1), and depending on the skill/equipment/condition of the combatants is likely to fail more often than that.

I don't think anyone would (or does) question that area damage sometimes can't be avoided; it happens often enough in modern iterations of the d20 system even without magic. But not with targeted attacks.

 

[Herschel]

So if the wizard's familiar were in the same square as the target, trying to trip him up or something, it would hit him too? If your buddy were lying helpless in the same square as your target stood above him, it would hit him too? If not, it's not an area attack.

No, you're thinking too large of an area. In "real", combat, movement is fluid and dynamic. Say the Fighter anticipates an opening to the under-the-shoulder joint of his opponent that will be on the axis of his (resting) elbow height and right hip as the opponent appears to be entering a crouch position.

The nature of the great weapon style is that the "wind up" is a bit slower (and bigger) in order to deliver a blow with more force. He is swinging to the area, or spot, if you like, with great force rather than a smaller swing of a lighter weapon that is more easily adjusted. The opponent may have (by the time the blow actually connects) moved just enough then to end up taking the blow in the breastplate, on the shoulder guard, clipping him elsewhere, or where ever but the blow came with enough force to still have a lesser effect.


In more modern terms, think of it like a bulletproof vest. Many may stop the bullet from pentrating the target, but the force of impact still may cause bruising, cracked ribs, etc.

 

[Umbran]

But not with targeted attacks.

Magic Missile? Targeted, but unavoidable in most editions, is it not?

 

[Wicht]

Magic Missile? Targeted, but unavoidable in most editions, is it not?

I really don't understand the fixation on alchemist fire when magic missile is a so much better equivalency to the proposed power, especially at 1st level. The similarities are far more compelling. It is class specific and always does damage.

But if we do compare the two we will notice that while magic missile, at 1st level, has the ability to never miss (which is a difference) and always does damage (in fact its utility remains viable throughout the entirety of the campaign as it overcomes a lot of DR), it is also a limited resource, being usable, especially at 1st level, only a few times a day. There is also the difference that the ability does not change on either a hit or a miss as there is no miss, and the damage is preset (that is, while it is always effective, it is never super effective). Whereas with the other ability - it is always on, expends no resources, and the miss represents the low end of what it can do (that is, mathematically, an ineffective strike by the average fighter is going to be superior or on par with one of the wizard's best powers) and, again, it is always on, round after round after round. After one or two rounds, the 1st level wizard is out of magic missile. After five or six rounds, the always on power continues to shine.

 

[billd91]

I really don't understand the fixation on alchemist fire when magic missile is a so much better equivalency to the proposed power, especially at 1st level. The similarities are far more compelling. It is class specific and always does damage.

But if we do compare the two we will notice that while magic missile, at 1st level, has the ability to never miss (which is a difference) and always does damage (in fact its utility remains viable throughout the entirety of the campaign as it overcomes a lot of DR), it is also a limited resource, being usable, especially at 1st level, only a few times a day. There is also the difference that the ability does not change on either a hit or a miss as there is no miss, and the damage is preset (that is, while it is always effective, it is never super effective). Whereas with the other ability - it is always on, expends no resources, and the miss represents the low end of what it can do (that is, mathematically, an ineffective strike by the average fighter is going to be superior or on par with one of the wizard's best powers) and, again, it is always on, round after round after round. After one or two rounds, the 1st level wizard is out of magic missile. After five or six rounds, the always on power continues to shine.

Also, that magic missile usually can't target objects so there's no problem of auto-hitting the critical plot macguffin in the BBEG's hand issue as there is with GWF.

 

[TwoSix]

But if we do compare the two we will notice that while magic missile, at 1st level, has the ability to never miss (which is a difference) and always does damage (in fact its utility remains viable throughout the entirety of the campaign as it overcomes a lot of DR), it is also a limited resource, being usable, especially at 1st level, only a few times a day. There is also the difference that the ability does not change on either a hit or a miss as there is no miss, and the damage is preset (that is, while it is always effective, it is never super effective). Whereas with the other ability - it is always on, expends no resources, and the miss represents the low end of what it can do (that is, mathematically, an ineffective strike by the average fighter is going to be superior or on par with one of the wizard's best powers) and, again, it is always on, round after round after round. After one or two rounds, the 1st level wizard is out of magic missile. After five or six rounds, the always on power continues to shine.

After 5 or 6 rounds, the combat really should be over.

And why is it a problem that the Warrior (Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/etc) does consistent damage consistently? I thought soldiering on when the casters were out of spells was supposed to be the balancing point of the Warrior/Caster divide, or at least that's what I was told many times during the epic Fighter/Spellcaster thread. Honestly, I'll be much happier with Next if the text is upfront that they're using spotlight balance, and part of that balance is that Warriors do more damage than Spellcasters. As Ahnehnois pointed out, magic can do a lot of things than mundane actions can't. Mundane people should at least than be better at the things they CAN do.

Also, that magic missile usually can't target objects so there's no problem of auto-hitting the critical plot macguffin in the BBEG's hand issue as there is with GWF.

Wait, magic missile can't target objects? That's lame, that doesn't seem realistic to me at all. It's just a dart of force you're shooting, is it going to fizzle because you point it at the broad side of a barn?