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

[Wicht]

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

True, but then there is the combat after that, and the next one, and the one after that.

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.

I do think that fighters should do more damage consistently. That does not mean I think they should be able to do damage without actually hitting anyone. I don't want fighters which auto-hit.

 

[billd91]

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?

It doesn't have to fizzle. It just doesn't do any damage to it. If it did auto-hit and do damage to anything, it wouldn't be an appropriate 1st level spell. It would be too good. And would be too useful in auto-hitting the critical plot macguffins out there.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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

But it was limited and by the time you got a lot of them, the damage they did was just a drop in the bucket.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

True, but realism not really an issue there is it?

 

[TwoSix]

I do think that fighters should do more damage consistently. That does not mean I think they should be able to do damage without actually hitting anyone. I don't want fighters which auto-hit.

Which is fine. It's just silly to pretend there's any more logic to it than if you do like it. To you, "hit" means damage, and "miss" means no damage. Which, considering the AC model which presents tough hide, metallic full plate, and quick reflexes as all doing the exact same thing, making the target not take damage, makes sense. But objecting to one mechanic that occasionally causes an inconsistent narrative that must be smoothed over, amidst a whole host of other inconsistent mechanics caused by the AC/HP model, just seems confusing to me.

Honestly, to me it feels a lot like the "gish" thread.
"Oh, this word means this, look at the 1e MM."
"Sure, but people use it another way now."
"Yea, but they shouldn't, because it means THIS, just like it has for the last 30 years."
"Well, now it's used differently."
"Not to me and my group, it isn't."

I don't object if someone has a simulationist agenda, and wants to get rid of DoaM, and also add in AC as the point of contact and armor provides DR. That's fine. I more object to "I want combat to be pretty much the same as 2e, or 3e." The one thing I really don't want Next to be is "Everything just like it used to be" edition.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'm still not understanding why damage on a miss is being compared to magic missileqnd alchemists fire anyway. You aren't comparing like for like. A fighters sword isn't a magical heat seeking missile with limited usability, nor does it explode after each swing and reassemble after that swing is over.

Mechanics like this continue to muddy the already dirty water we have so let's not go that route like what happened last edition.

 

[TwoSix]

It doesn't have to fizzle. It just doesn't do any damage to it. If it did auto-hit and do damage to anything, it wouldn't be an appropriate 1st level spell. It would be too good. And would be too useful in auto-hitting the critical plot macguffins out there.

So how do you narrate the magic missile that does no damage to wood even though it damages flesh just fine, even if they're wearing wooden armor?

And is "critical plot macguffin that's really fragile just sitting there out in the open" really a common trope? I can't say I've ever used it, because, you know, spells.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Which is fine. It's just silly to pretend there's any more logic to it than if you do like it. To you, "hit" means damage, and "miss" means no damage. Which, considering the AC model which presents tough hide, metallic full plate, and quick reflexes as all doing the exact same thing, making the target not take damage, makes sense. But objecting to one mechanic that occasionally causes an inconsistent narrative that must be smoothed over, amidst a whole host of other inconsistent mechanics caused by the AC/HP model, just seems confusing to me.

Honestly, to me it feels a lot like the "gish" thread.
"Oh, this word means this, look at the 1e MM."
"Sure, but people use it another way now."
"Yea, but they shouldn't, because it means THIS, just like it has for the last 30 years."
"Well, now it's used differently."
"Not to me and my group, it isn't."

I don't object if someone has a simulationist agenda, and wants to get rid of DoaM, and also add in AC as the point of contact and armor provides DR. That's fine. I more object to "I want combat to be pretty much the same as 2e, or 3e." The one thing I really don't want Next to be is "Everything just like it used to be" edition.

But this mechanic makes the AC/HP thing even worse, it draws more attention to it, so why would you want to continue doing that?

Edit: Hit and miss are not just D&D lingo. These two words belong to a host of other games and their meaning of the word is generally the same. Also, you are dealing with two words that are simple and come with a simple meaning. 4th edition began the bad habit of adding in extra bits to the word "miss" which causes a lot of head scratching. Bad habits are hard to break but this is one that needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks.

Reminds me of the time someone, back during 4th edition, actually tried to explain logically why it made sense that a Lava Dragon was only resistant to fire and not immune to it.

 

[TwoSix]

True, but realism not really an issue there is it?

I expect my magic to be as scrupulously realistic to physics as possible. A dart of force should behave in all ways like a dart of force should. If it can hurt flesh, it must be able to damage other physical material, as it gives no indication of being able to go through doors or walls.

 

[TwoSix]

But this mechanic makes the AC/HP thing even worse, it draws more attention to it, so why would you want to continue doing that?

Because either something is consistent, or it isn't. I already have to narrate an air elemental dodging versus a tarrasque absorbing. I have to figure out why the acid I threw at the armored knight isn't burning his armor. I have to figure out why a rogue in an open plain just took no damage from a red dragon's breath that roasted all of his friends but he didn't move from the spot he was standing in. I have to narrate a magic spell that can bring a sword-struck commoner to full health but can't close the scratches and nicks of a trained knight. If I can do that, I can narrate the knight getting bumps and bruises from blocking the halberd swings or the pixie getting more and more tired as the halberd swings closer and closer. If it adds some interesting mechanical complexity (and any change from binary resolution is interesting in my eyes), than why not?

And in the worse case, a player complains, and I say "No problem, just pick another option." Not so hard.