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

[skotothalamos]

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?

The magic of the incantation which allows it to unerringly seek living (or otherwise animate) targets out of a room full of inanimate possibilities is also what keeps it from hitting inanimate objects. "A wizard did it" works both ways, here.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Exactly. Good post but I can't xp.

It seems for some folks they have an "elephant in the room threshold." Exceed that arbitrary (arbitrary typically meaning that they have established enough time with the wonkiness of something, eg HP and AC and combat round action economy, to internalize it or treat it as background noise) threshold and suddenly its a problem.

For me (and I expect the same for you and others of the same disposition), the elephant doesn't recede into the background, as noise drowned out by robust signal, because some threshold that I've subconsciously set hasn't been passed. There is no continuum within which I establish an unknownable, unquantifiable threshold. Its binary for me. The elephant is always there. Its always present. Its in my face, shooting water at me with its trunk, stampeding and making the big trumpetting elephant noise that it makes. Once the incoherence is established, it is inescapable. More or less of it doesn't matter, specifically when the most fundamental aspects of the system (HP, AC, Action Economy) scream incoherency with respect to granular process-sim. I either find a way to functionally deal with it (eg Fortune in the Middle narration) or I run away like my hair is on fire. Many hard-core sim fans have chosen to run away from D&D precisely because of this predisposition.

While I understand the concept of internalizing incoherencies/shortcomings such that they recede into the background if the signal is robust enough (and I do understand it), it is not remotely a disposition I possess. D&D doesn't all of a sudden become process-sim because I can ignore all of the noise and focus on a signal.

D&D would be process-sim for me if:

1 - The action economy was 1:1 with real-time conventions; game time:real world time and in-game contests:real world contests.

2 - AC didn't have mutually exclusive vectors folded together (dodge, parry, block, mitigation/force dissipation, magic, luck).

3 - A plot protection/vitality ablation scheme (Hit Points) didn't exist and/or it didn't have mutually exclusive vectors folded together (luck, manifest destiny, mental resolve, physical fortitude, tissue trauma, skill).

That would be a start (but that is just the tip of the iceberg...I have tons and tons of other issues with respect to fundamental physics within the implied setting). I absolutely cannot construct a process-sim mindset when playing D&D with these issues saying "HEY GUY LOOK AT ME!. HEY! HEY YOU! RIGHT HERE!" So it becomes a driftable Gamist/Narrativist mushpie, requiring Fortune in the Middle Narration, and some simulatory elements so that my players and I can have some semblance of coherency within the shared imaginary space and calibrated genre emulation.

I'm happy that some folks possess a different mindset (simulation continuum rather than binary) than my own. Its just going to be all but impossible for those folks and myself (and others like me) to get on board and agree on these issues (and thus share a big tent D&D design that is mutually exclusive of our interests).

 

[Umbran]

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.

Drop in the bucket? In 1e, a 1st level wizard may have only and 4 hit points. A fighter may have had 10 or fewer hit points. And each missile did 1d4+1 damage. So, maybe a drop in the bucket, but sometimes it was a tiny little bucket!

But really, the point is that, there is at least one, possibly more, precedents for targeted, unavoidable damage. That's all.

I think we'd be wise to wait to see the finished game to decide if 5e's use of it is problematic. Maybe it, too, will in the final full context, be a drop in the bucket.

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

I am not a proponent of "realism counts for some classes, but not for others". Spellcasters get to break realism by "It is magic!". Fighter and rogue types get to break realism by, "I'm an action hero!" I think trying to impose "realism" as a restriction on some character types, but not others, does not seem like a realistic design goal.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I am not a proponent of "realism counts for some classes, but not for others". Spellcasters get to break realism by "It is magic!". Fighter and rogue types get to break realism by, "I'm an action hero!" I think trying to impose "realism" as a restriction on some character types, but not others, does not seem like a realistic design goal.

I'm a proponent of magic being treated as an exception to the way the world works. "Supernatural" literally means above and beyond what is natural. I don't see that it matters which classes we're talking about; each individual mechanic ought to be judged on its own merits.

I also don't recall seeing the term "action hero" anywhere in my PHB. If I wanted an rpg that did that, I don't think D&D would be my choice.

 

[Wicht]

But really, the point is that, there is at least one, possibly more, precedents for targeted, unavoidable damage. That's all.

There are other precedents too for unavoidable damage, some of which I have used myself in design, such as auras. I don't think unavoidable damage is, all of its own, game breaking or poor design. But that does not mean that because the feature is allowed in one area, or makes sense in one area, that it is good design in other areas.

To go to hyperbolic extremes, for instance, just because a wizard can cast fireball, I don't think we are justified in saying a fighter can only have parity if he can use his sword to suddenly do 1d6/level damage to all foes within 15 feet each round, every round.

In the end, making it impossible for a melee fighter to ever miss his target at 1st level, every time, all the time, is, I think, a bad idea for any number of reasons.

 

[Emerikol]

I am not a proponent of "realism counts for some classes, but not for others". Spellcasters get to break realism by "It is magic!". Fighter and rogue types get to break realism by, "I'm an action hero!" I think trying to impose "realism" as a restriction on some character types, but not others, does not seem like a realistic design goal.

I'd say for me to play the game it's an essential design goal. Why should I play a game that at every turn is busting my immersion because of weird unrealistic mechanics. 4e was unplayable for me because of these issues. As soon as the Rogue did a blinding barrage, my group was lost immersion wise.

A lot of debate has went on about mechanics as their relationship to the underlying world. It's probably only an issue for a particular segment and no one else cares. That segment though is not tiny. It may not be a majority if by caring you mean passionately. If you mean "just prefers" then I'd say you'd have a majority.

I kind of wish they'd push more things into feats. I know this is problematic but it would be nice if a DM could just hand out a list to his players stating the following ten feats are banned. Instead, if the game is playable, he'll end up having to write a small treatise explaining whats in and whats out. In some cases, the DM will likely have to create new rules to fill in the missing spots.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I was talking (in part) about an effect available from grenade-like missiles, which are not magical.

People do survive explosions - depending on where they are in relation to the primary blast and a whole host of factors. They're pretty much always hurt, however, even if they survive

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

My point, in relation to fireball, is that the explosion from a fireball auto-kills kobolds, and the explostion from well over 99% of all fireballs auto-kills human human commoners, although it cannot kill a carnivorous ape. This is not about the realism of people always being hurt. This is about the fiat of the caster getting to kill the kobold no matter how high its DEX, no matter how thick its armour.

It's a very peculiar magic - if you're taking the ingame, "it's magic" interpretation of these effects - that permits the caster to auto-kill humans while being unable to kill apes. I personally can't help but see some hints of metagame and fiat in there.

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?

I tend to agree with TwoSix's point. I also find this a somewhat odd balancing objection - the players of fighters can't have fiat abilities because they might auto-hit McGuffins in the hands of BBEGs?

To my mind, that's part of the attraction of player fiat - it makes it mechanically harder for the GM to railroad!

I kind of wish they'd push more things into feats.

As I've said before - this basically is a feat. It's one mechanical option on a list from which certain classes get to choose at certain level-up points: isn't that more-or-less the definition of a feat?

 

[billd91]

My point, in relation to fireball, is that the explosion from a fireball auto-kills kobolds, and the explostion from well over 99% of all fireballs auto-kills human human commoners, although it cannot kill a carnivorous ape. This is not about the realism of people always being hurt. This is about the fiat of the caster getting to kill the kobold no matter how high its DEX, no matter how thick its armor.

But not no matter what level the kobold. You think the only kobolds are the bog standard ones out there?

I tend to agree with TwoSix's point. I also find this a somewhat odd balancing objection - the players of fighters can't have fiat abilities because they might auto-hit McGuffins in the hands of BBEGs?

To my mind, that's part of the attraction of player fiat - it makes it mechanically harder for the GM to railroad!

Who cares about fiat abilities? The GWF PC can still roll to hit and hit fairly just like anyone who isn't the GWF PC.

 

[Imaro]

I was talking (in part) about an effect available from grenade-like missiles, which are not magical.

The equalizer that was left out of [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] 's scenario was that the person throwing alchemical fire will suffer an AoO. In other words he could very well end up taking more damage than the auto-splash damage does to his opponent. Does the GWF have any consequences like that to his ability?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Let's not forget that Alchemists Fire would more than likely take up two actions to use it, one action to pull it out and another to throw. Not to mention they cost money and you are limited in how many you can carry.