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

[Mistwell]

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?

The rule is the splash weapon lands in a spot determined by a "count [of] a number of squares" equal to the "range increment of the throw", not "the range increment of the weapon". A throw of a splash weapon has one to five range increments (as opposed to something like a bow, which has ten). A throw in a range of anything up to ten feet for alchemist fire is one range increment (so one square on a miss), a throw of ten to twenty is two range increments (so two squares on a miss), and so on.

So again, if a fighter with GWF attacks a creature within 5' and misses, they do their strength damage to the creature. If a fighter with alchemist fire attacks a creature within 5' and misses, they do 1 point of fire damage to the creature.

Both have drawbacks.

The GWF has a drawback of having chosen an option which is weaker than the alternatives, and which grows ever-weaker as they gain levels, while other fighters have an option which grows ever-stronger as they gain levels. That's a meaningful drawback.

The alchemist fire thrower has a drawback of paying for the resource (though the resource grows ever-cheaper on a relative basis as he gains levels), and it may strike them as well if they miss and roll a 1, 2, or 8 on an 8 sided die. That's a meaningful drawback.

It's a fair analogy.

 

[Mistwell]

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?

You're right, it's not a choice I like because my players thought it was cheesy (I am personally not bothered by it), it's not balanced in that it's weak, it's not particularly believable. I don't know if it is "bad for the game", but I think you're right about those other three.

The reason I am arguing it, is because I am trying to understand why something similar in another version of the game (splash weapons), which was even less believable and also did auto-damage on a miss, was found to be acceptable while this option gets massive outrage from some. I'm trying to get to the heart of the amount of passion people have against this thing, and I just am not satisfied we've gotten there yet. I don't think the outrage is feigned - it's real and meaningful. I just am not sure why.

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.

Of course they are different. As I explained above, I was never claiming these are identical or the same. It's a similar thing though, and a fair analogy. Nobody felt outraged that you could always damage on a miss with alchemist fire against a creature next to you, though it was an item anyone could easily obtain above low levels, and everyone could use at any time with great versatility, and even fire resistance 1 was fairly easily obtained. But in all these years, I've never once seen anyone complain that it does damage on a miss automatically.

I'm just trying to figure out why one gets a level of reaction so drastically different from the other. As they are not identical things it's understandable that they don't get identical reactions - but the gulf in reactions between the two just doesn't seem explainable so far, unless we're missing the elephant in the room about this GWF ability. I have a suspicion as to what it is, but I am hoping someone else can put a finger on it.

 

[Wicht]

Lets try again...

Elephant number one: One is ALWAYs on. The other is NOT always on.

Elephant number two: One can set you ON FIRE on a miss right next to you. The other does not.

Elephant number three: One models AN EXPLOSION. The other does not.

Elephant number four: One is a CONSUMABLE (and freely available to everyone). The other is not.

Elephant number five: One has the possibility of NEGATIVE productivity. The other does not.

Elephant number six: One has the possibility of being UNPRODUCTIVE. The other does not.

Elephant number seven: One can hurt ALLIES. The other never does.

Elephant number eight: One fits narratively into a variety of PLAYSTYLES. The other does not.

Other than that yeah, the exploding flask of oil you buy in the shop is pretty similar to the guy with the sword.

 

[Imaro]

It's a fair analogy.

Claiming something is true doesn't make it true... but it's clear you see it one way and others see it another way, it's been explained numerous times... but Like Wicht said... you don't see a distinction between the two, regardless of the reasons that numerous posters have listed over and over and over again. The problem is that instead of taking the reasons people have given at face value and accepting them as valid... you have chosen to dismiss them, so IMO you aren't trying to understand anything, you're trying to prove peoples subjective like or dislike and threshold for believable fiction of a mechanic as objectively wrong... and that's not something I think can or can't be proven wrong or right.

EDIT: You asked what the difference is and it's been expounded upon numerous times... I'm not even sure what it is you are looking for anymore?

 

[Imaro]

Lets try again...

Elephant number one: One is ALWAYs on. The other is NOT always on.

Elephant number two: One can set you ON FIRE on a miss right next to you. The other does not.

Elephant number three: One models AN EXPLOSION. The other does not.

Elephant number four: One is a CONSUMABLE (and freely available to everyone). The other is not.

Elephant number five: One has the possibility of NEGATIVE productivity. The other does not.

Elephant number six: One has the possibility of being UNPRODUCTIVE. The other does not.

Elephant number seven: One can hurt ALLIES. The other never does.

Elephant number eight: One fits narratively into a variety of PLAYSTYLES. The other does not.

Other than that yeah, the exploding flask of oil you buy in the shop is pretty similar to the guy with the sword.

And they've been listed again. For what it's worth Wicht your points are pretty clear and make sense so I'm not sure why [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] doesn't understand them.

 

[Emerikol]

Even if the I hate "miss damage" vote was losing, it is still a fact that enough people hate it that they should reconsider. If even 30% hated it I'd think they'd reconsider. If they are willing to have multiple options then I'd make multiple options.

 

[sheadunne]

Even if the I hate "miss damage" vote was losing, it is still a fact that enough people hate it that they should reconsider. If even 30% hated it I'd think they'd reconsider. If they are willing to have multiple options then I'd make multiple options.

I think you'd get similar results from other D&D game mechanics, like HP, AC, Ability Scores. I don't find anything revealing about the poll.

I think the best argument to remove them is that they aren't built into the fundamental core game mechanics. They are added on to it (I find the same issue with skills, although not explicitly in 5e). If "damage on a miss," was a core concept, such as present in the 4th edition of D&D, then it absolutely belongs in the game, but it's not. It's an add on that works against the system. As clunky as other mechanics are that would represent the same effect, they're still a better fit.

 

[Emerikol]

I think you'd get similar results from other D&D game mechanics, like HP, AC, Ability Scores. I don't find anything revealing about the poll.

I think the best argument to remove them is that they aren't built into the fundamental core game mechanics. They are added on to it (I find the same issue with skills, although not explicitly in 5e). If "damage on a miss," was a core concept, such as present in the 4th edition of D&D, then it absolutely belongs in the game, but it's not. It's an add on that works against the system. As clunky as other mechanics are that would represent the same effect, they're still a better fit.

If I were the designers, I'd always seek the least offensive way to achieve a goal. This mechanic doesn't do much and it makes lots of people angry so it's not something I'd use. I think you are crazy if you think hit points and AC fall in the same category of acceptance. Now, when trying to support actual playstyles on a more strategic level, I would use modularity as much as possible. I think healing modules are essential and the healing spells have to work within that framework as well.

 

[Mistwell]

Claiming something is true doesn't make it true...

Obviously my saying something is "fair" is a subjective claim and not an objective one. You will know when I am claiming a truth, when I use the word truth, or true, or truism. In the future, please don't put words in my mouth...and certainly don't be so rude about it.

but it's clear you see it one way and others see it another way, it's been explained numerous times... but Like Wicht said... you don't see a distinction between the two, regardless of the reasons that numerous posters have listed over and over and over again.

Here, this is where I use the word truth: what you just said is not true. I just said, "Of course they are different. As I explained above, I was never claiming these are identical or the same. It's a similar thing though, and a fair analogy." What's unclear about that?

The problem is that instead of taking the reasons people have given at face value and accepting them as valid... you have chosen to dismiss them, so IMO you aren't trying to understand anything, you're trying to prove peoples subjective like or dislike and threshold for believable fiction of a mechanic as objectively wrong... and that's not something I think can or can't be proven wrong or right.

Show me a claim I dismissed. I've not dismissed a single claim made. I responded to each one, and discussed it at some length with whoever made the claim. So, spell it out for me Imaro, which claim did I dismiss? I didn't say their threshold is "wrong", indeed I admitted outright that their belief is real and meaningful, and I am simply trying to understand the level of passion between these two similar (but not identical) things.. You just keep putting words in my mouth. Stop it.

EDIT: You asked what the difference is and it's been expounded upon numerous times... I'm not even sure what it is you are looking for anymore?

I explained at length what I am looking for, and it's not why people think they are different. That you chose to cut that part from my post, replace it with the opposite of what I said, and then act like I hadn't said it to begin with, is not my issue. Here I will repeat it:, "I'm just trying to figure out why one gets a level of reaction so drastically different from the other. As they are not identical things it's understandable that they don't get identical reactions - but the gulf in reactions between the two just doesn't seem explainable so far, unless we're missing the elephant in the room about this GWF ability. I have a suspicion as to what it is, but I am hoping someone else can put a finger on it." You said you're not sure what I am looking for, does that clear it up?

 

[Mistwell]

Lets try again...

Instead of rehashing the post I already replied to, why not respond to the response you already got? It was in direct response to this very set of issues.