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

[Mistwell]

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.

I understand them. Please stop being rude.

 

[Imaro]

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.



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?



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.



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?

Dude I'm through, hopefully you get someone to re-affirm the reason you've already decided upon because apparently... all the reasons we gave you aren't enough to show why we dislike it (so much more) than your other examples of different but same mechanics...

 

[Wicht]

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.

I did. You wondered at the "gulf of reaction between the two." I was trying to make it as clear as possible why it existed.

The point is, the two things are not very similar at all. Not even close.

They share a single thing in common: that it is possible to roll a dice, miss the target number and still potentially get an attack. But even that's not quite right because with the alchemist fire, its only the potential, within a very narrow range of possible actions to get a positive result on a miss. With the GWF its not a potential, its an ABSOLUTE. And even within that very narrow range in which the alchemist fire gets you a positive result, it still has the potential to be very detrimental to your cause.

As I have said elsewhere, there are far better comparisons that could be made if you are looking for precedent. Alchemist fire is not a good analogy or equivalency.

 

[Wicht]

Honestly Mistwell, I am not sure what you are looking for. It would be better if you simply either accepted the reasons given for the "gulf" or else just come out and straight up say what you want to say about it.

 

[Mistwell]

I did. You wondered at the "gulf of reaction between the two." I was trying to make it as clear as possible why it existed.

The point is, the two things are not very similar at all. Not even close.

They share a single thing in common: that it is possible to roll a dice, miss the target number and still potentially get an attack. But even that's not quite right because with the alchemist fire, its only the potential, within a very narrow range of possible actions to get a positive result on a miss.

uh, what?

It's every single time, when you target a creature next to you. Same exact number of times that GWF does it, which is a melee attack (hence target a creature next to you). That's not a narrow range, it's the exact same range of times as GWF - target creature next to you.

With the GWF its not a potential, its an ABSOLUTE.

It's absolute, not potential, for alchemist fire given the same circumstances - target creature next to you. Every. Single. Time.

And even within that very narrow range in which the alchemist fire gets you a positive result, it still has the potential to be very detrimental to your cause.

Yes, and every time a fighter, ranger, or paladin chooses GWF instead of the superior other choices they have, it doesn't just have the potential to be very detrimental to your cause, it's almost certainly over the course of your campaign to be detrimental relative to the opportunity cost of that choice.

As I have said elsewhere, there are far better comparisons that could be made if you are looking for precedent. Alchemist fire is not a good analogy or equivalency.

Sure seems like a good analogy to me. When you target a creature next to you with either, that creature takes damage even on a miss with both. Both have detriments to their use. Both are non-magical in nature. Why is this not a good analogy?

 

[Mistwell]

Honestly Mistwell, I am not sure what you are looking for. It would be better if you simply either accepted the reasons given for the "gulf" or else just come out and straight up say what you want to say about it.

Fair enough. My suspicion is this is a territorial thing. Alchemist fire, that could be used by anyone. The spells that do damage on a miss, which are more effective, are exclusive to spellcasters. I suspect people don't like GWF because it's stepping on the toes of the spellcasters in doing damage on a miss in a way that they cannot also use (unlike alchemist fire, which they could always use if they wanted to). I am guessing that the people most passionately against this option, are also the people who most consistently prefer spellcasters as their choice of characters to play.

The believability topic now rings hollow to me - given the lack of believability with alchemist fire but the lack of objection to it.
The fairness issue now rings hollow to me - given the ability is itself weak relative to the other options and the opportunity cost of choosing the ability.
So if it's not believability, and it's not fairness, it's gotta be something else. My guess is, it's that they just don't like non-spellcasters having a way to do damage on a miss in a manner they cannot also choose to utilize.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think at this point we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

From my own opinion, mechanics like this turn me off from the game. I did not like 4th edition at all and some of these wonky mechanics are a carry over of that edition. I know it may be silly but little things like that make me not want to purchase the game.

 

[billd91]

Fair enough. My suspicion is this is a territorial thing. Alchemist fire, that could be used by anyone. The spells that do damage on a miss, which are more effective, are exclusive to spellcasters. I suspect people don't like GWF because it's stepping on the toes of the spellcasters in doing damage on a miss in a way that they cannot also use (unlike alchemist fire, which they could always use if they wanted to). I am guessing that the people most passionately against this option, are also the people who most consistently prefer spellcasters as their choice of characters to play.

The believability topic now rings hollow to me - given the lack of believability with alchemist fire but the lack of objection to it.
The fairness issue now rings hollow to me - given the ability is itself weak relative to the other options and the opportunity cost of choosing the ability.
So if it's not believability, and it's not fairness, it's gotta be something else. My guess is, it's that they just don't like non-spellcasters having a way to do damage on a miss in a manner they cannot also choose to utilize.

I can only speak for myself but you are barking up the wrong tree. I prefer to play martial characters rather than spell casters and even I think area-like attacks for fighter types is pretty damn goofy. It flies in the face of believability as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I do prefer if weapon attacks don't behave like magic (and vice versa to an extent) because I don't want all methods of quelling an encounter boil down to ablation of hit points all the time. I'd be happy to see fighters gain more ways of imposing conditions, taunting foes, whatever. I'm fine with a subset of spells inflicting damage and requiring a to hit roll (like acid arrow). But I don't want charm spells ablating hit points and I don't want man-to-man weapons making area attacks. Both of those extremes strike me as being unbelievable to the point of being dumb.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Fair enough. My suspicion is this is a territorial thing. Alchemist fire, that could be used by anyone. The spells that do damage on a miss, which are more effective, are exclusive to spellcasters. I suspect people don't like GWF because it's stepping on the toes of the spellcasters in doing damage on a miss in a way that they cannot also use (unlike alchemist fire, which they could always use if they wanted to). I am guessing that the people most passionately against this option, are also the people who most consistently prefer spellcasters as their choice of characters to play.

The believability topic now rings hollow to me - given the lack of believability with alchemist fire but the lack of objection to it.
The fairness issue now rings hollow to me - given the ability is itself weak relative to the other options and the opportunity cost of choosing the ability.
So if it's not believability, and it's not fairness, it's gotta be something else. My guess is, it's that they just don't like non-spellcasters having a way to do damage on a miss in a manner they cannot also choose to utilize.

False.

I like to play fighters as well as spellcasters so what you say isn't true. I'm not worried about having a spellcaster's toes stepped on, I'm worried about cheesy mechanics that just don't make sense.

 

[Imaro]

You know I kept wondering if @Mistwell 's example of the alchemist scenario is really no miss damage with no consequences greater than possibly hitting oneself... why isn't it used more often in games... I played it out in my head and then I realized the gigantic consequence being left out from the exact scenario he set up... Attacks of opportunity... you are making a ranged attack against an opponent in an adjacent square, you will suffer an AoO every time you do it. Give me an attack on the GWF every time he invokes that ability and then we'll be talking similar.