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

[Mistwell]

<-- Another player who voted against it that prefers martial characters.

But you're also not one of the guys who is so passionately against it that they are threatening to not even play the game if this is included in it. I am not referring to everyone against it, just the people with the intense vocal dislike for it.

 

[billd91]

The sword came from a shop, too, and is also consumable (eg via being dropped over a cliff, or eaten by a rust monster, or sundered by an anti-paladin).

The fact that it could be destroyed or lost does not make it a consumable. I could drop my refrigerator off a cliff but that doesn't make it a consumable. It's a consumable if using it consumes it.

 

[Wicht]

But you're also not one of the guys who is so passionately against it that they are threatening to not even play the game if this is included in it. I am not referring to everyone against it, just the people with the intense vocal dislike for it.

I don't think a single one of us is admitting to preferring casters. You might want to rethink your theory.

 

[Wicht]

The fact that it could be destroyed or lost does not make it a consumable. I could drop my refrigerator off a cliff but that doesn't make it a consumable. It's a consumable if using it consumes it.

What he said. Saved me the trouble of typing it.

 

[pemerton]

It's a consumable if using it consumes it.

What he said. Saved me the trouble of typing it.

I thought this was meant to be a balancing element, not a mere semantic (or economic) characterisation.

Arrows are consumables in this sense, too - so does that mean auto-damage from arrow fire would be OK?

I thought the contention was that, being a consumable, the use of alchemical fire cost resources, and is therefore balanced. And my point is that a sword is a resource too. Alchemical fire costs 20 gp a grenade. That's not very significant once we move out of low-level play.

(I also note that we seem to have moved from believability arguments to balance arguments.)

 

[Imaro]

True (and I missed where you said that, sorry about that). That is indeed an additional drawback, and a meaningful one. What is your opinion on the new alchemist fire in 5e? It does not do damage on a miss, and I believe ranged attacks do not trigger an opportunity attack.

[Edit - Oh I see, I missed it BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THIS THREAD. Come on man, I can't follow your argument if you're posting bits and pieces in multiple threads and then pointing out a lack of response to an entirely different thread as if it were here.]

I posted it in both threads... in this thread its post #670... and I even put your name in it to bring your attention to it. And could we cool it with the CAPS!!!

 

[Wicht]

I thought this was meant to be a balancing element, not a mere semantic (or economic) characterisation.

It is a balancing element. A sword is not a consumable. That's not semantics. The ability for something to be destroyed makes it perishable. That is not the same thing as consumable. The difference is that an element is consumable if a single use consumes it, rendering it gone.

Some game elements, such as familiars are both perishable and consumable, but the wizard will not take it kindly if you eat his cat.

I jest. All consumables are also perishable, but not all perishables are consumables.

Arrows are consumables in this sense, too - so does that mean auto-damage from arrow fire would be OK?

No. While it is one balancing factor, it is not the only balancing factor.

I thought the contention was that, being a consumable, the use of alchemical fire cost resources, and is therefore balanced. And my point is that a sword is a resource too. Alchemical fire costs 20 gp a grenade. That's not very significant once we move out of low-level play.

Trying to compare it to the cost of a sword, is, to be polite, a bit of a stretch. My players would not like it if I charged them gold for each sword swing.

(I also note that we seem to have moved from believability arguments to balance arguments.)

I believe it has been stated that both considerations are factors in the discussion. It was you, however who moved it to discussing the price of a sword.

 

[urLordy]

I have a different hypothesis, namely, that for reasons that I don't reallly get (but in this debate are being linked to "realism") people are happy with auto-damage from explosions but not from swordplay. For some reason they are comfortable with the idea that an explosion can't be evaded, even by an air elemental or a pixie or a graceful dodger who is on the very edge of it, but are not happy with the idea that a swordsman or halbedeer can't be (completely and safely) dodged.

The auto-damage explosion is a fixed fictional positioning because the fictional outcome of the explosion is imagined to be fixed. The auto-damage swordplay is a fixed fictional positioning because the narrative outcome of the sword-play is imagined to be fixed.

For me, it's simply easier to imagine that the effects of an explosion in the fiction is relatively consistent compared to the ease of imagining that the outcome of swordplay is equally consistent in its effects.

 

[pemerton]

For me, it's simply easier to imagine that the effects of an explosion in the fiction is relatively consistent compared to the ease of imagining that the outcome of swordplay is equally consistent in its effects.

Unless I've misunderstood you, then, you fit within my hypothesis.

 

[urLordy]

Unless I've misunderstood you, then, you fit within my hypothesis.

I think so. (Just to be clear, I don't think mundane explosions in D&D are entirely "realistic" of course, so I'm not defending them as perfect explosions by the act of contrasting them to auto-damage swordplay, I'm simply differentiating.)