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

[Imaro]

I dont bother having people roll for dying in a bathroom fall either even though huge numbers of people do in real life.

Not even remotely similar... but keep building those false equivalencies.

Probably let them roll.. but you know
The game actually has a hugely frustrating piece of mechanics in this situation think about it.. there is very large likelihood of yay you succeed on the save but you still die horribly in flames, that is a different definition of success and save both.

Oh, ok... so there are situations where you would roll, just checking.

I don't find the save mechanic frustrating at all, here is the definition in 3.x...

Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect. Like an attack roll, a saving throw is a d20 roll plus a bonus based on your class, level, and an ability score. Your saving throw modifier is:

Base save bonus + ability modifier
​

It's pretty clear you save to avoid or to take less damage. if it was called a roll to avoid... I guess I could see why it would be frustrating but it's not. Is DR frustrating because it reduces damage but you can still die from excess damage? I don't think it is if you understand the mechanic.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, considering GWF takes up two or three lines I don't think it's taking up very much space that could be used for better mechanics.

True enough, but there are plenty of other things I'd prune out of there.

Though frankly I disagree at a fundamental level that there's very much stabbing.slashing/bludgeoning contact involved in the reduction of hit points, at least until the very end of it. I regard it as far more about positioning and morale rather than actual injuries. Of course this contradicts some aspects of hit points, but so does any other approach.

Sure, but that's part of the issue, isn't it? Because of hit points, martial combat lacks the potential for a decisive strike to end a battle quickly. For a high-level fighter with all his hp, in your philosophy it's narratively impossible for him to get stabbed, no matter how lucky or skilled or strong the attacker, no matter how defensively compromised he is. Whereas a relatively simple spell might disable or kill him.

That's really the frontier for design in D&D: figuring out a way to create combat mechanics that allow for decisive strikes, beheadings, backstabbings, hamstringings, and the like, without compromising the sense of reward for advancing as a character, and without making those types of things into virtual spells. Someone does that better than I'm doing it now, and then I have a reason to buy a new version of D&D.

 

[Imaro]

Because the physics of a meteor striking the earth isn't far from the physical of a hailstone striking a roofing system which isn't far from from a fireball where a solid suddenly turns into a very hot gas, and the hot gas suddenly expands, with the velocity of the expansion being very high. There are differences but there is plenty of physical overlap. You have mass, you have impact velocity, you have impact angle, you have rapid expansion, you have the exchange of thermal energy and heat transfer between two systems, you have diffusion.

Further, Fireball doesn't model a real world explosion very well because it basically assumes equal energy transfer within a sphere and a boundary layer (rather than considerable at ground zero and then progressively dissipating) . So its kind of like the psuedo-boundary layer of a hailstorm so I thought that was a somewhat sensible comparison.

As far as "acid bombs", there is less similarity there, as it has some unique components, but there is still some overlap with several standard physics processes. An acid bomb would be much more in line with a cone due to the overriding impact of its angular momentum on its deployment/dispersal.

With all of these phenomena, we still have most of the same processes at work. I would also state that a melee combatant wielding a large weapon in close proximity to a target has considerable control over whether the deployment of the effect (the weapon colliding with the body) is at a more or less oblique angle with respect to the target area. I could see a warrior who has achieved great proficiency with a Great Weapon akin to a 7-8 foot radius "hailstorm" that has "controlled horizontal winds and updrafts"!

I'll take your word for it since at first glance, at least for me, there seem to be some pretty big differences between a hailstorm and a fireball... but ok.

 

[Garthanos]

The guidelines in Next actually say to not have the players roll for things that incredibly unlikely.

Oh, ok... so there are situations where you would roll, just checking.

If the damage was high enough they die anyway would you demand they roll so we can see how charred there remains are.. just checking?

They had to redefine save as game terminology just like miss is missing the "target ac" value not really missing the enemy since that miss might be hitting the enemies armor.

 

[urLordy]

With all of these phenomena, we still have most of the same processes at work. I would also state that a melee combatant wielding a large weapon in close proximity to a target has considerable control over whether the deployment of the effect (the weapon colliding with the body) is at a more or less oblique angle with respect to the target area. I could see a warrior who has achieved great proficiency with a Great Weapon akin to a 7-8 foot radius "hailstorm" that has "controlled horizontal winds and updrafts"!

Combat is messy and random and unpredictable.

Indiana Jones with a machete hacking at thick jungle foliage, I could imagine that being modelled as damage on a miss. A good machete cut will sever plants, and a "miss" will still likely cause damage. Auto-damage with a machete against foliage sounds easy enough to imagine.

Indiana Jones with a machete and put him into messy dirty crazy combat. Even Indiana Jones can totally miss; that's the way I imagine it.

If Indiana Jones with a machete is not comparable to a great weapon fighter, then I can imagine The Hulk who still misses... a lot. If The Hulk is up against regular people, I can imagine those mooks taking "damage on a miss" in the sense that they're stunned by a glancing blow or shaken up in combat regardless. But pit The Hulk against a superhero and I don't necessarily see Wolverine* or whoever taking any "damage on a miss".

The key problem here is that damage on a miss is exclusive to GWF. Nobody else has it. There's no imagined universal paradigm where everyone is taking "damage" (ie., fatigue, loss of morale) in combat. No, it's just the guy with the big sword. Not the guy with the whirlwind storm of swords. There is nothing sim about GWF DoaM. It's totally narrative. Sim arguments about meteor physics completely fails to inform the bigger imagined picture by a long shot.

* Edit: I just know I'm going to get in trouble for using Wolverine in this analogy. But regardless of his regeneration, etc. I referenced him because I imagine that as the classic showdown: Wolverine vs The Hulk. Pick any other superhero instead to suit the analogy, if it helps, where it doesn't feel like the opponent is getting damaged at all on a miss by a guy with a big weapon (compared to a guy with a medium weapon).

 

[Imaro]

The guidelines in Next actually say to not have the players roll for things that incredibly unlikely.

Cool, but again this was in response to a specific statement made... No monster can survive a fireball powered by DM fiat...

If the damage was high enough they die anyway would you demand they roll so we can see how charred there remains are.. just checking?

When did this become the situation. The outcome has already been decided by the dice, it is no longer unlikely it is (at this point) a certainty.

They had to redefine save as game terminology just like miss is missing the "target ac" value not really missing the enemy since that miss might be hitting the enemies armor.

Uhm, no... mechanically a miss is not defined as hitting the enemies armor... that is how some choose to describe it, the rules define a miss as "not doing damage".

 

[Wicht]

It was stated that a typical kobold could not survive a fireball... in return I stated that this was false and that it was possible for a "typical" kobold in 3.x to survive a fireball spell. And I'm not sure how you play but yeah my group would actually roll to see whether the kobolds made their save as well as what the amount of damage they received was... or are you saying because something happens rarely in the game it should be reduced to a 0% chance and regulated to DM fiat?

I would roll the saves also. Assume a 5d6 fireball, doing between 5 and 30 points of damage with 17.5 being the average. A save means that the kobold takes only, on average 9 points of damage, which is not enough to kill them outright. And should the wizard roll bad (it happens) they might even still be standing. Likely it won't matter in the end, but if the cleric should be careless with his healing channeling, those "not dead yet" kobolds are a definite factor.

 

[Wicht]

That's really the frontier for design in D&D: figuring out a way to create combat mechanics that allow for decisive strikes, beheadings, backstabbings, hamstringings, and the like, without compromising the sense of reward for advancing as a character, and without making those types of things into virtual spells. Someone does that better than I'm doing it now, and then I have a reason to buy a new version of D&D.

Have you tried Paizo's Critical Hit Deck?

 

[Garthanos]

I can imagine The Hulk who still misses... a lot. If The Hulk is up against regular people, I can imagine those mooks taking "damage on a miss" in the sense that they're stunned by a glancing blow or shaken up in combat regardless. But pit The Hulk against a superhero and I don't necessarily see Wolverine or whoever taking any "damage on a miss".

Why? Hulk smash ground ground crumbles and sonic blast knocks out mooks completely ... and stun silly nearby heros good too. And the reason heros are less bothered by damage on a miss is they have loads of hit points

Neither of your examples is a skilled fighter you know. Hulk is intensionally portrayed as wild and innacurate.

 

[Garthanos]

Uhm, no... mechanically a miss is not defined as hitting the enemies armor... that is how some choose to describe it, the rules define a miss as "not doing damage".

Does it have to that is just as arbitrary as saving yourself from a spell merely reducing how badly dead you are.

It can be

Crit most awesome effects of your attack
Hit Lesser but substantial effects of your attack
Miss least substantive effects often no effect at all.