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

[Imaro]

So armor makes you dodge better... hilarious.

Armor makes you not take damage better...

 

[Ahnehnois]

Have you tried Paizo's Critical Hit Deck?

No. Not without merit I suppose, but too simplistic of an approach for me.

 

[urLordy]

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.

According to that logic, if GWF was sim, then only big weapon fighters are accurate. Which is nonsense. Accurate finesse fighters don't have access to the damage on a miss. I think you missed that last part of the post.

 

[Garthanos]

In fact that seems to be the issue if something is martial it has to be the most simple least interesting interpretation possible.

 

[Wicht]

So armor makes you dodge better... hilarious.

No, but in 3x, Dexterity and Dodge both make you dodge better and they improve your AC, showing that AC is reflective of both the quality of one's armor and the quickness with which one avoids being hit.

 

[Garthanos]

According to that logic, if GWF was sim, then only big weapon fighters are accurate.

I certainly dont think the effect should be limited to GWF.. it's mechanics can support more than one presentation.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

It doesnt have to be defined so simplisticallyl as a binary effect.

 

[Wicht]

No. Not without merit I suppose, but too simplistic of an approach for me.

Don't knock simplicity

Its actually a pretty nice little mechanic to transform the critical from mere double damage to a more graphic strike, such as severed arteries, gut shot, blinded, etc. I also use the Critical Fumble deck and that adds a nice twist as well. Its pretty funny (and slightly dramatic) when, for instance, in the heat of a battle in a row-boat the archer drops her favorite bow in the water; and its nice that its a random "draw" that makes it happen rather than DM fiat so they can't accuse you of picking on them unfairly.

 

[bogmad]

What if... and I'm not really arguing about damage on a miss right now but rather saving throws. A lot of the argument has turned into arguing about how saving throws are inadequate to area of effect attacks because we don't have precise 3d modeled simulations of explosions in a game that relies on dice.

What if-Instead of arguing AoE attacks should fall to the same damage resolution as a melee attack, which seems one extension of the "splash weapons are modeled poorly" argument, we just created a rule that if you crit on your saving throw you don't take any damage? Would that better model the "sometimes a lowly kobold can survive an explosion through sheer luck"?

I'm not sure I like the solution, especially if your kobold is near the epicenter of the blast, but just wondering how people would think about that.

 

[Garthanos]

Don't knock simplicity

Its actually a pretty nice little mechanic to transform the critical from mere double damage to a more graphic strike, such as severed arteries, gut shot, blinded, etc.

Can I knock the fact that the fighting man is reduced to random effects for his more interesting capabilities and in a real fight it would be a combination of choices possibly in heroic play special effort allocation etc as well those circumstances.

I am making assumptions about it.. so you may have to inform me otherwise.

Critical hits being the source of things I prefer to see having tactical choices associated with...