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

[bogmad]

You throw it in a direction, and wherever it lands it spreads exactly equally in all directions rather than mostly in the direction it was thrown as if dropped exactly from above (try that with a water balloon - throw it 50 times in a row, and remember it has to do that every single time with no chance for the liquid to not go in all directions roughly equally)?

It burns through even the most powerful magical powerful full plate mail or even +5 non-metal armor, diamond armor, and even magical force fields, and strikes even the smallest fastest most dexterous thing in all the world (and this is ordinary burning oil too by the way)?

And this thing you have no issues at all with, in terms of believability?

Compare that to a warrior striking, however glancing a blow it might be, any one creature right next to them, no matter how fast or well protected.

To me, it is far less believable the splash weapon damage, than the warrior's damage. Both have issues with believability, but the splash weapon edges on preposterous given the way it works in ways the warrior cannot even challenge.

Why not try to find a better way to model splash damage then? It's been said over and over that folks are willing to buy the less than perfect conceit that an explosion or splash damage takes up an area of effect.
If your main issue is a simulationist one, then solve the simulation problem when it arises. But if I'm reading your point of view correctly it's that you agree more with pemertion's "fiat" gamist perspective, and are just arguing on simulationist grounds in order to convince the more simulationist minded that they're wrong on their own terms.
But most of us aren't so hard core sim-minded that we require our AoEs to be laser precise. I'm fine with an acid vial going off in a less than perfectly realistic manner, but I'm more inclined to fix that than I am to decide it changes my whole conception of design principles, and suddenly damage on a missed melee attack makes perfect sense.

It is true that for a water balloon to burst out evenly from a central point then you'd need to lob it with a pretty high arc and a degree of skill. Why not just say your AoE attack is more of a cone shaped burst from a point then? Personally, I'm starting to grow fond of my crit on a saving throw idea and may houserule that in to my games.

 

[Garthanos]

Why? I like it.

Seems too much like added complexity for its own sake. I dont mind player characters having more complex rules its what they interact with directly but as DM I interact with many more adversaries. I simply dont want to track all that. Like having to design npcs with pc rules - like feats for instance ..I am more interested in the description of how the shop keeps eyes are miss matched to his daughters because she is a war orphan he adopted than the precise feats that allowed him to have decent lockpicking skills. No I dont want to create him using rogue rules... this is something because of his mechanical skills gained crafting locks and I dont want to bother with all the uber precision wrt that either - ball park is all that will ever come in to play... now those eye colors.. those are plot important immediately.

 

[Wicht]

You could always have splash from a missed throw be a cone effect emanating from the square in a line away from the thrower. And then in all other situations use the square splash zone.

 

[Dausuul]

I still think your math is wonky. The average says that kobolds should make their save 30% of the time and that more than half of all CL 5 fireballs will not be enough to kill them outright.

Well, hold on now. Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm operating on the assumption that a kobold reduced to negative hit points is out of the fight; I don't really care if it's Officially Dead. It's either dead or it's lying on the ground dying, and in the absence of magical healing it's not getting up again. (And that's if I'm applying the negative hit point rules at all. As I said, I mostly go by "zero = dead" for monsters unless the monsters have a cleric or the PCs are specifically trying to take prisoners.)

If you're concerned with whether the kobolds are Officially Dead immediately post-fireball, then yes, there's a good chance that many of them won't be. But their chances of being up and fighting at that point are low. Pick a kobold at random, it's at least 97% likely that that kobold will emerge from the fireball at zero hit points or less.

Of course, much depends on how you roll fireball damage. If you roll once and apply the same damage to all targets, the dynamics change a bit; either lots of kobolds will survive or none at all. If you roll separately for each target, you'll see the survival rates (or rather, rates of being at positive hit points) I quoted in my post above.

Also, if you take your monsters out of the fight at 0 hp, you are lessening your actions as a DM. Creatures with 0 hp are still conscious and able to take actions. You are effectively reducing all your NPCs hp by one when you do this.

More like one-half, or maybe one-quarter. A creature at zero hit points is technically able to act, but it's not the same as having a full hit point left--the creature can take one combat action and then it's dying. All but the most fanatical foes are going to either play dead or try to crawl away at that point.

 

[Wicht]

We always roll one damage and extrapolate it to all targets. Rolling individually is a non-starter, especially at higher levels with multiple targets and multiple saves.

There was a poll done on this once. Most people overwhelmingly do the one roll.

 

[Celebrim]

Seems too much like added complexity for its own sake. I dont mind player characters having more complex rules its what they interact with directly but as DM I interact with many more adversaries. I simply dont want to track all that. Like having to design npcs with pc rules - like feats for instance ..I am more interested in the description of how the shop keeps eyes are miss matched to his daughters because she is a war orphan he adopted than the precise feats that allowed him to have decent lockpicking skills. No I dont want to create him using rogue rules...

Then don't.

This is a complaint I've never understood. Nothing requires a DM to precisely follow the character creation/monster building rules when creating a monster. You are perfectly free to pick a number out of the air if you like it. It's more than possible within the very loose framework of the system to retroactively justify any number you want to have within the rules, if you had to justify yourself - but I don't see why that's necessary. Running 3e games I very often simply write things like Bob (Ftr4) in the 1e style and be done with it. Chances are 90% of Bob's stat block is never going to come up anyway. I don't worry about what Bob the NPC's skill ranks and feats are unless I really think I'm going to need them, and even then I don't necessarily fully detail the stat block - just the minimum I need to run Bob in combat. If suddenly I need to know Bob's Bluff check, Balance check, Appraise check, or whatever, I just ball park it on the fly. I don't worry about whether I'm off by +/-1 (or 2 or 3), even if the number I'm estimating is AC or attack bonus. That's largely going to get lost in the random factor anyway.

The point of detailed monster and NPC creation guidelines isn't to straight jacket DM's to a rule system, but to provide highly detailed guidance if the DM wants it. The point of giving Feats to NPC's is simply a list of minor powers that might inspire creativity, much like in 4e in a monster creation guide you might list out common sorts of powers that you could append to a monster build to make it more interesting. But if you don't want to worry about giving an NPC feats or counting out exactly how many feats an NPC ought to have, then don't. The game doesn't really play any worse for doing so.

 

[TwoSix]

Of course, much depends on how you roll fireball damage. If you roll once and apply the same damage to all targets, the dynamics change a bit; either lots of kobolds will survive or none at all. If you roll separately for each target, you'll see the survival rates (or rather, rates of being at positive hit points) I quoted in my post above.

I don't think I've seen a table that rolls damage separately for a single AoE effect. Calculating 10d6 takes enough time for most people.

Granted, this doesn't affect the math for the probability of any one kobold dying, but it would flatten the bell curve for the chart of the probability of X survivors out of Y kobolds.

Just out of curiosity, did you calculate based on rolled hit points or the average? Kobolds are 1d8+0, right?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

78 pages of neither side being convinced, plus a poll in another thread showing a slight majority disliking the "hit on a miss" mechanic (myself included).

I don't see this as a game breaker, but it could be cited as a cherry on top for some who decide not to go forward with 5th.

 

[TwoSix]

The point of detailed monster and NPC creation guidelines isn't to straight jacket DM's to a rule system, but to provide highly detailed guidance if the DM wants it. The point of giving Feats to NPC's is simply a list of minor powers that might inspire creativity, much like in 4e in a monster creation guide you might list out common sorts of powers that you could append to a monster build to make it more interesting. But if you don't want to worry about giving an NPC feats or counting out exactly how many feats an NPC ought to have, then don't. The game doesn't really play any worse for doing so.

My counter-argument would be that detailed monster building rules already exist in the game, especially in 3e...they're the character building rules! The problem (to my mind) for 3e is that those rules are considered the default, and no simplified model is presented.

 

[dmgorgon]

Why not try to find a better way to model splash damage then? It's been said over and over that folks are willing to buy the less than perfect conceit that an explosion or splash damage takes up an area of effect.
If your main issue is a simulationist one, then solve the simulation problem when it arises. But if I'm reading your point of view correctly it's that you agree more with pemertion's "fiat" gamist perspective, and are just arguing on simulationist grounds in order to convince the more simulationist minded that they're wrong on their own terms.
But most of us aren't so hard core sim-minded that we require our AoEs to be laser precise. I'm fine with an acid vial going off in a less than perfectly realistic manner, but I'm more inclined to fix that than I am to decide it changes my whole conception of design principles, and suddenly damage on a missed melee attack makes perfect sense.

It is true that for a water balloon to burst out evenly from a central point then you'd need to lob it with a pretty high arc and a degree of skill. Why not just say your AoE attack is more of a cone shaped burst from a point then? Personally, I'm starting to grow fond of my crit on a saving throw idea and may houserule that in to my games.

You are correct, a simulationist will want to fix both rules. I tried to point that fact out to him a few days ago, but he just doesn't want to listen.

He is trying to use a bad rule to justify another bad rule.

In addition, his argument is pointless to folks like me who play 2e.