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

[Dausuul]

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?

Both, and it makes a big difference. For kobolds using 1d8 hit points, their odds of surviving with at least 1 hit point range from 1/37 to 1/141 depending on the wizard's Int. For kobolds using a flat 4 hit points, their odds are 1/926 to 1/3703.

 

[dmgorgon]

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.

If it's only ever one rule that needs to be fixed it won't create a problem. On the other hand, if it's used to set a precedent then the system will suffer greatly post launch.

I think there are some folks who want that precedent to be set and that's why they won't even consider including an optional rule for half the community. They don't even want the game to recognize other playstyles via options. That acknowledgement is something they are trying to avoid for sake of the "one true way".

 

[Mistwell]

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.

No, I don't personally care either way. Both are not perfect simulations, but we do it that way for ease of use. And for me, ease of use is more important, for a game.

I am not arguing it that to convince people to change their minds - they won't change their minds. I am arguing it to demonstrate my lack of understanding why one of these things, which is a poor simulation, is widely accepted by some people who despise this other thing, which is also a poor simulation but slightly less poor a one.

There has to be some reason why these same people just shrug over alchemist fire, but rage against the machine over great weapon fighting. If they're simulationists, they should hate both with roughly equal passion. If their gamists, they should shrug with roughly equal dispassion. But, they don't - they have dispassionate reaction to one and deeply passionate reaction to the other. This makes no sense to me - why does one get a "meh, simulationist pass" in their minds, and the other gets a "violates all sense of simulation and reason must be banished!" declaration?

 

[Umbran]

I also don't recall seeing the term "action hero" anywhere in my PHB. If I wanted an rpg that did that, I don't think D&D would be my choice.

If a bus-to-house-sized dragon can breath fire on you, and you can walk away, you're an Action Hero. And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Wicht]

You almost make me want to repeat myself Mistwell, but I shall refrain. See a few pages back, however for the answer to your question. Hint: it has nothing to do with favoring wizards.

 

[Dausuul]

If it's only ever one rule that needs to be fixed it won't create a problem. On the other hand, if it's used to set a precedent then the system will suffer greatly post launch.

I think there are some folks who want that precedent to be set and that's why they won't even consider including an optional rule for half the community. They don't even want the game to recognize other playstyles via options. That acknowledgement is something they are trying to avoid for sake of the "one true way".

Damage on a miss is a mechanic designed for a specific ability, not a general rule. It's really not practical to make such mechanics optional; you're asking DMs to go through the entire rulebook ticking off "This ability yes, that ability no."

What I'm wondering is why it's so important to have this ability in the first place. Whether or not the mechanic in question is a deal-breaker, it's a major turn-off for a large segment of the player base. If there's another large segment that has a hankering for it, okay, but I don't have the impression anyone was really clamoring for damage-on-a-miss abilities.

 

[TwoSix]

Both, and it makes a big difference. For kobolds using 1d8 hit points, their odds of surviving with at least 1 hit point range from 1/37 to 1/141 depending on the wizard's Int. For kobolds using a flat 4 hit points, their odds are 1/926 to 1/3703.

Ok, that makes sense. Since fireball does a bare minimum of 5 damage, at 4 HP their survival chance on a failed save is a flat 0. In general, survival chance increases exponentially with a linear increase of hit points due to the damage floor of the dice.

 

[TwoSix]

I think there are some folks who want that precedent to be set and that's why they won't even consider including an optional rule for half the community. They don't even want the game to recognize other playstyles via options. That acknowledgement is something they are trying to avoid for sake of the "one true way".

This I absolutely agree with.

 

[Dausuul]

Ok, that makes sense. Since fireball does a bare minimum of 5 damage, at 4 HP their survival chance on a failed save is a flat 0. In general, survival chance increases exponentially with a linear increase of hit points due to the damage floor of the dice.

Yup, pretty much. At 4 HP, their chances of survival even on a successful save are negligible; you'd have to roll a 7 or less on 5d6. Generally, the way kobolds survive is to combine a top-end roll for hit points with a successful save and a low-ish damage roll.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There has to be some reason why these same people just shrug over alchemist fire, but rage against the machine over great weapon fighting. If they're simulationists, they should hate both with roughly equal passion. If their gamists, they should shrug with roughly equal dispassion. But, they don't - they have dispassionate reaction to one and deeply passionate reaction to the other. This makes no sense to me - why does one get a "meh, simulationist pass" in their minds, and the other gets a "violates all sense of simulation and reason must be banished!" declaration?

For me, like I said- what, 30 pages ago?- it starts (but does not end) with the terminology. Hit and miss have plain language meanings, and when I try to explain a "hit on a miss" mechanic to new players, it simply causes confusion.* Mechanics that cause confusion are a speedbump in the path of the player's learning curve.





* and yes, I have already seen this in person.