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

[Umbran]

From a simulation perspective, these are two different things. There's no reason a six-second flurry of weapon strikes and an instantaneous explosion of some combustible flask would be simulated in the same way.

As a person who's written actual computer simulations of real-world phenomena professionally, I find that a little odd. Just because in the real world they are different, does not imply that in math, they don't turn up to be basically the same.

An example: in the real world, buying bread is not much at all like flushing a toilet. However, the basic mathematics behind most typical economic models is based on... fluid dynamics! Money can be treated, conceptually, like a fluid, which gives new meaning to the phrase, "spending money like it was water."

 

[Ahnehnois]

As a person who's written actual computer simulations of real-world phenomena professionally, I find that a little odd. Just because in the real world they are different, does not imply that in math, they don't turn up to be basically the same.

An example: in the real world, buying bread is not much at all like flushing a toilet. However, the basic mathematics behind most typical economic models is based on... fluid dynamics! Money can be treated, conceptually, like a fluid, which gives new meaning to the phrase, "spending money like it was water."

That doesn't mean that *everything* need be treated the same way. We're already treating slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning attacks the same way. Does it really make sense to lump explosions in there?

 

[Imaro]

You know I keep seeing the "This isn't simulated to mimick the real world properly, so what does it matter if this doesn't either" argument being trotted out and I have to ask... what tabletop roleplaying game simulates the real world perfectly? I don't believe there is one, so I'm not sure how "this isn't perfect" is much of an argument.

 

[Wicht]

Of course I can have it both ways. To my mind, it's the best way to run a game with a hit point model. The only roll that needs a narration is the one that drops the target below 0.

Ok, I will concede that you personally can have it both ways in your game,

but... I prefer narrating each actual hit (and assuming that hps are mostly a matter of actual health), I prefer the dice rolls and the mechanics to have some relationship to the narration, and I find the idea of doing it your suggested way very unsatisfactory and unsatisfying.

Which means that if you concede that the rule, as presented, requires a narration style such as you prefer, then you should also concede that if the rule is placed in the game, the game itself becomes unsatisfactory and unsatisfying for a large portion of the RPG community. I would go so far as to postulate that it was this sort of relationship between the mechanics and the narration which caused a significant portion of 4e players to grow tired of the system. And if that is true, then 5e's inclusion of the same sort of rules will result in a similar sort of fate happening to it.

 

[Wicht]

Magic also breaks the assumption about the random nature of D&D combat.

Not really. It bends it in some places, but you still roll for saves, roll for damage, roll for ranged touch attacks, roll for duration, etc. All of this simulates the flux of magic in response to the world around it, the winds of magic, the will of the caster vs. the will of the target, etc.

Even magic missile, the grand-daddy of auto-hits requires you to roll a random amount of damage, and true strike, which gives a +20 (!) to hit can still be undone by the roll of a 1. You can't magic missile a target's eyes and, unless you add in rules, you can't use true strike to get a called shot or an automatic critical.

 

[TwoSix]

Which means that if you concede that the rule, as presented, requires a narration style such as you prefer, then you should also concede that if the rule is placed in the game, the game itself becomes unsatisfactory and unsatisfying for a large portion of the RPG community. I would go so far as to postulate that it was this sort of relationship between the mechanics and the narration which caused a significant portion of 4e players to grow tired of the system. And if that is true, then 5e's inclusion of the same sort of rules will result in a similar sort of fate happening to it.

Well if that fate is being my 3rd favorite RPG, than absolutely! The rest of you already have Pathfinder, last time I checked, which is still in active production. Why do you need two crunchy task declaration (a term I prefer over process-sim now) systems built on D&D tropes?

 

[Wicht]

Well if that fate is being my 3rd favorite RPG, than absolutely! The rest of you already have Pathfinder, last time I checked, which is still in active production. Why do you need two crunchy task declaration (a term I prefer over process-sim now) systems built on D&D tropes?

It might be good for you personally (and my blessings on your enjoyment of it), but it will mean that it is a failure commercially, a further lessening of the DnD brand, and a sour note generally for the hobby.

WotC, as I understand it, wants to bring back the players they lost. More of the same that caused the defection is hardly a good recipe for doing this.

 

[TwoSix]

WotC, as I understand it, wants to bring back the players they lost. More of the same that caused the defection is hardly a good recipe for doing this.

True, but I don't care that much at this point. Hopefully 5e will improve itself markedly with the release of the modules, that's my only lingering hope for the game right now.

 

[Bluenose]

Not really. It bends it in some places, but you still roll for saves, roll for damage, roll for ranged touch attacks, roll for duration, etc. All of this simulates the flux of magic in response to the world around it, the winds of magic, the will of the caster vs. the will of the target, etc.

There are plenty of spells where the effects are entirely non-random, many of which are a much closer match to what might be obtained by a Called Shot than ones which reduce a random number of hit points.

 

[Garthanos]

Except if it killed him, it didn't "Miss", by definition.

And around and around we go....

You know I keep seeing the "This isn't simulated to mimick the real world properly, so what does it matter if this doesn't either" argument being trotted out and I have to ask... what tabletop roleplaying game simulates the real world perfectly? I don't believe there is one, so I'm not sure how "this isn't perfect" is much of an argument.

Its just differing degrees of detail really from broad correspondence.. to gritty little details. And completely a distinction of taste.
Example
This is very difficult to evade && that virtually ignores armor could both be bonus to hit. AND One person will be happy with that. Another person will NEED or the one as requiring only touch armor class to hit and the other excluding dex/agility from the defense as distinct mechanics... and in between those two there might be deliving very minor damage on a miss.

I want enough differences that a flat bonus is boring but dont need nearly so much as tracking 3 types of armor class. Just as I dont know if I could hand a different armor effect based on slashing piercing, bludgeoning (even if it was handled uber simply).