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

[Imaro]

Imaro, let's start right here first, and then if we can resolve this I am happy to move on to the rest. When I tell you that is not my argument, and you come back at me telling me that IS what I am saying, I am not sure where to go from there. Are you calling me a liar? What exactly is your reason for not taking me at my word on this?

If you're unsure what I am getting at, just ask me that. Don't start by telling me my opinion is different than what I say it is.

I asked you to clarify the part or parts of my statement that were incorrect.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Actually, if I'm understanding it correctly... it's an option for three classes not just the fighter.

I also agree about the compelling argument piece... it seems instead of justifying why the mechanic should be included on it's own merits the pro-faction is steadily arguing against why we shouldn't mind it being in the game. we've established it's under-powered... we've established it causes narrative dissonance at times... we've established it doesn't simulate anything very well... as far as I can see this seems like an all around bad mechanic. So what is the compelling reason for keeping it in the game? I'd like to hear some of that from the pro-side...

Because it's balanced doesn't count.

 

[Mistwell]

I asked you to clarify the part or parts of my statement that were incorrect.

"That is your argument"

?

It really doesn't matter much what you say beyond that, to me, when you start out that way. You're saying that what I think my argument is, is not my actual argument. That somehow I don't understand what I am saying, but you do. I'm asking you, how was that intended, if it's not intended as something rude? It sure comes across to me as rude, but maybe you meant it different than it plainly reads?

I am not really seeing the point of continuing discussions with you, if that sort of thing is going to continue to happen. I've complained that I feel you're putting words in my mouth, and then you kept doing it. And now you're saying things which sure look rude to me, and you're not really answering my questioning of it.

Just continuing seems like a surefire way for this to deteriorate into a nasty argument. So like I said, if we cannot resolve just that basic kind of comment, I don't think I should continue responding at this point. I am giving you an opportunity to explain or apologize for that sort of comment, before I just stop responding entirely.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Trying to shift it to splash damage is goalpost-moving anyway. Some folks got a problem with damage-on-a-miss for melee weapon attacks. How they feel about splashing vials of acid is kind of orthogonal, really. There's no real requirement for consistency with what folks are bothered by.

 

[Imaro]

"That is your argument"

?

It really doesn't matter much what you say beyond that, to me, when you start out that way. You're saying that what I think my argument is, is not my actual argument. That somehow I don't understand what I am saying, but you do. I'm asking you, how was that intended, if it's not intended as something rude? It sure comes across to me as rude, but maybe you meant it different than it plainly reads?

I am not really seeing the point of continuing discussions with you, if that sort of thing is going to continue to happen. I've complained that I feel you're putting words in my mouth, and then you kept doing it. And now you're saying things which sure look rude to me, and you're not really answering my questioning of it.

Just continuing seems like a surefire way for this to deteriorate into a nasty argument. So like I said, if we cannot resolve just that basic kind of comment, I don't think I should continue responding at this point. I am giving you an opportunity to explain or apologize for that sort of comment, before I just stop responding entirely.

It was a statement about what I believed you posted and since this is a board with only the written text of what's posted to read... it is quite possible things may at times be unclear (including the previous ways you chose to express your ideas or are you saying you always express things perfectly??). It was not an attack, not calling you names, not any of the things you are suggesting... it was a statement about your post, not about you.

Remember now, one of ENworld's rules is not to infer the motives of a poster. I then clearly said if I am wrong for you to clarify what part of my statement was incorrect (which you still haven't done). Now if you don't want to clarify or you feel that me saying something about what you post is a personal attack... then you're probably right this conversation doesn't need to continue.

 

[Abraxas]

May answer to that is this - you are entitled to a game you generally like. But, as a practical matter, you can't get everything exactly the way you want. This game has to sell to other people too. So, you need to pick your battles, and this just doesn't seem to really be all that important. It is only one option for a few character types. Big whoop.

This is just as true for leaving it out.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Whether you like "damage on a miss" or not, there is controversy that cannot be denied. It's more than just a few posters on an internet forum so people shouldn't try and downsize it. People have even been asking Mearls about in in twitter where we get the infamous answer of "It tested well". In my opinion, this is a very very vague answer and I believe it was done intentionally. This type of mechanic, and those like it, are trademarks of 4th edition and I believe the team, or it could be an individual, is trying to force it down people's throats whether they like it or not. I can tell you that mechanics like this make me want to walk away from the game because it will spawn more like minded mechanics into the game.

Playtests are something you have to be careful around because at the end of the day, we don't know how many people actually took part in it, nor do we know what their answers were.

 

[pemerton]

I'm still not sure what it is about a splash weapon that kills any idea of simulation. It is imperfectly modeled sure, but not to the point I can't understand why it was modeled that way in the first place . The problem doesn't extend to explosions like a fireball -if I'm understanding correctly, right?

My view is that fireball and spalsh weapons are both obviously fiat powers, because I can't reasonably regard them as simulations: the splash of alchemical fire which damages everyone no matter how heavy their armour is and no matter how close they are to the edge; the fireball that auto-kills goblins, kobolds and commoners but cannot kill a carnivorous ape, again no matter what armour the target may or may not be wearing, no matter what its DEX, no matter how close to the edge or the centre of the blast.

The contrast between the human commoner and the carnivorous ape also reveals hit points as "plot protection", given that in physiological terms an explosion should have near enough to the same effect on these two targets.

Given that D&D over multiple editins contains these effects, or analogous ones, which are themselves fiat abilities and which reveal hit points as plot protection, I am surprised that another ability which is a fiat ability and reveals hit points as a form of plot protection should be so controversial.

As I mentioned in one of the threads, I believe it is because people are prepared to tolerate fiat in spells and explosions but not in melee combat - not for any simulationist reason that I can see, but for reasons of (pre-4e) D&D tradition.

it seems instead of justifying why the mechanic should be included on it's own merits the pro-faction is steadily arguing against why we shouldn't mind it being in the game.

My view is that there are so many fiat powers in the game that I don't understand why another should be problematic from the point of view of believability or mechanical coherence. I can only see an issue of tradition.

Trying to shift it to splash damage is goalpost-moving anyway. Some folks got a problem with damage-on-a-miss for melee weapon attacks. How they feel about splashing vials of acid is kind of orthogonal, really. There's no real requirement for consistency with what folks are bothered by.

That's true. But if folks are going to argue that "it doesn't make sense", or that those who like it "don't care about mechanical coherence in their games", then they have taken on a burden of consistency to which they can expect to be held.

 

[pemerton]

I believe the team, or it could be an individual, is trying to force it down people's throats whether they like it or not. I can tell you that mechanics like this make me want to walk away from the game because it will spawn more like minded mechanics into the game.

No one can "force a mechanic down your throat". You can not buy the game; you can buy it but not play it; you can play it but ignore the mechanic. (Which is, after all, a purely optional element for 3 classes.)

As for the idea of "spawning", mechanics aren't mosquitoes. They don't breed. The designers will design future mechanics around what they think is desirable and marketable.

Playtests are something you have to be careful around because at the end of the day, we don't know how many people actually took part in it, nor do we know what their answers were.

WotC knows both these things.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Removed