D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[Wicht]

The reason you'd have no trouble explaining something to the rest of us, is that we're all willing to change how we think about things to try and understand it. We might not like it, we might not continue thinking like that beyond understanding it, but we'll do what's necessary to first understand it. And what's necessary is frequently to change how you think about things, so you can see someone else's perspective.

To me, changing how you think to try and understand something, is the very definition of open mindedness.

And yet there's that whole alchemist-fire-splash-damage-thing

physician, heal thyself

 

[herrozerro]

This actually made me bust a gut laughing.

Could you define failure though? If you accomplish 99% of something you can still fail. It doesn't mean you did 0% of your goal.

 

[Wicht]

You've added in all sorts of interpretations and then tried to claim authority that those interpretations are what's intended by the rules, without any actual support for that interpretation.

I don't think thats a fair assessment for part of the argument. Without speaking specifically for Ahn, let me say for myself that I have added interpretations to what die rolls mean and have claimed the authority of tradition for that interpretation. This change to the rules forces some of us to change the ways we traditionally play the game and interpret rolls. I kinda like the way I normally interpret the rolls and don't appreciate a nonsensical rule that forces a specific narration and flies in the face of my traditional approach to the game.

And, while I can't speak for anyone else, I do think the evidence tends to point towards my traditional interpretation being fairly common, if not ubiquitous, in the community.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, barring the argument that this isn't necessarily a reasonable request

Wasn't it you saying people weren't actually arguing for the effect.. an enemy on his last legs ought to be easy to take down but because scaling to hit with hit point loss is mechanically fiddly this gives the effect. --> In a mechanically simple fashion.

 

[Mistwell]

This actually made me bust a gut laughing.

Climb checks.
Balance checks.
Still laughing?

 

[Garthanos]

Ahn, let me say for myself that I have added interpretations to what die rolls mean and have claimed the authority of tradition for that interpretation.

I make my own traditions too... I dont think others need to treat my traditions as inviolate and sacrosanct

 

[Mistwell]

And yet there's that whole alchemist-fire-splash-damage-thing

physician, heal thyself

Oh, I understood the objection. But when I stated why I thought I understood it, y'all got upset about my suspicion.

But to be clear, he's saying he actually doesn't believe anyone likes damage on a miss, and thinks everyone is raising the claim just to insult those who don't like it. Is that a position you support? It would have been like me saying nobody actually saw a difference between alchemist fire and this fighter power, but were just responding to my example to insult me.

 

[Garthanos]

Climb checks.
Balance checks.
Still laughing?

Ambiguity and Intermediate accomplishments are apparently humorous. Hit point loss IS itself an intermediate effect which is why swish swish swish.. feels like the toddlers in that video kicking at air.

 

[Bluenose]

That's one example. Let's try another.

Say I have some friends who like fencing. I decide to pick up a rapier and try it out. I make one thrust and my sword is parried instantly. Do I go over to the crowd and start high-fiving people and saying "I hit him!"? Probably not.

Though I rather think you would be claiming a hit even if your blow hadn't penetrated his suit. Depending on the exact type of fencing and where and how the blow landed, you might even be right.

Or let's say we remake the first Star Wars movie, and Luke is flying through the trenches, and he has a brain fart and shoots his missiles a half second too early and they explode on the surface instead of penetrating the convenient vent and starting a chain reaction that destroys the death star. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a miss.

Now you're getting into Called Shot mechanics, where it's perfectly plausible to have an attack that connects with the wrong part of the target be a failure at achieving your objective but still a hit on the target.

 

[TwoSix]

If my enemy is down to near nothing in hit points I want survival against my fighter's attack to be NOT a possible outcome.

Well, to be fair, it may be possible depending on what abilities the enemy has. Just because the fighter can declare that their attack does some damage doesn't mean an enemy can't have an ability to declare that they take no damage from the next attack. The real question for those declarations is how to control their deployment, and what resources constrain them.