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

[Mistwell]

I don't know that I would agree that 3e messed up all the spells, but the 2e spell does make better thematic sense, as it explodes whether or not it strikes.



While I wouldn't be so bold as to say there are "no spells" that break the paradigm (especially when one brings in 3pp spells), but in fairness, it is a pretty good rule of thumb that spells requiring a roll don't do area effects. And you did have to bring in a non-OGL spell to prove your point.

When I found it, I simply stopped at the first one I found. There are others. So before I post them, let's draw a bright line. How many would I have to find to make it a meaningful thing?

 

[Ahnehnois]

When someone says "There is no 3e spell that does X", and I name a 3e spell that does X, it's relevant. If you think it's not, then I guess we have to get into your definition of relevant.

It's relevant to this tangent about 3e spells. However, 3e spells are not relevant to a discussion about a 5e fighter ability.

ForeverSlayer said "all spells that used to requires a "to hit" roll didn't do anything if you missed." The statement was incorrect. You've claimed to be a person who values accuracy highly, up until now. Why are you suddenly discounting accuracy?

At the moment, we have one, non-core spell, that contains several rules elements that do not reappear to my knowledge anywhere else: the way cold immunity and dex damage interact, the attack bonus the spell gives, and the damage dealt on a missed attack. So he made a statement, and now one really bizarre and isolated example has been posited against it (as [MENTION=6750373]dmgorgon[/MENTION] notes, this appears to be a bad conversion of a 2e mechanic). Ever heard of the exception proving the rule?

If there's a second, or if there's even one in the core rules, I'm unaware of it. The only thing that tells me is that he made a slightly overbroad statement as part of dismissing this tangent; he meant to exclude area spells but neglected to exclude grenade-like weapon spells, which are area effects but also have an attack roll involved.

In any case, so what? What if there were twenty spells in the 3e PHB that required an attack roll and dealt damage on a miss and had no area component whatsoever? Would that create a precedent that would suggest that a 5e fighter ability should work the same way? No.

I'm concerned with accuracy, but also with pertinence, and this line of inquiry is much like the kind of procedural chicanery defense attorneys use when they know they can't win a case on evidence. Try to move the discussion to anything but the topic, and revel in irrelevant details, and make every effort to show the other side up.

Enough.

 

[ImperatorK]

Unless I am the DM I can't eliminate it from the game and me choosing not to use it does not mean it won't be used in the game I am playing in... or even used on my character by someone else.

Then ask your DM to not include it? *shrug*
The idea to remove other peoples options because you don't like them is just so stupid, IMO. I don't go demanding that they remove vegetarian food from their menu at my local restaurant. I just order something else or don't eat there at all (if for some reason I can't stand the sight or smell of it).
If other players having options they like somehow bothers you, then sure, I can agree that this ability pisses in your cornflakes. But personally I'm not as spiteful to deny others their fun just because I don't like it.

 

[Mistwell]

It's relevant to this tangent about 3e spells. However, 3e spells are not relevant to a discussion about a 5e fighter ability.

At the moment, we have one, non-core spell, that contains several rules elements that do not reappear to my knowledge anywhere else: the way cold immunity and dex damage interact, the attack bonus the spell gives, and the damage dealt on a missed attack. So he made a statement, and now one really bizarre and isolated example has been posited against it (as [MENTION=6750373]dmgorgon[/MENTION] notes, this appears to be a bad conversion of a 2e mechanic). Ever heard of the exception proving the rule?

If there's a second, or if there's even one in the core rules, I'm unaware of it. The only thing that tells me is that he made a slightly overbroad statement as part of dismissing this tangent; he meant to exclude area spells but neglected to exclude grenade-like weapon spells, which are area effects but also have an attack roll involved.

In any case, so what? What if there were twenty spells in the 3e PHB that required an attack roll and dealt damage on a miss and had no area component whatsoever? Would that create a precedent that would suggest that a 5e fighter ability should work the same way? No.

I'm concerned with accuracy, but also with pertinence, and this line of inquiry is much like the kind of procedural chicanery defense attorneys use when they know they can't win a case on evidence. Try to move the discussion to anything but the topic, and revel in irrelevant details, and make every effort to show the other side up.

Enough.

All I did was reply to an inaccurate statement and correct it, for the purpose of clarity. That's it. Calm down with your ranting about illicit motives I did not have.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Try to move the discussion to anything but the topic, and revel in irrelevant details, and make every effort to show the other side up.

All I did was reply to an inaccurate statement and correct it, for the purpose of clarity. That's it. Calm down with your ranting about illicit motives I did not have.

Case in point.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

@ForeverSlayer
Yeah, it's basically a grenade-like piece of ice. Not the same as someone swinging a two-handed weapon.

Exactly!

Unless a two handed sword explodes in a burst of metal shards and then reforms, comparing Ice Knife to melee damage on a miss still makes no sense.

People are grasping at straws here.

 

[Mistwell]

Case in point.

Let me see if I get this straight - you attack my motives, I respond to explain, and you accuse me of trying to steer the topic away from the main discussion by replying to your accusation?

Maybe it's time to put me on ignore Ahnehnois. It seems like you're dead-set on bashing anything I write, even down to the point where you get upset about me directly replying to something you accuse me of. That doesn't sound like you seeing my posts is helpful to you.

 

[Wicht]

When I found it, I simply stopped at the first one I found. There are others. So before I post them, let's draw a bright line. How many would I have to find to make it a meaningful thing?

I don't think, personally, you can find enough to make it entirely relevant or meaningful.

With this caveat: how many can you find in the core group of spells (from the Core rulebook or the 3x Player's Handbook); the spells everyone knows. Because, your original point was that we had been using damage on a miss all these years and were just fine with it,... except, if the only examples you can find are spells nobody (hyperbole alert!) uses, then it undercuts your own point.

So I agree with Ahn that its mostly a tangent to compare spell mechanics to melee mechanics, but failure to find an example from the basic spell lists sorta disproves your original premise.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Maybe it's time to put me on ignore Ahnehnois.

I did at one point, and then went back on it. I try to not to use the ignore list except against the most egregious trolling, because even if a particular individual has established a negative behavior pattern, that doesn't mean every opinion they express is wrong (the genetic fallacy, that's called). I wouldn't want to exclude potentially valid points from my discussions on that basis. That's why I characteristically respond to the post, not the poster.

In other words, I'm open-minded.

 

[MJS]

Not Mistwell but I read the tweet. Mike Mearls was asked in general about miss damage and the arguments that have been erupting over it, with a suggestion to make damage on a miss a general feat as a sort of compromise. He replied that they would be looking at it and then further commented that he personally found it confusing with the riders for damage. So take that how you will, but the way I read it was that they are re-evaluating the mechanic as it is right now and Mearls himself has run into some issues with it concerning damage riders.

I hope he kills it with a two-handed sword, and mounts its head on a pointy stick as a warning. But then, I'm an optimist.