D&D 5E Now that "damage on a miss" is most likely out of the picture, are you happy?

[Lwaxy]

I still can't wrap my head around why 'Damage On A Miss' horrifies people so much.

Is it that immersion-ruining to say: The Orc Chieftain blocks your attack with his shield, some of the force of the blow damages him a little, but the attack is mostly deflected.

But that would not be a miss, that's like minor damage, so it is a hit nonetheless. It's just not the piercing damage a sword would usually do. I've used such in the past, and I'd love to have it added, but not as damage on a miss - it's a different type of hit, so they should call it such and stop confusing people

 

[Brock Landers]

Saving throws are also voluntary

No they're not

 

[Brock Landers]

It's voluntary to cast a spell.

It's reactionary to try not to get hit by a greataxe swinging at your head.

Try again.

Ha, totally contorting, an AoE spell auto-hits, then you see if you can hunch into a ball or something to not get singed so much (your wilful disingenuousness seems to know no bounds), you really, really, need to try again.

 

[Obryn]

Ha, totally contorting, an AoE spell auto-hits, then you see if you can hunch into a ball or something to not get singed so much (your wilful disingenuousness seems to know no bounds), you really, really, need to try again.

Wow, so quick to assert people are arguing in bad faith!

Why don't you need to roll to see if you can paralyze someone with a spell?

Why don't you get a chance to roll to avoid a greataxe?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I still can't wrap my head around why 'Damage On A Miss' horrifies people so much.

Is it that immersion-ruining to say: The Orc Chieftain blocks your attack with his shield, some of the force of the blow damages him a little, but the attack is mostly deflected.

It's not very immersion-breaking to me personally, but I think the concern might be more one of gameplay than of verisimilitude, honestly. It does create a character who "never really misses," but in a game with dragons and wizards, a swordsman who never misses probably isn't beyond the pale for a lot of tables.

It's kind of like auto-success on a skill check. It removes interesting variety. Now every failure is at least a minor success.

It's not a "fun" rule. It's a "participation medal" rule, where everyone gets a trophy for showing up.

Emotional extremes are fun. They're part of WHY gameplay is so engaging. The thrill of failure AND the agony of defeat are both things you're signing up for when you play a game (this is one of the ways that it's demonstrably different than storytelling). Sure, you get angry when your big attack misses, but expressing that anger is part of the fun of gameplay, too. It's the fun that comes from dying -- over and over again -- in I Want To Be The Guy. Or Flappy Bird. It's "hard fun."

"Thanks for playing, here's some pity damage" blows that kind of fun out of the water. It's not only less fun to succeed (because that other guy doesn't have to), it's also less fun to fail (because you don't get to laugh and groan and blame the dice).

Anger is as much a release as joy, and a good game design should, IMO, embrace that. Failure should be fun. Damage on a miss isn't really fun failure.

 

[Brock Landers]

Why don't you get a chance to roll to avoid a greataxe?

Make an AC roll vs. a static Attack DC (already done, see below).

The 3rd Ed Unearthed Arcana was full of variants like this.

 

[tuxgeo]

It's voluntary to cast a spell.

It's reactionary to try not to get hit by a greataxe swinging at your head.

Try again.

The word "proactive" isn't getting as much use here as it deserves.

If you phrase it as, "It's proactive to cast a spell. It's reactive to try not to get hit by a greataxe, . . ." then I think people would understand your point (or the thing I take to be your point) more directly and clearly.

"Voluntary" merely means that's what the character wants to do. IMHO, both the spellcaster and the axe-target are being voluntary: (1) the spellcaster wants to cast that spell, and (2) the axe-target wants to avoid getting hit by that greataxe.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Wow, so quick to assert people are arguing in bad faith!

Why don't you need to roll to see if you can paralyze someone with a spell?

Why don't you get a chance to roll to avoid a greataxe?

I wouldn't take thing Brock says too seriously. He assumes anything and everyone who disagrees with him is part of some major conspiracy to do...something he's never really elaborated on.

Don't tell others to disregard anyone's opinion. And especially don't put intentions into other peoples' postings. -Lwaxy

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Evasion can nullified by rule 0 in those cases where it wouldn't logically apply. Please re-read the rules on it and get back to us.

I suppose I can just fall back on the "Rogue in an open featureless plain in the direct epicenter of the Fireball somehow takes no damage," but I've already brought that up a lot in these debates.

 

[Mistwell]

No they're not

They really are, and that was a matter of an official ruling from WOTC, and it was added to the SRD. "Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

I'll repeat - it was a crucial issue with some later 3.5e builds. Sometimes the shadowcraft illusionist needed his fellow party members to intentionally volunteer to not roll a saving throw.