D&D 5E Damage on a Miss: Because otherwise Armour Class makes no sense

[guachi]

Considering there are multiple quotes from people who actually played with Gygax himself about what HP meant to them I highly doubt my claim is questionable. Your claim that people playing in 1981 cared about HP is irrelevant. They weren't the first people to play D&D. Not by a long shot. By first to play, I mean "first to play" like with Gygax, etc. I'm uncertain how "first to play" means anything close to your interpretation of "played in 1981" considering D&D was first published in 1974.[/quote
Gygax said lots and lots of things and you can find Gygax quotes to support both sides of many arguments.

But, if your claim is now that no one should care now because they didn't care from 1974 - 1981 (which I still reject as true) despite the fact that they have cared since at least 1981. Then OK.
Thank you for the humor.


You are the one that told me what my opinion should be. You flat out said you were challenging *my* desire to care. If you were working by the advice you just gave here, then this conversation would not exist.

Do you turn the TV off when commercials appear because it upsets you that people are telling you what to do? "Buy this great product!"

Do you yell at movie reviewers who tell you that you should see a movie? "Best movie of the year! Go see it now!"

Do you have conversations like this - BryonD's acquaintance: This restaurant is great! You should go eat there! BryonD: Stop telling me what to do!!!! BryonD's acquaintance: ?????

Did I ever claim that no one cared from 1974-1981? No, I did not. It's just your poor strawman developed from your lack of reading comprehension. Was I supposed to be impressed you've played since 1981 or horrified that after 33 years you are still vexed by what HP mean?

This whole thread is about challenging people's ideas of what HP are. If you hate being challenged, and it appears you do, why are you even posting in this thread? If there is zero chance of your mind ever changing because being challenged causes you butthurt, why even bother?

For someone who has 7,000+ posts I'd think you'd have figured out how online discussions work.

 

[aramis erak]

Missing introduces tension into the play, and makes the hits feel like they matter. It's that simple. If every hit causes damage, you've just reduced the value of a hit.

 

[Minigiant]

No, an Orc takes half damage when he makes his saving throw against a Lightning Bolt because he just was in the area of a lightning strike. There is no damage on a miss with a lightning bolt because an attack roll is not made, so a miss cannot occur. This has been explained 1,000 times over the last 6 months, almost every example that people try to use for magic being DoaM is actually area of effect due to explosion or splashing.

You miss my point.

lightning bolt only has an area because we made it have an area.

It just as easily could have been a tiny 22mm shot of lightning that could whizz over a ducked orc like an arrow.
But no. a lightning bolt fills up a 5ftx5ft cube/cylinder in a line in D&D?

Why? Because it used a spell slot.
If it were a cantrip, it'll deal no damage on a successful save.
So in D&D a lightning bolt can miss me by 3 feet and damage me but a bullet can't.


We D&D gamers sometimes have to think like game designers and ask "Does this mechanic do what we need". We get so hung u on liking and disliking mechanics. We don't look at the "Why do X over doing Y" outside of personal favoritism enough.

That's the reason why we moving to "NeoVancian" over "Classic Vancian".
Why hunter rangers get bonuses from enemy type over creature type (someone oopsed on For Slayer)
Why bards get full 9 levels of spells.

 

[Abraxas]

We D&D gamers sometimes have to thing like game designers and ask "Does this mechanic do what we need". We get so hung u on liking and disliking mechanics. We don't look at the "Why do X over doing Y" outside of personal favoritism enough.

The designer's looked at the DoaM GWF mechanic, saw that it didn't do what it needed to, took it out and replaced it - so why aren't you trying to think like the game designers?

 

[pemerton]

an Orc takes half damage when he makes his saving throw against a Lightning Bolt because he just was in the area of a lightning strike. There is no damage on a miss with a lightning bolt because an attack roll is not made, so a miss cannot occur. This has been explained 1,000 times over the last 6 months

The issue with missing isn't a concern about the imagined fiction. It is a concern about gameplay. So responses that appeal to ingame considerations, like this one, don't really address the issue.

Missing does suck but it's a part of the game.

There is not an uproar with regards to "missing" that is widespread across the gaming community to the point where there should be mechanics that circumvent that. Now if you have some information on that then please share it with the rest of us.

snip>

it's about stuff the majority of the playtesters like.

These posts do address the issue, because they talk about gameplay considerations. Nevertheless I don't feel their force. For those who prefer some range of options, whether options to mitigate missing, or options to make a certain sort of martial character (the implacable great weapon fighter) feasible, the fact that others don't have a problem is irrelevent.

I like DoaM as part of the game because of its effects on gameplay, not because I think it enjoys majority support among the D&D population.

Missing does suck. The "missing sucks" argument is really just a justification.

Because if it were the real issue the talk would be focused on designing a rule or option (or game) that removes missing. The discussion would have focused on that and related to all characters and not just the one sub-option of fighters.

This seems to be ignoring the detailed reasons that [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] gave: that it is precisely that sub-option that (i) lack retries (vs two rolls for a dual-weapon fighter) , (ii) lack other effects (vs shielding for a protective fighter), and (iii) lack the range and cover options that an archer enjoys.

If that were the only factor then it would have an easy fix to give the option any other mechanic with the same effective result: a boost to average damage.

This also seems to ignore the issue, which is not about average damage but about the likelihood of extreme possibilities occuring. DoaM is about smoothing out the probability distribution, not just increasing the exepcted outcome.

the discussion isn't about DoaM but the nature of hit points and an edition war based around a common 4e mechanic being sidelined. DoaM is just an excuse. It's a proxy edition war.

It can't be the case both that this is true, and that no DoaM is a "neutral" option, as I believe you asserted upthread.

But, in fact, the game gives a range of healing options (in the DMG), so that - as promised - groups can make the game play closer to their preferred approach across editions/healing rates. I don't see any reason why DoaM couldn't have been approached similarly, much as it was in the playtest.

 

[Minigiant]

The designer's looked at the DoaM GWF mechanic, saw that it didn't do what it needed to, took it out and replaced it - so why aren't you trying to think like the game designers?

I already said DoaM GWF is a poor solution to a problem.
But DoaM as a Battlemaster tactic would have been okay.

DoaM GWF soured the use of DoaM as a whole and unfortunately keep it from being used where it actually fit.

 

[pemerton]

Missing introduces tension into the play, and makes the hits feel like they matter. It's that simple. If every hit causes damage, you've just reduced the value of a hit.

And yet the game has had auto-hit magic missile for most of its history, and auto-damage AoEs for all of its history, with no apparent loss of tension.

 

[Abraxas]

DoaM GWF soured the use of DoaM as a whole and unfortunately keep it from being used where it actually fit.

How do you know this? How do you know it isn't that the DoaM mechanic didn't do what the designers wanted it to do and that's why they got rid of it? You seem hung up on liking the DoaM mechanic.

 

[Jester David]

But, in fact, the game gives a range of healing options (in the DMG), so that - as promised - groups can make the game play closer to their preferred approach across editions/healing rates. I don't see any reason why DoaM couldn't have been approached similarly, much as it was in the playtest.

It's totally possible. But, given the staggering amount of optional rules left out of the DMG for space reasons, it's not a surprise DoaM was excluded.

But that wouldn't stop the argument. And didn't.
I wrote up some optional rules ala a DMG rules module and posted the full text here and then a link to where I was hitting the information on my blog.
No one replied. No one followed the link. Because people couldn't argue against that. Because people don't want that easy of a solution, thry want to fight their proxy edition war.

 

[Umbran]

For someone who has 7,000+ posts I'd think you'd have figured out how online discussions work.

And with this statement, you've made absolutely sure that this is going to be a discussion based on ego, rather than reason. You have made it personal. You've made it about him, and his personality, rather than about his statements. It is now not about hit points at all. It is now about who is the most stubborn. You are now both going to be dug in, neither of you will give an inch, because if you give an inch, then you are admitting defeat. Neither of you is going to learn anything useful from the other.

So, the discussion is really done now. I suggest you just let it drop.

In the future - don't make it personal. Address the logic of the post. Do not make it about the person who is posting.