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

[Ahnehnois]

But, rolling it back around, do you apply the same logic to magic? After all, it is impossible to not be damaged on a Save Half spell (barring special abilities of course). No matter what, you will be damaged by a Save Half spell. Is that a unacceptable limitation on narrative space?

No. After all, once you've cast the spell, that spell slot is guaranteed to do nothing for the next day or so. Casting a spell is not the same as doing something you can do whenever you like without memorizing it or using any resources.

And, if it's not, why is it unacceptable when a certain kind of fighter does it?

Because a fighter and a spellcaster are completely different things?

 

[The Human Target]

My opinion of damage on a miss hasn't changed but I like Buffy a little less now.

 

[The Human Target]

No. After all, once you've cast the spell, that spell slot is guaranteed to do nothing for the next day or so. Casting a spell is not the same as doing something you can do whenever you like without memorizing it or using any resources.

Because a fighter and a spellcaster are completely different things?

So you don't have a problem with DoaM but with being able to do it a lot.

 

[dmgorgon]

IMO, this mechanic is junk and must go. It's not just an issue with GWF ether. Even Melf's Acid arrow has damage on a miss (unlike previous editions).

It's just a stupid mechanic. If the game had touch AC or contact AC I might be able to accept a modified version of it, but as it stands now it makes no sense at all.

It's really a mechanic that's acceptable for one playstyle in particular.

 

[herrozerro]

IMO, this mechanic is junk and must go. It's not just an issue with GWF ether. Even Melf's Acid arrow has damage on a miss (unlike previous editions).

It's just a stupid mechanic. If the game had touch AC or contact AC I might be able to accept a modified version of it, but as it stands now it makes no sense at all.

It's really a mechanic that's acceptable for one playstyle in particular.

on the contrary, it seems to be a mechanic that can be accepted by all playstyles, just not by some of the people in certain playstyles.

Edit: And by playstyles I mean GNS.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So you don't have a problem with DoaM but with being able to do it a lot.

I have several problems with it, only one of which was under discussion in that post.

 

[dmgorgon]

on the contrary, it seems to be a mechanic that can be accepted by all playstyles, just not by some of the people in certain playstyles.

How are you drawing that conclusion?

 

[dmgorgon]

I have several problems with it, only one of which was under discussion in that post.

Yes, there are several problems with it. In fact, the DM is actually called to be the arbitrator a little more often because of it. The resolution method for how this DoaM mechanic interacts with Cover, Invisibility, Blur, Intoxication, Disadvantage, Blindness, and a few other conditions is undefined.

 

[herrozerro]

How are you drawing that conclusion?

In any of the specific GNS silos, it can function. I guess I do concede that playstyle as an ascetic choice, yes it can cause issues. But from a narritivist, simulationist or gamist perspective alone, it is no worse than any other mechanic.

 

[dmgorgon]

In any of the specific GNS silos, it can function. I guess I do concede that playstyle as an ascetic choice, yes it can cause issues. But from a narritivist, simulationist or gamist perspective alone, it is no worse than any other mechanic.

Explain to me how is it acceptable in the simulation camp?