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

[dmgorgon]

When he has a valid target within reach? Never. Well unless you count instances of hitting DR or other effects that would reduce damage.

But that's what it is simulating, a fighter who's weapon style is so relentless/wild/unpredictable/overbearing that you take damage unless you get the hell away.

No, it's failing to simulate the chance of him doing no damage that round. Unlike everyone else using a weapon, he's always doing damage. What is it exactly about a two handed weapon that removes that possibility anyway? I really want to know because I'm a simulationist player.

 

[Mistwell]

First of all, you are not even reading the rules correctly.
...
You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. (You can’t target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you’re aiming at the creature.)

If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 being straight back at you and 2 through 8 counting clockwise around the grid intersection or target creature. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw.

After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in adjacent squares.

In other words, you can miss if there are no adjacent creatures. That's how you miss with such a weapon. You don't always do damage with it.

If the range increment of the throw is 5', it cannot go further than 5' from the target you aimed at, and therefore you would always deal damage to the target you aimed at. And if the range increment is 10' but the creature is larger and takes up more squares, you'd also always do damage to the creature on a miss.

 

[herrozerro]

No, it's failing to simulate the chance of him doing no damage that round. Unlike everyone else using a weapon, he's always doing damage. What is it exactly about a two handed weapon that removes that possibility anyway? I really want to know because I'm a simulationist player.

Well, let me ask you a question then. Feats like Cleave and Power Attack, why do they exist. It seems like anything anyone could just do. Do I need to really take a feat to put sacrifice accuracy for power? Do I really need a feat to keep my swing going through an enemy?

These things are simulating specific training, much like the Great Weapon Fighting. This simulates training done at the sacrifice of all other training. Considering that there is only one way to get more than one style that I know of, taking the path of the warrior martial path. (Unless could someone let me know how multiclassing effects this? could a Paladin 1, Fighter 10, ranger 1 have 4 fighting styles?)

Either way, this represents an entire path of training devoted to the ability to make sure that enemies of the fighter pay for being close.

 

[Mistwell]

Does the fighter roll a d8 when he misses to determine which direction his great sword swing went?

For this example, it would not matter much. If there is only one target in the room, and they are always damaged on a miss from a thrown splash-damage weapon with that range increment against that target, it doesn't actually matter what the d8 says, other than the possibility it splashes on you as well. Which is a possibility, but I don't think that's the sort of thing that is the difference between "believable" and "not believable" here, which is the objection.

For what it is worth, I think the DM is supposed to roll the d8 by the way, not the player. Once it leaves the character's hand, it's generally up to the DM to decide what happens, and I vaguely recall the chart being in the DMG.

 

[dmgorgon]

Well, let me ask you a question then. Feats like Cleave and Power Attack, why do they exist. It seems like anything anyone could just do. Do I need to really take a feat to put sacrifice accuracy for power? Do I really need a feat to keep my swing going through an enemy?

These things are simulating specific training, much like the Great Weapon Fighting. This simulates training done at the sacrifice of all other training. Considering that there is only one way to get more than one style that I know of, taking the path of the warrior martial path. (Unless could someone let me know how multiclassing effects this? could a Paladin 1, Fighter 10, ranger 1 have 4 fighting styles?)

Either way, this represents an entire path of training devoted to the ability to make sure that enemies of the fighter pay for being close.

Why should training in any particular martial style give you the power to always do damage? There should always be a chance that you don't even make contact with your foe. Rolling a 1 is the standard method of making that determination in D&D, but apparently even that core and iconic rule is ignored with this style.

Even a 20th level fighter with a sword and shield can't even hope to compare to the 1st level GWF in that regard. Apparently once you decide to use a two handed weapon (even if it's just a long pointed stick) no amount of armor, dexterity, magic, level etc can ever prevent that 1st level GWF from doing damage.

For a situationist, the rule is idiotic on far too many levels. Even for those who just want an intuitive game the rule doesn't work.

 

[herrozerro]

Why should training in any particular martial style give you the power to always do damage? There should always be a chance that you don't even make contact with your foe. Rolling a 1 is the standard method of making that determination in D&D, but apparently even that core and iconic rule is ignored with this style.

So, you are saying that a caveat of no damage at all on a miss would suffice? The reason why this particular training allows such a thing is because this would be the simplest way to represent such a fighter. No messing with secondary attacks, no comparing to some kind of touch AC or having to figure out if the miss was by some range. It's simple and elegant.

Even a 20th level fighter with a sword and shield can't even hope to compare to the 1st level GWF in that regard. Apparently once you decide to use a two handed weapon (even if it's just a long pointed stick) no amount of armor, dexterity, magic, level etc can ever prevent that 1st level GWF from doing damage.

Once again hyperbole much? A level 20 can't stand to compare? Are you missing out that the things that a level 20 will be fighting a level 1 will at most probably get one little hit in on before being splattered across the floor? Are you saying that a level 20 fighter is going to care that he cannot do 3-5 damage on a miss? Really?

For a situationist, the rule is idiotic on far too many levels. Even for those who just want an intuitive game the rule doesn't work.

For a "realist" who seems to think that damage should only come with some kind of contact, or a gamiest who thinks this mechanic somehow throws balance out of whack this rule might have issues with this. But for a simulationist in general? Probably not. Unless that simulationist is really wanting a real world simulation and not a fantastic simulator.

By the way, nice speaking for an entire group.

 

[dmgorgon]

For this example, it would not matter much. If there is only one target in the room, and they are always damaged on a miss from a thrown splash-damage weapon with that range increment against that target, it doesn't actually matter what the d8 says, other than the possibility it splashes on you as well. Which is a possibility, but I don't think that's the sort of thing that is the difference between "believable" and "not believable" here, which is the objection.

For what it is worth, I think the DM is supposed to roll the d8 by the way, not the player. Once it leaves the character's hand, it's generally up to the DM to decide what happens, and I vaguely recall the chart being in the DMG.

Regardless, unless you construct your AoE splash trap room and the flask always breaks, there are three possibilities with grenade-like weapons.

1. you do full damage dice
2. you do partial damage dice
3. you do no damage

With GWF

1. You do full damage dice
2. You do partial damage

There is no option 3 for the GWF. Apparently he's always sucking his foes into tiny a extradimentional space where there is no chance to avoid his great weapon. it's rather odd actually, because you would think that larger weapons are slow and more easy to dodge....

 

[herrozerro]

There is no option 3 for the GWF. Apparently he's always sucking his foes into tiny a extradimentional space where there is no chance to avoid his great weapon. it's rather odd actually, because you would think that larger weapons are slow and more easy to dodge....

Part of that HP loss can be from the training of always giving your opponent a catch 22, take the weapon or scramble out of the way. (incurring loss from dodging)

 

[herrozerro]

With all of that said, I am all for modifying GWF. I could see having GWF being a stance that needs to be activated, or a variable damage like you do str mod damage on a miss minus what you missed by. So if your mod is 5, if you miss by 4 you still do 1 damage.

Actually what I like the best is: "You force your enemies to treat you with caution, when you miss with an attack that target must attempt to shift back from you (whatever wording for the movement) or take your STR mod in damage. If the target cannot move away, it takes the damage."

Or change the above movement with any kind of penalty for having to be cautious or damage. Gives the target a choice, take the damage or a penalty.

 

[dmgorgon]

So, you are saying that a caveat of no damage at all on a miss would suffice? The reason why this particular training allows such a thing is because this would be the simplest way to represent such a fighter. No messing with secondary attacks, no comparing to some kind of touch AC or having to figure out if the miss was by some range. It's simple and elegant.

Yes, a simple miss rule would go along way to fixing the problem. At this point my group will have no choice but to house rule in Contact AC for all damage on a miss attacks in the game.

Secondary attacks are great. I'd rather have more attacks for the chance to make extra improvised actions, especially for fighter types.

Once again hyperbole much? A level 20 can't stand to compare? Are you missing out that the things that a level 20 will be fighting a level 1 will at most probably get one little hit in on before being splattered across the floor? Are you saying that a level 20 fighter is going to care that he cannot do 3-5 damage on a miss? Really?

The power level of the 20th level fighter is not the issue here.

I'm saying the 20th level fighter might actually miss the pixie when he is drunk. The first level GWF fighter, who's just as intoxicated, will hurt her every single time. I'm not worried about what the 20th level fighter thinks, I'm worried about what that poor pixie thinks.

Those are just not the kinds of rules I'm looking for. I expect the rules to create results that are intuitive.

For a "realist" who seems to think that damage should only come with some kind of contact, or a gamiest who thinks this mechanic somehow throws balance out of whack this rule might have issues with this. But for a simulationist in general? Probably not. Unless that simulationist is really wanting a real world simulation and not a fantastic simulator.

By the way, nice speaking for an entire group.

I think you are trying to speak for a group you're not even a member of. Balance is not the concern in this case.