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

[dmgorgon]

And I think that pretty well sums up the impasse.

Putting things like this into 5e is going to mean that a certain segment of our gaming population is going to be unable to utilize the rules in a truly satisfactory manner, and the other segment is going to wonder what all the fuss is about and never really understand why the game gets such grief.

Yes it does. Two different play-styles that obviously need two different games. The poll is already showing the huge divide.

 

[dmgorgon]

That's one issue I have.
Another one can be easily described with the same example. An unlimited use ability in that situation (GWF miss dmg) negates a limited use ability (the spell). Other than reaping strike, the large majority of damage on a miss powers in 4e are restricted to limited use or daily abilities, for partially gamist reasons. It's not as fun when you this thing you can only do once totally misses.

It may be more fun to do damage on a miss (that's the boiled down reason I see a lot of it's advocates use), but the simple ability to miss doesn't ruin your fun. We usually assume you can miss by default. Being unable to miss however may ruin fun for others. I think mechanics that break established conventions (i.e. a miss = no damage) should at least be reserved for limited use cases.

GWF should not be hijacked to enable damage on a miss. A more appropriate rule would enable that option for all martial characters. Of course, it should be an optional side bar in the PHB.

 

[herrozerro]

That's one issue I have.
Another one can be easily described with the same example. An unlimited use ability in that situation (GWF miss dmg) negates a limited use ability (the spell). Other than reaping strike, the large majority of damage on a miss powers in 4e are restricted to limited use or daily abilities, for partially gamist reasons. It's not as fun when you this thing you can only do once totally misses.

It may be more fun to do damage on a miss (that's the boiled down reason I see a lot of it's advocates use), but the simple ability to miss doesn't ruin your fun. We usually assume you can miss by default. Being unable to miss however may ruin fun for others. I think mechanics that break established conventions (i.e. a miss = no damage) should at least be reserved for limited use cases.

I am all for changing GWF to have some limits, I am against though removing damage on a miss outright because of some kind of weird definition fight over what hit and miss mean.

I have already put forth several alternatives, my favorite being giving the target a choice of a penalty or action or suffer damage. Perhaps costing them their reaction or having to move. If neither of those are available, then the damage is taken automatically. In that case of losing a reaction for example it can even allow the wizard to dodge without expending any precious spells.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

It's often been said that the biggest problem with creating entertainment is the zealotry of some of its existing fan(atic)s. Heck, GWF isn't more powerful, nor is it the only option. If you're looking for a "virus" or a "cancer" in the game and you're looking in the mechanics then you're looking in the wrong place.

It's an option for people, numerous people, who like it. If you don't, don't use it. Let everyone have their fun.

Actually, it's not an option. This mechanic has been built into the system which in turn will cause it show up in other parts of the game. That's what cancer does, it spreads.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Actually, it's not an option. This mechanic has been built into the system which in turn will cause it show up in other parts of the game. That's what cancer does, it spreads.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another is that it simply demonstrates that whoever wrote it simply didn't understand how and why the d20 system works, which calls any other d20-like mechanics they've written into suspicion.

 

[Umbran]

That's what cancer does, it spreads.

What cancer really does, ultimately, is kill people.

The rule isn't going to kill anyone. So please drop the vehemence of the rhetoric down a few notches. They hyperbole gets in the way of reasoned discussion.

If you're not in the mood for reasoned discussion, then you can just stop. You may rest assured that others have gotten the idea that you don't like it, and move on to something a bit more constructive.

 

[Umbran]

That's what cancer does, it spreads.

What cancer really does, ultimately, is kill people.

The mechanic isn't going to kill anyone. So please drop the vehemence of the rhetoric down a few notches. They hyperbole gets in the way of reasoned discussion.

If you're not in the mood for reasoned discussion, then you can just stop. You may rest assured that others have gotten the idea that you don't like it, and move on to something a bit more constructive.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

You rather failed to prove that he was wrong. You can say he is, but that is no more convincing than when you say others are being dismissive.

I didn't fail to prove him wrong - he was wrong, for the circumstances described. I quoted my response above. IF the range increment is 5', or if the target is larger than one square, the splash-damage weapon always does damage to the target. ALWAYS. There is no chance to not do damage - they by definition do damage on a miss, under those circumstances. I didn't just "say" he was wrong, I demonstrated it. All you have to do is look a the rules that were quoted to see that.

I don't see anywhere in that little sentence where I mentioned the range of the splash weapon.

That's because you didn't read the rule we're talking about and so you don't understand that the splash weapon, if it misses, lands the "range increment" away. And therefore, if the range increment is 5', it must land next to your target, and therefore must damage your target. That's why the range of the splash weapon is relevant.

I understand that YOU think it is 'inconsequential' for it to be a splash weapon/grenade, but it is really rather the point.

It's not. Nobody said "there is this other rule that is identical". All I said was this is the kind of rule that applies to non-magical things as well as applying to magical things. That was the issue I raised. You're the only one raising the strawman than anyone said it was identical. Obviously, if it were identical, there would be no debate to begin with.

This is something we can address I suppose. Though the reason we generally don't is that it brings up a lot more REAL physics in a game of make believe.

The objection was that the fighter ability in 5e lacks believability. I am saying it's much less believable to me that a single vial of alchemist fire strikes everything in a 5' radius from where it lands equally, and that such cannot be dodged, and it penetrates all armor. I found it also less believable to say that nobody can dodge a fireball, except the rogue who has evasion, regardless of the circumstance, even if the rogue has a lower dexterity and less potential cover to jump behind than another character. If believability is the criteria we are all using to evaluate things (and it does appear to be that for this issue), then why are these two less-believable things acceptable to people, but the 5e fighter ability (which is more believable) is not?

Because last I checked, like a fireball or a grenade, a SWORD ISN'T AN EXPLOSION.

I never said it was. This is, again, your strawman argument where you pretend I claimed they were identical things. That's not productive Tovec. All I said was that this 5e fighter ability is similar to a splash-damage attack. In that, much like the alchemist fire, it strikes everything in a radius (one square as opposed to 9 squares) with a minimal amount of damage, even on a miss. That's a similar thing, not an identical thing.

 

[The Human Target]

Yeah next someone is going to call DoaM "like Hitler."

We've long ago left the realm of an actual 2 sided discussion.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That's one way of looking at it.

Another is that it simply demonstrates that whoever wrote it simply didn't understand how and why the d20 system works, which calls any other d20-like mechanics they've written into suspicion.

If these types of mechanics become too widespread and ingrained too deeply into the system then the modularity goes out the window.

It's very lazy design.