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

[Mistwell]

Anyway, like I said, all you're doing here is showing how much 3e screwed up some of the rules.

At best you are trying to convince people that the rules for slash damage needs to be corrected. You can't use problems with this rule to justify problems with GWF.

I don't think this is something that 3e screwed up. And the lack of any comment about it, for a decade now, from anyone I am aware of, demonstrates that damage on a miss from splash weapons was never an issue for anyone.

I am not using it to "justify" the GWF. I am using it as a tool to try and figure out what's really at the heart of the objection to GWF. I am wondering why X got no objections but Y does, even though there are similarities.

Ultimately, this is an issue that, I think, comes down to how one feels about it. And I am not going to change anyone's feelings about it. Which is why I said, since my players don't feel right about it, I voted against it in my feedback to WOTC.

This is just me trying to understand what causes someone to object strenuously to one rule but not be bothered by another, even when the two are similar. That might help in re-describing the rule to accomplish the same goal by a different (less objectionable) method.

My first stab at it was to write it something like this:

Great Weapon Fighting: When you attack with a melee weapon you are wielding with two hands which has the two-handed or versatile property, the huge sweep of your weapon causes you to automatically make at least glancing contact with one target you can see, dealing damage equal to your strength modifier. In addition, make an attack roll as normal, and if your attack roll hits, you do damage as normal less your strength bonus (which was already applied).

 

[Tovec]

I didn't fail to prove him wrong - he was wrong,

Ah, you are right, not dismissive at all.

It's not. Nobody said "there is this other rule that is identical".

Including me. So?

The objection was that the fighter ability in 5e lacks believability.

But you dismiss that explosions which fill the 5x5x5 square are not the same as a sword swing which at best does a 5ftx5ftx1inch space.

I am not using it to "justify" the GWF. I am using it as a tool to try and figure out what's really at the heart of the objection to GWF. I am wondering why X got no objections but Y does, even though there are similarities.

And yet when I, and others, give those reasons why we don't object to one but object to another you dismiss them saying our reasons are, "inconsequential." I have to doubt you want our reasons.

This is just me trying to understand what causes someone to object strenuously to one rule but not be bothered by another, even when the two are similar. That might help in re-describing the rule to accomplish the same goal by a different (less objectionable) method.

The problem is the following:
The ability does not work as actually described by Rodney and others.
The ability can never miss, not even on 1s.
The ability currently models (via other examples you yourself has given) explosions and splash effects that do a full square effect.
The ability works EVERY SINGLE ROUND, unlimited use.

You reply with the following, which are largely not the issues raised:
The ability works like fireballs, which are magic, limited use, and an explosion.
The ability works like magic missile, which is magic, specifically designed not to miss (and still can via other spells).
The ability works like alchemists fire, which is a splash weapon (which you find 'inconsequential'), requires an attack roll to hit a square, and oh yeah is limited use.

My first stab at it was to write it something like this:

Great Weapon Fighting: When you attack with a melee weapon you are wielding with two hands which has the two-handed or versatile property, the huge sweep of your weapon causes you to automatically make at least glancing contact with one target you can see, dealing damage equal to your strength modifier. In addition, make an attack roll as normal, and if your attack roll hits, you do damage as normal less your strength bonus (which was already applied).

Which STILL doesn't take up a full 5x5x5 square - so no thanks. (Not to mention not addressing ANY of the other issues.)

 

[Herschel]

Why do you care? You claim you're "done with 5E."

 

[bogmad]

Why do you care? You claim you're "done with 5E."

I'm not done with 5e at all, but I pretty much agree with the problems Tovec raises.

I've mainly decided not to keep arguing them over and over, because others are doing a better job of responding succinctly than I was and my grammar mistakes were driving me crazy.
Also, it's turned into a weird cyclical argument every ten pages of thread or so.

 

[bogmad]

I'd rather see a focus on fixing the GWF ability as it's currently written, instead of seeing it argued for staying the way it is.

At the very least that gives me a way to houserule it differently should it make it into the core rules

 

[Wicht]

I don't think this is something that 3e screwed up. And the lack of any comment about it, for a decade now, from anyone I am aware of, demonstrates that damage on a miss from splash weapons was never an issue for anyone.

Well, you've already been answered, but I'll take a swing at it.

The damage from a splash weapon, alchemist's fire in this case, a resource which must be purchased, unless gained as loot, is mirroring an explosion and an area effect. Sure, at close range (within 10 feet) you are always going to do some damage to your target, but at any distance greater than 10 feet, the target is pretty much guaranteed to take no damage on a miss. The miss effect is also non-partial, it will damage friends (including yourself) and foes alike. So there are at least four potential detriments to the use of the alchemist's fire: it expends a resource, there is the possibility, at ranges greater than 10 feet to completely miss the target; there is the possibility at a range of only 5 feet to do damage to yourself, and there is the possibility of doing damage to your friends if they get to close, or are within the scatter range.

So, to summarize, differences which make one palatable and the other not:

• One is a limited resource which has an in-game cost and the other is always on.
• One has the possibility of an unproductive round and the other does not.
• One can potentially hurt you on a miss, and the other can not.
• One can potentially hurt your friends on a miss, and the other can not.
• One mirrors an explosion, and the other does not.

The problem is not the potential of doing damage on a failed roll, the problem is the guarantee of doing damage on a failed roll every-time, with no possibility of an unproductive round mirroring simply not being good enough (at that moment) of hurting the enemy.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't think this is something that 3e screwed up. And the lack of any comment about it, for a decade now, from anyone I am aware of, demonstrates that damage on a miss from splash weapons was never an issue for anyone.

Beyond the obvious fact that a splash weapon is not the same as a non-splash weapon, and the damage it deals simulates actual splashing, as opposed to some special character ability that doesn't really represent anything, the main thing this says to me is that no one ever really uses splash weapons.

 

[Mistwell]

Ah, you are right, not dismissive at all.

Tovec, stop being a jerk. You just removed the context from my comment, and then pretended I had said something dismissive that didn't have the reasons for my comment. Not cool man. You want to argue about what I say, then quote what I say, and not just a snip of a section out of context like that.

But you dismiss that explosions which fill the 5x5x5 square are not the same as a sword swing which at best does a 5ftx5ftx1inch space.

I am not dismissing it, I am saying I never claimed it is identical, just similar. Again, you first claimed I never said it was identical, and then the very next sentence talked about how it was not the same. You realize the definition of identical is the same, right? I am waiting for you to explain why the difference you note is meaningful for this discussion?

And yet when I, and others, give those reasons why we don't object to one but object to another you dismiss them saying our reasons are, "inconsequential." I have to doubt you want our reasons.

WHAT reasons? All you are saying is they are not the same...not why the differences are meaningful for this discussion.

The problem is the following:
The ability does not work as actually described by Rodney and others.
The ability can never miss, not even on 1s.
The ability currently models (via other examples you yourself has given) explosions and splash effects that do a full square effect.
The ability works EVERY SINGLE ROUND, unlimited use.

None of that is inherently a problem. I don't know about "not work as described" as I don't know what you mean by that. But for the others, you seem to think the problem with those things is self-evident. They are not. You're skipping the most crucial step to your argument - why those things are meaningful. I've explained why an ability that does not miss, even on a 1, was present in 3e and nobody had a problem with it (with at least three types of things: 1) spells, 2) traps, 3) mundane splash attacks). There is nothing inherently bad about modeling a splash effect with a melee weapon, and in fact I think that is a good thing to add to the game. And there is nothing inherently bad about it working every round (you can also throw a splash weapon every round, for example - they are very cheap or even free, depending on the character and feats or classes they take).

You reply with the following, which are largely not the issues raised:
The ability works like fireballs, which are magic, limited use, and an explosion.
The ability works like magic missile, which is magic, specifically designed not to miss (and still can via other spells).
The ability works like alchemists fire, which is a splash weapon (which you find 'inconsequential'), requires an attack roll to hit a square, and oh yeah is limited use.

The spells were to demonstrate that it's not a new thing to the game to auto-hit on a miss. Traps do that as well. Just because those things are not identical, does not mean it's irrelevant to raise the issue that other things in the game also do damage on a miss.

As for the splash weapons, I disagree. They no more require an attack roll than this 5e fighter ability we're discussing (it also requires an attack roll). And it is no more limited use than this fighter ability (both are inexpensive weapons you buy with gold - anyone can afford oil or alchemist fire, particularly as you increase levels, and some classes could even make those splash weapons as an ability). And both do damage on a miss. It's a fair analogy to be making.

Which STILL doesn't take up a full 5x5x5 square - so no thanks. (Not to mention not addressing ANY of the other issues.)

Why would it have to take up a 5x5x5 square to be satisfactory (you want it to be MORE powerful?) and what other issues does it fail to address? Again, you seem to think we can all read your mind and figure out what you're thinking or something.

 

[Mistwell]

Beyond the obvious fact that a splash weapon is not the same as a non-splash weapon,

Again, never said it was "the same" or "identical". I have repeatedly said it's simply "similar" and "an analogy".

and the damage it deals simulates actual splashing,

It REALLY doesn't. As I explained above, it does a worse job of simulating actual splashing than even this 5e fighter ability. A splash would never go in exactly equal portions in a 15' radius, there would often be circumstances where someone could dodge it, and it would not penetrate any type of armor including the most magical plate armor in the universe. It's an incredibly poor attempt to simulate actual splashing. Actual splashing would most of the time carry forward in the direction it was thrown, and would not penetrate any possible defenses the characters had that were next to it.

as opposed to some special character ability that doesn't really represent anything, the main thing this says to me is that no one ever really uses splash weapons.

It does represent something though. It represents any of a variety of things people in this thread have proposed, of which I posted a rather long list earlier. And again, I am having trouble with people just dismissing out of hand the ideas others have come up to in response to "it doesn't represent anything". You can disagree with the individual things people thought up - but that's not the same as not representing anything. You have to actually explain why every single one of those things couldn't work, to get to the point where you can conclude it cannot represent anything.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You can disagree with the individual things people thought up - but that's not the same as not representing anything. You have to actually explain why every single one of those things couldn't work, to get to the point where you can conclude it cannot represent anything.

I haven't seen any supposed explanation for what damage on a miss actually is in the game world that hasn't immediately been rebutted over basic logical flaws that render it incompatible with the existing d20 hit/miss paradigm. As far as I'm concerned, it's nonsense, the d20 equivalent of one of those nonsense sentences someone utters after having been hit in the head. Am I missing something?