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

[Wicht]

I suspect people don't like GWF because it's stepping on the toes of the spellcasters in doing damage on a miss in a way that they cannot also use (unlike alchemist fire, which they could always use if they wanted to). I am guessing that the people most passionately against this option, are also the people who most consistently prefer spellcasters as their choice of characters to play.

You should have just said so from the beginning. Then I could disabuse you of the notion and tell you that on the rare occasions when I play, I prefer rogues and fighters.

 

[Wicht]

Yes, and every time a fighter, ranger, or paladin chooses GWF instead of the superior other choices they have, it doesn't just have the potential to be very detrimental to your cause, it's almost certainly over the course of your campaign to be detrimental relative to the opportunity cost of that choice.

That's a different sort of "penalty" and not at all analogous or easily comparable. It is not, as I said, convincing enough to make the analogy work.

Really, there are far better things you could point to as precedent: auras and magic missile. Alchemist fire simply is not a good comparison.

 

[bogmad]

Fair enough. My suspicion is this is a territorial thing. Alchemist fire, that could be used by anyone. The spells that do damage on a miss, which are more effective, are exclusive to spellcasters. I suspect people don't like GWF because it's stepping on the toes of the spellcasters in doing damage on a miss in a way that they cannot also use (unlike alchemist fire, which they could always use if they wanted to). I am guessing that the people most passionately against this option, are also the people who most consistently prefer spellcasters as their choice of characters to play.

The believability topic now rings hollow to me - given the lack of believability with alchemist fire but the lack of objection to it.
The fairness issue now rings hollow to me - given the ability is itself weak relative to the other options and the opportunity cost of choosing the ability.
So if it's not believability, and it's not fairness, it's gotta be something else. My guess is, it's that they just don't like non-spellcasters having a way to do damage on a miss in a manner they cannot also choose to utilize.

Why can you not take for granted what people tell you is their reasoning for things? Just because my believability has a different threshold than yours does not make mine invalid.
I say alchemist fire isn't as unbeliveable as you say it is. After numerous examples of WHY it's not as unbelievable, and why it is modeled that way, your response is just to go "eh, I don't agree." That doesn't prove anything other than a difference of opinion!

Wicht gave you a very concise list of reasons, which you promptly ignored or only responded to one aspect of and pretended that was the sum total of his reasoning. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean "he just doesn't think fighters should have nice things"

 

[Imaro]

That's a different sort of "penalty" and not at all analogous or easily comparable. It is not, as I said, convincing enough to make the analogy work.

Really, there are far better things you could point to as precedent: auras and magic missile. Alchemist fire simply is not a good comparison.

I agree these really are apples and orange comparisons... especially since as I noted in an earlier post, in Mistwell's example the person throwing alchenmical fire into an adjacent square will suffer an AoO... as an additional disadvantage.

 

[Mistwell]

I can only speak for myself but you are barking up the wrong tree. I prefer to play martial characters rather than spell casters and even I think area-like attacks for fighter types is pretty damn goofy. It flies in the face of believability as far as I'm concerned.

That said, I do prefer if weapon attacks don't behave like magic (and vice versa to an extent) because I don't want all methods of quelling an encounter boil down to ablation of hit points all the time. I'd be happy to see fighters gain more ways of imposing conditions, taunting foes, whatever. I'm fine with a subset of spells inflicting damage and requiring a to hit roll (like acid arrow). But I don't want charm spells ablating hit points and I don't want man-to-man weapons making area attacks. Both of those extremes strike me as being unbelievable to the point of being dumb.

I didn't really have you in mind when asking why people are so passionately opposed to it. You seemed more to fall into the "Meh, I'd prefer not" camp, which is close to where I am at. Not the, "Wow this is horrible, I may not play the game over this particular issue!" which is closer to the position I've seen here from a few. And like I said, I don't doubt they do feel that way and it's genuine. I...just don't understand why.

 

[Imaro]

Fair enough. My suspicion is this is a territorial thing. Alchemist fire, that could be used by anyone. The spells that do damage on a miss, which are more effective, are exclusive to spellcasters. I suspect people don't like GWF because it's stepping on the toes of the spellcasters in doing damage on a miss in a way that they cannot also use (unlike alchemist fire, which they could always use if they wanted to). I am guessing that the people most passionately against this option, are also the people who most consistently prefer spellcasters as their choice of characters to play.

The believability topic now rings hollow to me - given the lack of believability with alchemist fire but the lack of objection to it.
The fairness issue now rings hollow to me - given the ability is itself weak relative to the other options and the opportunity cost of choosing the ability.
So if it's not believability, and it's not fairness, it's gotta be something else. My guess is, it's that they just don't like non-spellcasters having a way to do damage on a miss in a manner they cannot also choose to utilize.

So contrary to all the protests and claims of me mis-representing your position... it really did boil down to "I was given the reasons but I didn't accept them"... got it.

 

[Mistwell]

I agree these really are apples and orange comparisons... especially since as I noted in an earlier post, in Mistwell's example the person throwing alchenmical fire into an adjacent square will suffer an AoO... as an additional disadvantage.

True (and I missed where you said that, sorry about that). That is indeed an additional drawback, and a meaningful one. What is your opinion on the new alchemist fire in 5e? It does not do damage on a miss, and I believe ranged attacks do not trigger an opportunity attack.

[Edit - Oh I see, I missed it BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THIS THREAD. Come on man, I can't follow your argument if you're posting bits and pieces in multiple threads and then pointing out a lack of response to an entirely different thread as if it were here.]

 

[pemerton]

Elephant number one:[/B] One is ALWAYs on. The other is NOT always on.

<snip>

Elephant number three: One models AN EXPLOSION. The other does not.

Elephant number four: One is a CONSUMABLE (and freely available to everyone). The other is not.

<snip>

Elephant number eight: One fits narratively into a variety of PLAYSTYLES. The other does not.

Some responses.

The sword came from a shop, too, and is also consumable (eg via being dropped over a cliff, or eaten by a rust monster, or sundered by an anti-paladin).

The grenades can be "always on" - for instance a mid-to-high level PC who has a pouch of holding full of grenades.

And the "modelling of an explostion" fits only two playstyles, as far as I can tell - a "player fiat" playstyle (which GWF also fits) or a "causal indifference to process sim playstyle" (which I would have thought GWF might fit, depending on the contours of the casualness). It certainly doesn't fit a process sim style, and if you look at games with underlying process-sim mechanics you'll see that they don't handle explosions via auto-damage in the D&D style.

My suspicion is this is a territorial thing. Alchemist fire, that could be used by anyone. The spells that do damage on a miss, which are more effective, are exclusive to spellcasters. I suspect people don't like GWF because it's stepping on the toes of the spellcasters in doing damage on a miss in a way that they cannot also use (unlike alchemist fire, which they could always use if they wanted to).

I have a different hypothesis, namely, that for reasons that I don't reallly get (but in this debate are being linked to "realism") people are happy with auto-damage from explosions but not from swordplay. For some reason they are comfortable with the idea that an explosion can't be evaded, even by an air elemental or a pixie or a graceful dodger who is on the very edge of it, but are not happy with the idea that a swordsman or halbedeer can't be (completely and safely) dodged.

It's entirely possible that a person might have no chance of avoiding an explosion that goes off right next to them. In that case, evasion is stretching reality, not automatic damage.

I was thinking of the kobolds and commoners on the very edge of the explosion. Why do they die automatically?

Conversely, it's absurd to think that a person (with varying levels of defensive capability) would have no chance whatsoever of avoiding a sword from a moderately skilled warrior.

I don't find it particularly absurd that 6 seconds of confronting that warrior in melee might wear a person down.

And I don't find the fiat aspect - which is particularly handy for cutting down goblins and kobolds - objectionable either.

They share a single thing in common: that it is possible to roll a dice, miss the target number and still potentially get an attack. But even that's not quite right because with the alchemist fire, its only the potential, within a very narrow range of possible actions to get a positive result on a miss.

Unless I've badly misunderstood, if I throw the alchemical fire from within 10' (1 range increment) then I am guaranteed to get damage (because I will land no more than 1 sq from my target, and do 5' radius spash damage). That is not a potential; it's a certainty.

I don't think they are quite analogous, but you can fix those issues by allowing a DC 15 reflex save to take no damage. Problem solved.

Wouldn't this solve the problem with auto-damage from a GWF too? As some posters (@Manbearcat and [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], I think) have suggested upthread?

Thinking like a designer for a moment... if you solve the problem of the graceful dodger being affected by the juggernaut by giving said dodger more hp what you are doing is extending the duration of the conflict, in effect creating more grind in fights.

Huh? Any mechanic that makes them less likely to take damage (including a mechanic that lets them avoid auto-damage) will extend the duration of the fight.

Or, to flip that around, part of the point of auto-damage is to reduce combat grind.

Which gets to another reason the damage on a "miss" is problematic. It creates a series of necessary additional changes to keep the modeling the same. But each additional "fix" is going to add that much more unnecessary complexity to the game.

Like your solution for auto-damage from grenades?

 

[Mistwell]

So contrary to all the protests and claims of me mis-representing your position... it really did boil down to "I was given the reasons but I didn't accept them"... got it.

No, that's not what I said. I asked you to stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I am guessing that the people most passionately against this option, are also the people who most consistently prefer spellcasters as their choice of characters to play.

<-- Another player who voted against it that prefers martial characters.