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

[herrozerro]

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

A simulation just simulates what you want. This particular mechanic can be a quicker simulation of other mechanics such as hitting touch AC, Missing by X amount or even just the abstract nature of HP. A simulation can be as granular or abstract as one wants. Obviously this may have issues with someone who is attempting to simulate a very granular real world model, but with how D&D works in general, this mechanic's only real crime is that it's not classic.

Can other mechanics simulate better? Yes. But those mechanics are more complex and time consuming. For a mechanic in the simple core game, this mechanic is perfect.

 

[Mistwell]

There is no need to keep reserving this discussion of "damage on a miss" to magic. The 3e rules always had damage on a miss for non-magic things.

Under traps, there were these entries:

Never Miss: When the entire dungeon wall moves to crush you, your quick reflexes won’t help, since the wall can’t possibly miss. A trap with this feature has neither an attack bonus nor a saving throw to avoid, but it does have an onset delay (see below). Most traps involving liquid or gas are of the never miss variety.

And for a variety of throwable grenade-like attacks, like for example:

Alchemist’s Fire

You can throw a flask of alchemist’s fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet.

A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash.

So, in 3e, EVERY character could do damage on a miss with alchemist fire. No magic required.

I don't ever recall angst over alchemist fire damaging on a miss so easily.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Alchemist’s Fire

You can throw a flask of alchemist’s fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet.

A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash.

So, in 3e, EVERY character could do damage on a miss with alchemist fire. No magic required.

I don't ever recall angst over alchemist fire damaging on a miss so easily.

That's because it doesn't DO damage on a miss. It's an aoe effect with a 5 foot radius. Anyone within 5 feet IS hit.

 

[dmgorgon]

A simulation just simulates what you want. This particular mechanic can be a quicker simulation of other mechanics such as hitting touch AC, Missing by X amount or even just the abstract nature of HP. A simulation can be as granular or abstract as one wants. Obviously this may have issues with someone who is attempting to simulate a very granular real world model, but with how D&D works in general, this mechanic's only real crime is that it's not classic.

Can other mechanics simulate better? Yes. But those mechanics are more complex and time consuming. For a mechanic in the simple core game, this mechanic is perfect.

The problem with this mechanic is that it removes one of the most important mechanics in the game. It completely removes the mechanic that simulates an actual miss! Yes, one particular style of fighter is ALWAYS making contact with his foe. Even when he is intoxicated he can't ever make a wild swing. It's an abomination to everything that simulationists stand for on so many levels it isn't funny.

 

[Tovec]

Alchemist’s Fire

You can throw a flask of alchemist’s fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet.

A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash.

So, in 3e, EVERY character could do damage on a miss with alchemist fire. No magic required.

I don't ever recall angst over alchemist fire damaging on a miss so easily.

That's because it doesn't DO damage on a miss. It's an aoe effect with a 5 foot radius. Anyone within 5 feet IS hit.

What JRRNeiklot says.

Plus it isn't a melee weapon. I seem to recall saying that this ability would be best defined as a grenade effect - but since claymores are generally not explosives they shouldn't get the effect.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There is no need to keep reserving this discussion of "damage on a miss" to magic. The 3e rules always had damage on a miss for non-magic things.

Not really.

Under traps, there were these entries:

Never Miss: When the entire dungeon wall moves to crush you, your quick reflexes won’t help, since the wall can’t possibly miss.

No damage on a miss here.

Alchemist’s Fire

...Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash.

And every creature not within 5 ft. (i.e. the creatures you miss) don't.

Even though these are inappropriate examples to begin with-none of them is talking about anything like the damage on a miss discussed in this thread-they don't even hold up.

 

[Mistwell]

That's because it doesn't DO damage on a miss. It's an aoe effect with a 5 foot radius. Anyone within 5 feet IS hit.

Nope. Here is the situation:

A gnoll is 10 feet from you. You throw a bottle of alchemist fire at it. You make a normal ranged attack, but you missed. The alchemist fire instead hits a random square next to the square you aimed for. The gnoll takes 1 point of damage from the missed shot.

If you hit, you do a range of damage from a die. ONLY if you miss do they take a fixed smaller amount of damage. Exactly like this ability we're debating (except the alchemist fire can damage more than one target that way).

They're not specifically not hit. It says "creatures within 5 feet of where the flask hits". So, you missed them, but they still took damage.

It's using the same definition of a hit and miss as the ability we're debating. If you think of splash damage from alchemist fire as a hit, then you should be thinking of this fighter ability as a hit. Both rolled a d20 to target the creature, both missed the AC of that target creature, both did fixed damage as a result of that miss. You don't get to call one a hit because it's more convenient for your argument. You aimed at the target, and missed, and it says you missed.

 

[dmgorgon]

That's because it doesn't DO damage on a miss. It's an aoe effect with a 5 foot radius. Anyone within 5 feet IS hit.

Exactly.

 

[herrozerro]

The problem with this mechanic is that it removes one of the most important mechanics in the game. It completely removes the mechanic that simulates an actual miss! Yes, one particular style of fighter is ALWAYS making contact with his foe. Even when he is intoxicated he can't ever make a wild swing. It's an abomination to everything that simulationists stand for on so many levels it isn't funny.

The mechanic is not removed. I don't see this one character suddenly removing misses from the game. And I feel that the wording could be improved. Making it vague like "Your relentless onslaught always causes your foe harm, either from your weapon or from trying to get out of the way."

Also, hyperbolic much? Abomination? What do you guys stand for anyways?

 

[dmgorgon]

Nope. You roll a d20 to see if you hit, like normal. If you hit, you do a range of damage from a die. ONLY if you miss do they take a fixed smaller amount of damage. Exactly like this ability we're debating. Except the alchemist fire can damage more than one target that way. But, they're not specifically not hit. It says "creatures within 5 feet of where the flask hits". So, you missed them, but they still took damage.

Even if you go back to the rule books from all pre-4e editions and find another rule that fits your argument, all you're going to do is convince people that the rule you found is flawed and needs to be corrected.