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

[Manbearcat]

And to address your point about the graceful dodger having to use terrain and jumping and acrobatics (with chances of failure) to realize his narrative... is that fair? I mean the relentless attacker gets to auto-win his narrative without even trying... what makes his narrative more deserving of that than the graceful dodger?

I just want to point out, as an aside, that this looks very similar to the spellcaster fiat by pressing auto-win condition button versus the martial character having to accomplish similar (or worse) but being subjected to multiple task resolution rolls which increases his odds of overall failure in the effort.

As an aside, aside, I'm not sure if the current 5e GD versus GWF can work out as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has theorycrafted, but I'm certain its possible. The 4e Duelist Rogue build is hell on wheels even against a 4e GWF with Reaping Strike. He wins precisely how pemerton has surmised above; (i) action denial through status effect induction and then big shifts, (ii) a suite of riposte actions including At-WIll, (iii) temporary AC buffs that can put his AC at defender level + for the duration of a combat. If 5e can duplicate that with its build synergies and action economy then it can certainly pull off the GD outdueling the GWF, even with Str damage on a miss.

 

[Imaro]

I just want to point out, as an aside, that this looks very similar to the spellcaster fiat by pressing auto-win condition button versus the martial character having to accomplish similar (or worse) but being subjected to multiple task resolution rolls which increases his odds of overall failure in the effort.

Yeah, I noticed it a while ago and it's why I find it interesting that so many proponents of narrative equality are arguing it's perfectly fine and/or trying to justify the inequality... just saying.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah, I noticed it a while ago and it's why I find it interesting that so many proponents of narrative equality are arguing it's perfectly fine and/or trying to justify the inequality... just saying.

However, if the GD can succeed in a duel versus the GWF and can successfully engage the same content as the GWF, then we have no inequality. The truth to that reality is still up for grabs I think. I haven't playtested a duel between the two and I stopped playtesting overall 2 packets ago.

 

[Imaro]

However, if the GD can succeed in a duel versus the GWF and can successfully engage the same content as the GWF, then we have no inequality. The truth to that reality is still up for grabs I think. I haven't playtested a duel between the two and I stopped playtesting overall 2 packets ago.

No that's mechanical equality... narratively the GD can fail at assering his narrative against the GWF (through low rolls, lack of terrain and use of skills per [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], etc.) The GWF always asserts his relentless narrative regardless of terrain, bad rolls etc. against the GD... that's not equality.

 

[Mistwell]

this is, strictly speaking, incorrect since if you miss it can come straight back at you and if you were trying to do splash damage to a target by hitting an intersection the target could be 10' away from the point where it actually lands and can in fact be missed. So a miss is hard but still possible even with a splash weapon with 5' range.

Incorrect. If the range is 5', then a miss lands it no further than 5' away from the target. It can come straight back at you and then splash, but then the splash will hit the target, who was right next to you, as the splash hits everything next to the new space it lands in, which by-definition must be 5' from the target if you miss on a 5' range. You don't target an intersection, you target a target in a square. It never targets an intersection.

 

[Imaro]

Incorrect. If the range is 5', then a miss lands it no further than 5' away from the target. It can come straight back at you and then splash, but then the splash will hit the target, who was right next to you, as the splash hits everything next to the new space it lands in, which by-definition must be 5' from the target if you miss on a 5' range. You don't target an intersection, you target a target in a square. It never targets an intersection.

Really??? Dude the rules are online. Here you go, from the SRD...

[h=8]THROW SPLASH WEAPON[/h]A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects. To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target. Thrown weapons require no weapon proficiency, so you don’t take the –4 nonproficiency penalty. A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target.
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.

Emphasis mine... you're wrong.

 

[pemerton]

I find it interesting that so many proponents of narrative equality are arguing it's perfectly fine and/or trying to justify the inequality

Narrative equality for whom?

I think it's obvious that in the current ruleset there is no narrative equality for graceful dodgers and GWF, though it would be easy enough to introduce by a couple of very minor tweaks to Uncanny Dodge and/or Evasion.

I introduced the "narrative" analysis of GWF - as a relenteless dreadnought fighter which is fairly well-known, I think, from contemporary fantasy art - in order to explain why I do not find GWF unbelievable, or mechanically absurd, or otherwise a bad thing for the game.

If the terrain of the debate has now shifted - to a concession that the GWF could work in this narrative way, but it's unfair to other archetypes not to give them fiat options also - then can we start a new thread for it? Because we no longer seem to be talking about believability, nor about the general viability of fiat mechanics for fighters.

(In anticipation of such a new thread - any system of fiat abilities is always going to give someone the last word. Uncanny Dodge gives the last word to the rogue rather than the caster. Who should get the last word out of the GWF and the graceful dodger? I don't have a strong intuition, but feel that probably it should go to the GWF, if for no other reason than that, everything else being equal, a quick game's a good game.)

 

[Wicht]

The range on alchemists fire is also 10 feet, not 5 feet. But this was already hashed out once. If you are 5 feet away, you are possibly going to set yourself on fire on a miss, ten feet away, you will always do a little damage to the target. 15 feet or more away and a miss is never going to hit a medium sized target, its going to go 10+ft in a scatter away from the target.

 

[Wicht]

Incorrect. If the range is 5', then a miss lands it no further than 5' away from the target. It can come straight back at you and then splash, but then the splash will hit the target, who was right next to you, as the splash hits everything next to the new space it lands in, which by-definition must be 5' from the target if you miss on a 5' range. You don't target an intersection, you target a target in a square. It never targets an intersection.

The miss goes a number of squares away from the target equal to the range increment of the throw. That is, if the range is 10 feet and the target is 5-10 feet from you and you miss, it goes 1 square away on a miss. If you are 15-20 ft, it goes 2 squares away. 25-30 ft and it goes 3 squares away. And so on.

 

[pemerton]

The range on alchemists fire is also 10 feet

<snip>

ten feet away, you will always do a little damage to the target.

This is the bit I was fastening on. I don't understand why it is untenable for a great weapon fighter to have this ability, but fine for a grenadier to have it.