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

[Mistwell]

I don't think, personally, you can find enough to make it entirely relevant or meaningful.

Right...so the point of raising it was? You've basically declared you're right because you're right, at that point. No amount of evidence could be persuasive, so why would anyone try?

With this caveat: how many can you find in the core group of spells (from the Core rulebook or the 3x Player's Handbook): the spells everyone knows. Because, your original point was that we had been using damage on a miss all these years and were just fine with it,... except, if the only examples you can find are spells nobody (hyperbole alert!) uses, then it undercuts your own point.

Naw you're confusing two issues. There are LOTS AND LOTS of spells that do damage on a miss, even in Core. This tangent was about rolling a to-hit roll, and also dealing damage on a miss. That's a different issue.

So I agree with Ahn that its mostly a tangent to compare spell mechanics to melee mechanics, but failure to find an example from the basic spell lists sorta disproves your original premise.

What original premise? The premise of my response (at least what we're talking about right now) was purely to clarify that there are spells from 3e that did damage on a miss even when they required an attack roll. That's it - my point was to clarify that it was not a universal thing like he had said it was. All the rest of this discussion is just more moving of goal posts and strawmanning.

Oh, and if you want one from the PHB, Acid Seeds. Though really, that is itself simply a response to one of several moves of the goal posts. I found five more before I stopped looking...

On another related note, there was even an entire feat chain and prestige class that focused on grenade-like weapons and spells that conjured things like grenade-like weapons. You could even throw one and exclude someone from the splash, and you could enhance them with magic, and increase the range and damage including the damage on a miss, and all sorts of stuff.

 

[Mistwell]

I did at one point, and then went back on it. I try to not to use the ignore list except against the most egregious trolling, because even if a particular individual has established a negative behavior pattern, that doesn't mean every opinion they express is wrong (the genetic fallacy, that's called). I wouldn't want to exclude potentially valid points from my discussions on that basis. That's why I characteristically respond to the post, not the poster.

In other words, I'm open-minded.

Well, you failed at trying to do that, as you ascribed bad motives where there were none, when you said, " this line of inquiry is much like the kind of procedural chicanery defense attorneys use when they know they can't win a case on evidence. Try to move the discussion to anything but the topic, and revel in irrelevant details, and make every effort to show the other side up." And then you repeated it when I replied to that accusation. Both were you responding to me, the poster, and not to my post.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Right...so the point of raising it was? You've basically declared you're right because you're right, at that point. No amount of evidence could be persuasive, so why would anyone try?



Naw you're confusing two issues. There are LOTS AND LOTS of spells that do damage on a miss, even in Core. This tangent was about rolling a to-hit roll, and also dealing damage on a miss. That's a different issue.



What original premise? The premise of my response (at least what we're talking about right now) was purely to clarify that there are spells from 3e that did damage on a miss even when they required an attack roll. That's it - my point was to clarify that it was not a universal thing like he had said it was. All the rest of this discussion is just more moving of goal posts and strawmanning.

Oh, and if you want one from the PHB, Acid Seeds. Though really, that is itself simply a response to one of several moves of the goal posts. I found five more before I stopped looking...

On another related note, there was even an entire feat chain and prestige class that focused on grenade-like weapons and spells that conjured things like grenade-like weapons. You could even throw one and exclude someone from the splash, and you could enhance them with magic, and increase the range and damage including the damage on a miss, and all sorts of stuff.

Alright Mist.

Please give us this list of spells then.

 

[Garthanos]

We would?

You reading the current thread? of course the hell we would - it might start with arguments about swords not being like explosions - so they cant create area of effects, oh look see any of those near by? then others would mention two handed swords are actually used in short strokes which keep the weapon between you and the adversary unless one leaves one-self seriously open to attack. Then there would be he always deals damage and therefor never misses (just as applicable with an area effect axe sweep that has damage on a save) and so on and so forth.... martial types simply cant be be allowed reliable attacks. Why do you think it would be any different just because the mechanic existed in 1e? You have already established you think "a given mechanic" is only useful for "one thing" - that which it was originally/traditionally used for (change the context and smash no good).

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Right...so the point of raising it was? You've basically declared you're right because you're right, at that point. No amount of evidence could be persuasive, so why would anyone try?



Naw you're confusing two issues. There are LOTS AND LOTS of spells that do damage on a miss, even in Core. This tangent was about rolling a to-hit roll, and also dealing damage on a miss. That's a different issue.



What original premise? The premise of my response (at least what we're talking about right now) was purely to clarify that there are spells from 3e that did damage on a miss even when they required an attack roll. That's it - my point was to clarify that it was not a universal thing like he had said it was. All the rest of this discussion is just more moving of goal posts and strawmanning.

Oh, and if you want one from the PHB, Acid Seeds. Though really, that is itself simply a response to one of several moves of the goal posts. I found five more before I stopped looking...

On another related note, there was even an entire feat chain and prestige class that focused on grenade-like weapons and spells that conjured things like grenade-like weapons. You could even throw one and exclude someone from the splash, and you could enhance them with magic, and increase the range and damage including the damage on a miss, and all sorts of stuff.

I just went through the entire PHB and not once did I find a spell that either requires a ranged touch attack or a melee touch attack and has a secondary effect even if it misses.

 

[Garthanos]

At least, that's what I do if I were designing a Manual of Escapist Fun and Imaginary Adventure for everyone.

you know dont think most people will bother parsing that one...

 

[Wicht]

Right...so the point of raising it was? You've basically declared you're right because you're right, at that point. No amount of evidence could be persuasive, so why would anyone try?

That wasn't quite what I meant.

Naw you're confusing two issues. There are LOTS AND LOTS of spells that do damage on a miss, even in Core. [snip] What original premise? The premise of my response (at least what we're talking about right now) was purely to clarify that there are spells from 3e that did damage on a miss even when they required an attack roll. [snip] Acid Seeds.

What are they. I can't think of any off-hand, but I am willing to be corrected.

And I confess I am not familiar with the acid seeds spell.

Are you sure its a PHB spell?

Edit: Did you mean the druid spell Fire Seeds? They create a bomb, which might or might not do damage to your target on a miss, depending on how far you throw them. That's not quite the same though, as a ray or arrow which does damage on a miss.

 

[Mistwell]

Alright Mist.

Please give us this list of spells then.

I just went through the entire PHB and not once did I find a spell that either requires a ranged touch attack or a melee touch attack and has a secondary effect even if it misses.

Before I answer, you answer first - how many would I have to name before it's a meaningful thing to you, and can we agree the question is "Name spells that require an attack roll, and which also do damage on a miss"? If you're not willing to answer that with a firm and reasonable number, I don't see the point as you'll just continue to make this position a moving target.

Oh, and you missed one in the PHB by the way.

 

[Mistwell]

That wasn't quite what I meant.




What are they. I can't think of any off-hand, but I am willing to be corrected.

And I confess I am not familiar with the acid seeds spell.

Are you sure its a PHB spell?

Edit: Did you mean the druid spell Fire Seeds? They create a bomb, which might or might not do damage to your target on a miss, depending on how far you throw them. That's not quite the same though, as a ray or arrow which does damage on a miss.

Sorry yes that one. And again, please stop adding caveats once you get your answer - it's a spell that requires an attack roll, and does damage on a miss, and those were the only requirements. That's the very definition of a moving target, when you add a new limitation only after you get an answer. See, what would be the point of me answering? You won't answer the question of "how many would be convincing" (you'll give one later, which will be "at least one more than the number you come up with"), and you won't include all your limitations until after you hear the spells so you can adapt your limitations to the answer you receive (it will include some new limitation to exclude any examples given). You see how this has become a game more than a discussion? You really think it's fair to ask someone to go through dozens of books looking to answer a question posed, and then to invalidate the answer only after you get it with something new created purely to invalidate the answer? Come on now, this isn't a game of whack-a-mole. I addressed the question asked - don't retroactively alter the question after it's been addressed.

 

[Hussar]

What I would definitely not do is plunk a mechanic that draws primarily from The Marvelous Guide to Meta, walk away, come back for a single Q&A to provide an explanation that neither suits The Marvelous Guide to Meta or The Stimulatory Guide to Simulation, and then run away again.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...mage-on-a-miss-quot-poll/page99#ixzz2lKHGUP2H

How would you address people who have drifted the game into Simulationism without any actual mechanical backup? We've all agreed that the rules don't actually simulate anything. Heck, even Bill91 agrees with me on this - it doesn't matter, right? So long as the table agrees to the narration. So, why how should we address players who have never actually played the game the way it was written and instead substituted their own rules for what's in the books?