D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[Umbran]

But you'll probably ignore, not accept, etc. this explanation either since you've already decided (contrary to what people are actually telling you) that it's the 3.x wizard playing brigade that don't like this mechanic.

Geeze, is there no limit to how many times I have to say this in a week? Let me put it in big letters, to make sure everyone notices...

DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL!

Speak to the logic of the post, not the person of the poster. Got that? It's really simple. If you feel like you're talking to air, you can choose to stop talking. But to start attributing such decisions to people is rude. Don't do it. Please.

 

[Mistwell]

If your argument basically boils down to "Hey it doesn't simulate this other mechanic all that great... so what does it matter if more things that are just as, or less, believable are introduced into the game?" yes, you are essentially arguing that because it is not perfect in it's simulation it is ok to further degrade said simulation... which from a logical standpoint doesn't make any sense.

That's not my argument. You can see my argument in the post you're responding to, and it's not that.

funny thing is that your example of "really really poor simulation" is a corner case that must be set up exactly so... in order to take place.

No it's not. It's a poor example of simulation in every aspect of it. Not just in the case where you throw it at someone in 5' feet of you. We stopped talking about the corner case a while ago, and moved on to talking about splash weapons in general.

Here is the post this is off of, in case you missed it (it's not the corner case example):

You throw it in a direction, and wherever it lands it spreads exactly equally in all directions rather than mostly in the direction it was thrown as if dropped exactly from above (try that with a water balloon - throw it 50 times in a row, and remember it has to do that every single time with no chance for the liquid to not go in all directions roughly equally)?

It burns through even the most powerful magical powerful full plate mail or even +5 non-metal armor, diamond armor, and even magical force fields, and strikes even the smallest fastest most dexterous thing in all the world (and this is ordinary burning oil too by the way)?

And this thing you have no issues at all with, in terms of believability?

Compare that to a warrior striking, however glancing a blow it might be, any one creature right next to them, no matter how fast or well protected.

To me, it is far less believable the splash weapon damage, than the warrior's damage. Both have issues with believability, but the splash weapon edges on preposterous given the way it works in ways the warrior cannot even challenge.

Back to your post...

However contrasting the above with the GWF issue... this affects three classes and is always happening with any of their 2-handed attacks.

But you'll probably ignore, not accept, etc. this explanation either since you've already decided (contrary to what people are actually telling you) that it's the 3.x wizard playing brigade that don't like this mechanic.

I have not decided that, I said it was an assumption that I fully admit could be in error - again. I was asked what my assumption was and simply posted in answer - I never insisted on it or said it was a conclusion, and I never posted about it in any way which would imply it was a firm conclusion.

 

[Imaro]

It's an option for fighters. That doesn't equate to an optional rule. It's a base rule (in this playtest doc anyway) that everyone at the table has to play with if one fighter chooses it. To say you can't use it is a house rule.

As far as past gaming experience... this whole edition is supposed to be based on past editions and presumably the gaming experience of many D&D players who grew up with not thinking about hit points as ablative fate points or anything of the sort of retraining you want people to undergo. Falling or archery doesn't cause a lot of confusion at any tables I've played at. Damage on a miss however... well not crippling confusion, but more than things we've seen modeled a certain way for years. [edit: added] And I haven't seen a compelling argument for damage on a miss as modeled by GWF.[/edit]

The rest of your post is just more of us arguing the same argument over and over. Hell, my above statements aren't anything that novel either I'll admit.

Actually, if I'm understanding it correctly... it's an option for three classes not just the fighter.

I also agree about the compelling argument piece... it seems instead of justifying why the mechanic should be included on it's own merits the pro-faction is steadily arguing against why we shouldn't mind it being in the game. we've established it's under-powered... we've established it causes narrative dissonance at times... we've established it doesn't simulate anything very well... as far as I can see this seems like an all around bad mechanic. So what is the compelling reason for keeping it in the game? I'd like to hear some of that from the pro-side...

 

[Wicht]

I don't see how this is different from normal narration of HP loss.

I explain my method for determining typical HP loss narration above. I would guess its not untypical actually. Please see that to understand why this rule would be different from that.

 

[Umbran]

we've established it's under-powered... we've established it causes narrative dissonance at times... we've established it doesn't simulate anything very well...

All of these are qualitative judgement. You've established that you feel all these things. That doesn't mean anyone else has to agree with your estimations.

Of course, the first one kind of kills the rest of your argument - if it is truly under-powered, then nobody who cares about power will take it in your game, so the narrative dissonance and simulation issues won't come up, now will they?

There's this idea among people that "I/we don't like it, so it should be expunged from the game", culminating with "if that one rule (which may not even be used) exists in the ruleset, I won't even buy the rulebook or ever play the game!"

My answer to that is this - you are perhaps entitled to a game you generally like. But, as a practical matter, you can't get everything exactly the way you want. This game has to sell to other people too. So, you need to pick your battles, and this just doesn't seem to really be all that important. It is only one option for a few character types. Big whoop.

So, call me not so much "pro" as "willing to see it left in for the folks who do like it, because I think the objections are a bit over-the-top."

 

[bogmad]

That's not my argument. You can see my argument in the post you're responding to, and it's not that.



No it's not. It's a poor example of simulation in every aspect of it. Not just in the case where you throw it at someone in 5' feet of you.

Alchemist fire (and other splash weapons, of which there are several) damages all foes within 5' of wherever it lands - regardless of the range of the throw, the direction it was thrown, and regardless of whether you target an intersection or creature. My argument about it's total lack of simulation has nothing at all to do with the corner case example, and everything to do with all aspects of all splash weapons.

So, to repeat - it's impossible to splash in all directions equally every single time rather than mostly going in the same direction it was thrown, it's impossible to damage even the most magically well armored, most magically shielded, or most incredibly small flying dodging creature in the world. The entire mechanic of how a splash weapon functions makes no sense. And none of that has to do with the corner case.

I am not sure why you thought I was still posting about that corner case - but I was not, and I don't think I made that unclear in any way.



Again - we're not even talking about that example right now.



I have not decided that, I said it was an assumption that I fully admit could be in error - again. I was asked what my assumption was and simply posted in answer - I never insisted on it or said it was a conclusion.

I'm still not sure what it is about a splash weapon that kills any idea of simulation. It is imperfectly modeled sure, but not to the point I can't understand why it was modeled that way in the first place . The problem doesn't extend to explosions like a fireball -if I'm understanding correctly, right? So then don't say a splash = an explosion.
Make it better. Make the splash extend from the point of origin forward in a cone or other shape. I don't quite see why it's so easy to not get fire or acid on you when it's covering an area, but if you really need it possible to not get splashed by a burst that happens in front of you why not add a crit on a saving throw mechanic. As far as I can tell the chances of not getting splashed have more to do with the randomness of how a fluid might extend when burst, not the attackers skill so it makes sense that getting missed would be luck on the defenders roll and not an active attack roll.

 

[Imaro]

That's not my argument. You can see my argument in the post you're responding to, and it's not that.

That is your argument... alchemist fire isn't a good simulation and it doesn't seem to bother anyone, so why care if GWF auto-damage on a miss isn't a good simulation... and people have given you a ton of reasons in this thread. If I'm not understanding your basic argument, then please tell me specifically what part of the above statement is in error?

No it's not. It's a poor example of simulation in every aspect of it. Not just in the case where you throw it at someone in 5' feet of you.

Alchemist fire (and other splash weapons, of which there are several) damages all foes within 5' of wherever it lands - regardless of the range of the throw, the direction it was thrown, and regardless of whether you target an intersection or creature. My argument about it's total lack of simulation has nothing at all to do with the corner case example, and everything to do with all aspects of all splash weapons.

And as I said it is such a rare occurrence... where are these tons of players who use splash weapons consistently... that it doesn't factor in enough during game time to be as big a concern as a class ability that is used on every attack?? There are levels it's not a black and white thing.

So, to repeat - it's impossible to splash in all directions equally every single time rather than mostly going in the same direction it was thrown, it's impossible to damage even the most magically well armored, most magically shielded, or most incredibly small flying dodging creature in the world. The entire mechanic of how a splash weapon functions makes no sense. And none of that has to do with the corner case.

It's abstraction, something no one has denied D&D has made use of throughout it's entire lifetime... now said abstraction has to balance between exact simulation and the limitations of the game. as an example, Runequest is lauded as a very good simulationist game, but looking through the MRQ 2 version... it has no rules for acid splashing on someone... in that game acid never splashes, how can this be it must be a really really poor simulation!!!

I guess I want to understand what criteria you are judging these simulations on, given the fact that any simulation in an rpg is going to be abstracted to certain point. Are you suggesting that D&D should have calculations to simulate the exact places where the acid splashes? Or better yet what game has good simulation rules for splash weapons? IMO, whether it is a good (enough) simulation, mediocre or average depends on the particular table. For you apparently it's a "really really poor" simulation though I haven't seen you sexpress what would be a "good" simulation yet either. For others it does it adequately enough.

I am not sure why you thought I was still posting about that corner case - but I was not, and I don't think I made that unclear in any way.

Again - we're not even talking about that example right now.

Your answer to my post, which was not specifically directed at you didn't mention anything about what example you were speaking to.

I have not decided that, I said it was an assumption that I fully admit could be in error - again. I was asked what my assumption was and simply posted in answer - I never insisted on it or said it was a conclusion.

Ok, I must've been mistaken, I shouldn't have assumed that you continuously asking for reasons even after numerous ones were presented to you was indicative of you not accepting said reasons and going with your own. I apologize.

 

[Mistwell]

That's not my argument.

That is your argument...

Imaro, let's start right here first, and then if we can resolve this I am happy to move on to the rest. When I tell you that is not my argument, and you come back at me telling me that IS what I am saying, I am not sure where to go from there. Are you calling me a liar? What exactly is your reason for not taking me at my word on this?

If you're unsure what I am getting at, just ask me that. Don't start by telling me my opinion is different than what I say it is.

 

[Wicht]

Of course, the first one kind of kills the rest of your argument - if it is truly under-powered, then nobody who cares about power will take it in your game, so the narrative dissonance and simulation issues won't come up, now will they?

Actually that's the "proponents" who have argued its underpowered.

I personally think that a fighter who never, ever, ever misses to be terrifically overpowered, even if the rule as presented is tactically weaker than some others.

 

[Imaro]

All of these are qualitative judgement. You've established that you feel all these things. That doesn't mean anyone else has to agree with your estimations.

The math was done by Mistwell in a previous post that proved it was a mechanically inferior choice compared to the other two choices. There are numerous posters who do agree with the second two points which means, regardless of whether it is all posters or not, there are already people who agree with me, so we've established it is not just me.

Of course, the first one kind of kills the rest of your argument - if it is truly under-powered, then nobody who cares about power will take it in your game, so the narrative dissonance and simulation issues won't come up, now will they?

I'm confused, are you saying everyone in my games only picks the most powerful option available? If so let me assure you that's not the case so no.. the first one doesn't kill the rest of my argument

There's this idea among people that "I/we don't like it, so it should be expunged from the game", culminating with "if that one rule (which may not even be used) exists in the ruleset, I won't even buy the rulebook or ever play the game!"

I never said this... At first my answer was I didn't care either way but after thinking on it and reading over the threads, along with my experience with this mechanic in 13th Age... my initial neutrality changed to a slight dislike.

May answer to that is this - you are entitled to a game you generally like. But, as a practical matter, you can't get everything exactly the way you want. This game has to sell to other people too. So, you need to pick your battles, and this just doesn't seem to really be all that important. It is only one option for a few character types. Big whoop.

So, call me not so much "pro" as "willing to see it left in for the folks who do like it, because I think the objections are a bit over-the-top."

And you are entitled to feel that way... just as I am entitled to dislike the mechanic and argue for why it should be eliminated.