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?
My view is that fireball and spalsh weapons are both obviously fiat powers, because I can't reasonably regard them as simulations: the splash of alchemical fire which damages everyone no matter how heavy their armour is and no matter how close they are to the edge; the fireball that auto-kills goblins, kobolds and commoners but
cannot kill a carnivorous ape, again no matter what armour the target may or may not be wearing, no matter what its DEX, no matter how close to the edge or the centre of the blast.
The contrast between the human commoner and the carnivorous ape also reveals hit points as "plot protection", given that in physiological terms an explosion should have near enough to the same effect on these two targets.
Given that D&D over multiple editins contains these effects, or analogous ones, which are themselves fiat abilities and which reveal hit points as plot protection, I am surprised that another ability which is a fiat ability and reveals hit points as a form of plot protection should be so controversial.
As I mentioned in one of the threads, I believe it is because people are prepared to tolerate fiat in spells and explosions but not in melee combat - not for any simulationist reason that I can see, but for reasons of (pre-4e) D&D tradition.
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.
My view is that there are so many fiat powers in the game that I don't understand why another should be problematic from the point of view of believability or mechanical coherence. I can only see an issue of tradition.
Trying to shift it to splash damage is goalpost-moving anyway. Some folks got a problem with damage-on-a-miss for melee weapon attacks. How they feel about splashing vials of acid is kind of orthogonal, really. There's no real requirement for consistency with what folks are bothered by.
That's true. But if folks are going to argue that "it doesn't make sense", or that those who like it "don't care about mechanical coherence in their games",
then they have taken on a burden of consistency to which they can expect to be held.