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

[Vael]

One time a player was attacking a T-Rex by throwing shurikens at it. Whenever that player would miss I would say, "you hit it, and it doesn't care!" because I imagine a decently leveled character could hit the board side of a barn (which is sized similar to a T-Rex). However, making the shuriken hit a point that would hurt the T-Rex is a bit harder...

Same thing happened to me in the last Pathfinder game. We were fighting (actually, trying for a few rounds and then running away, the AC and DR were too high for us) a Stone Golem, and while I wasn't rolling badly, I couldn't actually hit the Golem's AC. The GM narrated it as my arrows pinging off the Golem's body. Meanwhile the Druid's animal companion was "hitting", as in rolling high enough, but not penetrating DR.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm just saying, fighting style to give damage on a miss with no resource expenditure is bad. But a wizard gets practically the same thing albeit 5 levels later, but no one seems to care?

People say it has to do with believability. But then when you drill down, it seems to often be a concept of fairness rather than believability for them. And then when you compare the balance of the ability against a wizard ability you get answers like "it's magic", which is more a believability issue again. Round and round you go.

So what I think it comes down to is simply this - people think it's unfair for a fighter to have at-will always-damage for a small amount, but they are OK with a wizard having that. Not because "magic", but because "fighter". They want the fighter to always have a chance to miss, and they don't have that requirement for the wizard. It just seems to be something inherent to the iconic fighter in their mind, that they miss.

It probably has to do with the history of D&D. If wizards always had a miss chance on their spells in OD&D, and fighters always did damage on a miss in OD&D, people would likely view the iconic class concepts that way to this day. But...that's not how the first games were written, and those concepts have stuck until today.

Short answer: fighters missing sometimes is a sacred cow many are unwilling to slay.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's a great post [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]. That is pretty much the moving target premise that I've always seen in these as well. But realistic simulation > but balance > but "magic" > but "fighter" > but realistic simulation > but balance etc, etc.

Stipulating multiple premises that are at tension with one another bulwarked by some kind of sacred cow feeling (that isn't quantifiable) as the glue/mesh that holds it together is very difficult for me to buy into.

You can have that position and advocate for it all day long. That is fine. But you aren't going to move any units outside of your own tribe...not that there is much tribal movement on any of these issues.

 

[Wicht]

Talk about putting words in people's mouths. If a wizard is given a non-resource expending way of always doing damage, every single round, without exception, I would certainly have a problem with that and said so once already.

This is not a fighter vs. wizard matter. If an attack costs nothing, it should have the possibility of doing nothing. Wizard spells normally expend a resource in the form of a spell slot or an item charge. To repeat: If a wizard has an always on cantrip that never misses and always does damage, I wouldn't like it, magic or no.

 

[bogmad]

People say it has to do with believability. But then when you drill down, it seems to often be a concept of fairness rather than believability for them. And then when you compare the balance of the ability against a wizard ability you get answers like "it's magic", which is more a believability issue again. Round and round you go.

Is there a reason you can't take people at their word? If I "say" something and you say I "seem" to mean something other than what I say and really it's more about fairness than believability for me- this doesn't prove anything other than we have subjective opinions and don't trust each other.

And why does it have to be only one issue at core that I have issue with, and that's all that matters?

As far as the potent cantrip:
1. It is magic, and while that isn't enough for you, it is enough to strain the believability for others.
2. It is five levels later, so in that case it mimics a character learning and getting better at what he does. GWF at level one just means a guy picks up a heavy stick and suddenly he can do what others had to train copiously to do through supernatural means. This strains believability and fairness.

Personally, I have some concerns with potent cantrip, but at least it mimics the idea that the mage got better at what he does. A GWF just starts off breaking conventions of what a "miss" means mechanically. If a fighter had a mechanic that meant by 5th level his attack bonus meant he'd never miss without a rider of some sort (be it str dmg or something else), I wouldn't have too much issue.

 

[Manbearcat]

The most compelling argument against a mechanic like this (I believe [MENTION=6695559]bogmad[/MENTION] presented it, could be wrong) is that (i) it becomes too fiddly when interacting with the rest of the mechanical infrastructure of the system or (ii) it becomes too powerful when interacting with the rest of the mechanical infrastructure of the system.

That, as a singular, empirically provable thesis, whereby no other class possesses the means to leverage such an ability, is coherent and strong enough to move me.

However, I've seen Reaping Strike's impact on play aplenty. When interfacing with the minion rules it is irrelevant; minions can't die on a miss. However, this situation provokes the premise movement from "but unbalanced" to "but realistic simulation." 4e provides immunity to such an issue via those minion rules and the fact that proportionately, the HP total:Str damage ratio provides thematics (relentless berserker et al) and tactical overhead (and some fun with build synergy), rather than raw power on a per deployment of Reaping Strike basis. 5e has neither of these in place that I'm aware of so At-Will damage on a miss could be a problem (i'm not convinced yet as I'd need to see the math) with low HP/unit and no minion immunization to damage on a miss.

 

[Ahnehnois]

People say it has to do with believability. But then when you drill down, it seems to often be a concept of fairness rather than believability for them. And then when you compare the balance of the ability against a wizard ability you get answers like "it's magic", which is more a believability issue again. Round and round you go.

You realize the two are not mutually exclusive, right? Damage on a miss isn't believable. It's also not fair, not internally consistent with the rest of the game, not balanced, not parsimonious, not dramatically interesting, not tactically engaging, and not fun. It's simply a failed thought experiment, that's all.

So what I think it comes down to is simply this - people think it's unfair for a fighter to have at-will always-damage for a small amount, but they are OK with a wizard having that. Not because "magic", but because "fighter". They want the fighter to always have a chance to miss, and they don't have that requirement for the wizard.

I don't know about that. If various wizard abilities were revised to add in a chance of not dealing damage, would people object to that? You seem to be assuming that certain people would; I'm not so sure.

It probably has to do with the history of D&D. If wizards always had a miss chance on their spells in OD&D, and fighters always did damage on a miss in OD&D, people would likely view the iconic class concepts that way to this day. But...that's not how the first games were written, and those concepts have stuck until today.

If those things were the case, would we be playing D&D today?

Short answer: fighters missing sometimes is a sacred cow many are unwilling to slay.

And with good reason.

 

[pemerton]

If an attack costs nothing, it should have the possibility of doing nothing.

I'll say it again: this doesn't cost nothing. The ability costs a slot to acquire, and costs an action in the action economy to use.

Furthermore, its actual effect on play is mediated via the enemy's hit points.

 

[pemerton]

Well now lets look at some of the other editions, not just basic D&D

<snip>

So while 4e may have a similar description to basic D&D, it does lack the information on how it interacts with objects that was presented in the 3 most recent previous editions of D&D. I would say just as in Basic D&D, since there are no rules stating otherwise, whether a fireball ignites any combustibles is entirely left in the hands of the DM. I also think it's a little misleading to only present the edition of D&D that supports your assertion but then ignore the 3 most recent editions.

Who is being misled?

I have never seen it asserted that a Moldvay Basic fireball can't set things alight. When I played B/X - before I had read the AD&D rulebook (which predates Moldvay Basic, by the way) - a fireball was used to set a ship alight.

My point is - why would anyone think 4e is any different?

I'm going to disagree about how clear it is. It would seem, from the passage listed above, that all objects are damaged by spells which hit them unless the power does psychic, poison or necrotic damage... However then why does 4e have "object" as a specific type of target in the game on certain powers in PHB 1?

My view - because the GM is expected to adjudicate the fictional positioning.

My point is that what is clear is that [fire] effects can set things alight (as if there was ever any doubt?).

 

[TwoSix]

My view - because the GM is expected to adjudicate the fictional positioning.

My point is that what is clear is that [fire] effects can set things alight (as if there was ever any doubt?).

I'm interested to meet this hypothetical 4e players who say that fireball can't set anything on fire. Not just people who read 4e and asserted it without playing the game.