D&D 5E Now that "damage on a miss" is most likely out of the picture, are you happy?

[Brock Landers]

This thread is definitely drifting into the Arena of the Unwell...

 

[Umbran]

Brock here has been exposed as an alternate of a currently permabanned user, and will not be returning to this conversation.

We strongly suggest that folks not drag their business from other boards to EN World. We don't want your drama. Thanks.

 

[Rechan]

So, I missed the discussion where Damage on a miss Yay/nay came up, and I haven't swam through all the other threads, but I have just a general question.

Why is "enemy saves, takes half-damage from spell" acceptable, but "miss with a weapon attack, enemy takes minimal damage" is not? I mean, isn't the wizard missing with the fireball, or whatever other spell being used?

It's the same mechanic, and the same end result.

 

[Mistwell]

So, I missed the discussion where Damage on a miss Yay/nay came up, and I haven't swam through all the other threads, but I have just a general question.

Why is "enemy saves, takes half-damage from spell" acceptable, but "miss with a weapon attack, enemy takes minimal damage" is not? I mean, isn't the wizard missing with the fireball, or whatever other spell being used?

It's the same mechanic, and the same end result.

1. It's more believable to accept that magic does unusual things like this than it is to believe an ordinary sword does it;

2. The spell functions similar to a splash weapon, seeping into areas even when it doesn't directly hit, when an ordinary weapon doesn't really function that way;

3. A saving throw and an attack roll are not the same thing.

 

[dmgorgon]

1. It's more believable to accept that magic does unusual things like this than it is to believe an ordinary sword does it;

2. The spell functions similar to a splash weapon, seeping into areas even when it doesn't directly hit, when an ordinary weapon doesn't really function that way;

3. A saving throw and an attack roll are not the same thing.

I think the big difference is that the spell doesn't attack first. It automatically hits and then you have a save to avoid certain destruction. I have to admit that I'd like to see all attacks and spell effects resolve to full damage, partial damage, or no damage. I think every attack and spell effect should have a chance to do 0 damage.

Another important point is that some spells require an attack roll and then if you hit the target must make a saving throw. In this case a saving throw is the defenders chance to avoid the effect.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

1. It's more believable to accept that magic does unusual things like this than it is to believe an ordinary sword does it

Though that's assuming that a PC Fighter is still ordinary.

 

[dmgorgon]

They really are, and that was a matter of an official ruling from WOTC, and it was added to the SRD. "Voluntarily Giving up a Saving Throw: A creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw and willingly accept a spell’s result. Even a character with a special resistance to magic can suppress this quality."

I'll repeat - it was a crucial issue with some later 3.5e builds. Sometimes the shadowcraft illusionist needed his fellow party members to intentionally volunteer to not roll a saving throw.

That is not a WotC era rule. Here is the section in the 2e PHB.

Voluntarily Failing Saving Throws

"No save is made if the target voluntarily chooses not to resist the effect of a spell or special attack. This is the case even if the character was duped as to the exact nature of the spell. When a character announces that he is not resisting the spell's power, that spell (or whatever) has its full effect.The intention not to resist must be clearly stated or set up through trickery, however. If a character is attacked by surprise or caught unawares, he is normally allowed a saving throw. The DM can modify this saving throw, making the chance of success worse, if the situation warrants it. Only in extreme cases of trickery and deception should an unwitting character be denied a saving throw."

 

[Rechan]

The spell functions similar to a splash weapon, seeping into areas even when it doesn't directly hit, when an ordinary weapon doesn't really function that way

I didn't specify reflex. THere are fort and will save spells I am sure do half-damage on a miss.

3. A saving throw and an attack roll are not the same thing.

Well in my edition they were - all 4e spells are attacks against static defenses. There really aren't any saving throughs. But that's beside the point.

Beyond that, IMO they are the same thing. It's just that the target rolls the hit as opposed to the attacker.

 

[Mistwell]

Guys I was just trying to summarize the arguments in this thread against it. I am with you - I personally have no problem with damage on a miss, and have argued against all three of those points I mentioned. My players (all but one of them) thought it was cheesy though.

 

[Rechan]

Guys I was just trying to summarize the arguments in this thread against it. I am with you - I personally have no problem with damage on a miss, and have argued against all three of those points I mentioned. My players (all but one of them) thought it was cheesy though.

Right, right. I got to feeling argumentative. I appreciate the summation.