D&D 5E Q&A 10/17/13 - Crits, Damage on Miss, Wildshape

[Argyle King]

Strap yourself in this is going to be a long one.


Which is represented ALREADY by two different mechanics, both of which relate to the armor the person is wearing. The first is bonus to AC (DnD's typical method) to say that if you are wearing better armor, you are harder to vitally hit. And if you are wearing leather that you are still going to take damage from a similar (attack roll) attack whereas the guy in full plate won't.

The second of course is damage reduction, which IMO more closely approximates this relation. But it is one that DnD has historically shied away from using. As such all resolution of attack vs. armor is done with a single roll vs. AC. This model of "yeah, but so strong you still do damage on a MISS" doesn't reflect the one roll to hit history or model that DnD uses.

It's worth reposting the second part of what I said...

Though, I'm not entirely sure that makes sense in the context of D&D. Though, to be fair, with the amount of abstraction involved in HP and AC, it might make sense. There's a lot of room for interpretation when it comes to D&D combat. While I prefer less abstract mechanics, I understand that a certain level of abstraction is an engrained part of D&D combat.

Thoughts about 5E after a hands one session at the local gaming store tonight...

I tried to take into consideration that the rules being used were playtest rules and not the final product. However, there seemed to be a world of difference between the stock pregen characters (of which I play one,) and characters that players made themselves. System mastery appears to be very much alive in 5E. I'm unsure how I feel about the combination of a game which is less complex than 4E, but also appears less balanced than 3rd; there were a few moments when that was the worst of both worlds for me as a player.

It was not all negative though. I liked having an additional die to roll concerning certain skills with my character. I was playing the dwarven fighter pregen, but I asked the GM if I could swap out the soldier background for the guide background. After leveling up the pregen (to level 3 so I'd be on par with the other players,) I chose The Path of The Knight. Even though my charisma was terrible, the extra d4 I was able to roll on Cha checks was actually very helpful (and at worst cancelled the penalty to such checks from my 8 Cha.) So, I like the flatter math and how it seems to be implemented outside of combat. Trying something non-optimal wasn't the same as trying something suicidal or worthless in other editions.

However, combat seemed to be all over the place when it comes to balance. Somehow, even though there is (supposedly) flatter math, it certainly doesn't seem more flat in actual play. As I said above, there was a world of difference between my pregen and the character of a guy who made his own. I was struggling to do 1d8+3 (max of 11 damage,) while his gnome barbarian duel-wielding finesse weapons was rolling twice on most attacks (more accurate) and also doing way more damage; all while not have a very noticeable sacrifice in terms of defense.

Another thing that seemed to make combat feel all over the place was the perception that (this may be wrong, but it's how things worked out in play) that most everybody has a great to-hit, but a relatively crap defense. This lead to some encounters feeling a lot like rocket tag.

All-in-all, combat felt like a mixed bag. To some extent, I felt my defensive abilities as a fighter helped the party; I was able to absorb hits which were intended for other party members. However, there were a lot of times when I felt as though I could have been having a lot more fun and could have been far more useful to the party had I picked a different character. I was able to contrast this with a second table who had no fighters at all; were caster heavy, and they completely steamrolled the Encounters session. In fact, they were finished with their entire session before the group I was with even made it through one combat. In the end, I was stuck feeling as though my character had little or no impact on how things turned out. I took a ton of damage, and then used my second wind to heal, so I suppose I soaked attacks -which is good? However, I didn't feel as though I contributed to the party in any other way; I felt I was struggling to keep up with the rest of the party. Like I said, I often felt I would have had both more fun and more input on how things played out had I played something else.

Edit: Somehow it worked out that the minimum damage the Gnome could do was 9.

 

[Tovec]

I'm going to have to cut for poignancy and space. If there is something relevant that I'm excluding feel free to bring it back up, as I'm sure you will even if it is not relevant.

And if we were talking about English, I would agree you have a point. But we're talking about D&D.

My bad, I didn't realize that English was unfair to use in a discussion about things. I'll try in Norwegian next time.

In D&D "hit" and "miss" have entirely different connotations and definitions--a hit is something that removes your hit points. A miss is something that doesn't. We probably agree with each other up to that point.

A hit is something that succeeds and allows you to roll damage.
A miss is something that does not.

Now they're adding a third category...a fighter that is so dangerous that the most you can do is minimize the damage, not stop it completely. Which incidentally is something completely plausible to me.

Now we enter a new category. Where the fighter has special snowflake status that allows him to "hit on a miss". Thereby inverting what miss means and allowing him to deal damage in a situation where others don't.

What you are describing by the way, damage because it hits the armor (or whatever) and "hurts them" for fatigue, is not modeled well by this description. If it were it would not allow for a person to die on a miss. It also doesn't explain situations where a creature would otherwise be completely NOT STRUCK (was going to say missed, but you apparently dislike that word in the language which I am currently using). Also, what you are seeking to achieve would more accurately be modeled in the existing system of roll vs AC if heavier armor also gave a form of DR, and if all armor turned attacks into fatigue points - where only a small fraction of actual damage is considered real damage that actually bleeds and hurts you. Also, it interferes with how contact poison works.

Now, at any time you would like to address these SEVERAL major mechanics in relation to the "snowflake" ability to hit on a miss - go right ahead.
(And just so we're clear, I'm talking about he rule as it is right now, not the modified one you are trying to suggest. I have a modification too - don't hit on a miss but instead give some other benefit on a hit.)

(emphases added)

If I count correctly, you make variations on the same claim nine times: the fighter's player doesn't need to roll to hit (5 times), or can somehow roll a zero on damage dice (once), and, within the dramatic world, could be "snapping his fingers" (twice) "with zero effort" (once).

Cool. I didn't realize that I said each of those things so many times.......

[sarcasm]That really turns me around on this conversation.[/sarcasm]

Each of these claims is false (mistaken, as I see it) based on what is stated in the rules of the testpack.

I can understand why you think so. I'll go out on a limb and predict that Mistwell is going to say that I am supposed to have you read my mind for what is going to follow.

With that said, I guess I'll answer each of these in turn.

* In order to "miss", the fighter's player does need to make an attack roll (and so be in combat and choosing to make an attack roll as her action) -- How to play, p. 19 "Attack basics".

I understand that. What I am saying is that he doesn't need to roll - because no matter what the roll result is he kills the villager. If the fighter rolls a 20 he kills the villager. If he rolls a 1 he kills the villager. He doesn't need to roll. He still needs to "attack" but he doesn't need to roll.

* damage dice are only rolled on a hit, and zero is not a result that ever arises -- How to play, p. 20 "damage rolls"

He doesn't need to roll damage. If the villager has 3 HP and the fighter can do 4-25k damage, he doesn't need to roll damage. This means that even if he could roll 0 on damage dice (which as far as I know - by itself - is impossible) he would kill the villager.

* to gain the benefit described as a first-level character (others can get it at higher levels), the character needs to be a fighter who has chosen one of five fighting styles (Classes, p. 25), and the character needs to "miss a target with a melee weapon which you are wielding with two hands". There are therefore a number of conditions that need to be met, and snapping fingers , even one handed, would mean that they are not being met.

Alright, this one is fair - except you again miss the point I am making. I'm not suggesting that the fighter can (or should be able to) snap his fingers and get this effect to occur. However, my issue is that he deals 3 damage to the villager based upon his strength. As such it doesn't matter what the weapon damage is dealing - at all. He may as well snap his fingers, or whistle, or dance around. So long as he "attacks" he automatically kills the villager because he is just so strong.

* indeed the rules do describe circumstances which are "so easy, so free of stress or conflict...that there should be no chance of failure" (DM Guidelines, p. 1) in which rolls are not needed -- which may be taken to include your "zero effort". Since a melee attack roll is needed, this by definition isn't one of those circumstances, and the specific rule provides a unique case in which the "chance of failure" to roll a weapon's damage die, modified, etc., does damage to the target in any case.

Right, but when a 1 means he still does this - he doesn't need to roll. His zero effort means that as long as he gets to attack the villager - even while blindfolded - he kills that villager. Without any effort. He doesn't need to roll an attack. He doesn't need to roll damage. He could have disadvantage on his rolls. The villager could be wearing full plate. He could be the most dextrous guy in the world (really high AC). And still the fighter kills him with zero effort - not needing to roll, because on a 1 on every die he kills the guy. The rogue sure as hell doesn't do that. He still needs to sneak attack, or poison, or position, or whatever.

* snapping isn't "improvising an action" either: a DM may allow you to snap fingers while wielding a two-handed weapon, etc. (How to play, p. 19), but the damage will be done by the attack.

See above for snapping.

* I get that people's understanding of what hit points represent varies, so again, let's read what's been given to us (How to play, p. 22): "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Hit points are an abstraction..." Of the four things here, only one of them (physical durability) pertains to the circumstances you describe, as I see it, leaving the other three that could be represented by the damage that is being done to your hypothetical villagers.

How does poison interact with a wound? I don't mean in this situation. I mean in general, contact poison on a blade hits a target. Is it a wound then? Does it get into the target's bloodstream and start to harm him (ignoring the fortitude/constitution save for the moment)? These are the kinds of situations where HP are certainly NOT an abstraction to me. I consider EVERY HIT to be meat. Always have. There are some, very few, situations where it might be something else but those are not the normal. At the very least, this ability screws around with how HP work. And how AC works. And how armor and DR work. I get that those things are "an abstraction". But my point and issue is that this goes "those things don't make sense, I know, let's make it worse" when they should instead of trying to make it better or at least not draw attention to the issue.

Ok, with your gun analogy, are you then saying you can't learn anything from your miss? Adjust your next shot based on factors that made you miss the first time? Are you saying that a "miss" in D&D must be "utter and total failure that cannot be learned from" for you to be happy with it?

Edit: Changed to ask about your thoughts instead of assigning.

Sure, maybe you do study the attack, somehow increasing the bonus to the attack roll next time. Maybe you don't. Maybe you just unload the clip. I don't see any reason why you should automatically get a bonus (to damage wasn't it? it's been a while ago in these responses and I forget the specifics) to hit the next time - just because you failed?? You failed, next time you may not. You failed, next time you may do something different. Not "you failed, therefore next time you are better." You may be, but failing shouldn't (by itself) be the thing that makes you better - learning from the failure should be.

Roughly half the things I listed can be done to avoid taking his strength damage. Things like mirror image, for example, or the pit he's standing on triggering if he steps on it to get next to me. Here's another one: I ready an action to move my speed if the fighter stands next to me and tries to hit me. Here's another one: I ready an action to cast a wall between us (illusionary one or a real one) if he steps next to me. See, it's really not that hard to do something to avoid taking the damage.

Sigh (again). Mirror image is still a spell isn't it? A pit? Where did you pull that out? Readying an action to move away. Casting an illusory wall (or real one).

Okay, two of those are magic (right?) which I covered already as "magic". The next one requires literally moving out of the melee/five foot away range - which bypasses/ignores the question instead of ANSWERING IT. The last one is to use a triggered trap... somehow. None of these are things that can be done that actually address the issue of the ability. They are things to avoid being in the situation. They are also the same things that can be done to avoid ANY attack by anyone. They are nothing to avoid this specific ability, which essentially means that if you are in melee with the fighter you are dead.

Now, let me look at the original examples you gave.

Of course you do. Don't get in the fighter's melee range. It's a pretty common tactic, and abilities like cunning action and flight and burrowing and swimming and pit traps are just for such situations. Also, mirror image, and other illusion spells, deals with it pretty well, as does anything that denies the fighter the ability to target you, like full cover. Lots of things deal with it. It's really common to deal with situations where you don't want something to get a melee attack off against you.

Don't be in the melee range? Yeah, excellent solution to "being in the melee range and living".
Flight? Okay, how are you getting that sans-magic?
Pit traps, mirror image, and illusion spells (again - obviously, see above).

You gave me a list of places they could be, but not things they could DO to avoid it.

I gave you both.

No, you didn't give me things they can do. You said traps and magic. Magic being of course the answer to all problems, is not an answer to this one. And none of what you have given me helps the villager (including cunning action).

Much of what I said was not magic. You just chose to ignore the list and then pretend it was all some sort of magical hand-waive. Again, poor form.

Of the list given this time, two were magic, one was a pit trap, one ignored the situation entirely. That is hardly "much" non-magic.

Cool. Problem solved - he needs to make an attack roll to use the ability. And to make the attack roll, he must be able to target. And that targeting is nixed by a large variety of things.

As apparently you are not reading anything not replied to you - go see the responses I gave to Kobold Stew's much better arguments against all this.

Cool. Then you have no problem because he has to roll.

No he doesn't! Again, see my responses to KS.

The result is identical with or without the ability to do damage on a miss, however. Which is one reason your example is flawed. If the ability has no impact on the results, why does it bother you, and why is it an "accurate" example?

Actually it does have impact. It has impact on how many he kills before he is put down. I say put down, because obviously you can't allow creatures that can do something like this to realistically live in-universe. But it does matter HOW he kills the villagers. It speaks to how balanced (for lack of a better word) an ability is.

But beyond that, why not let the fighter have this on a larger scale. Give him an ability that says he "autokills" anyone he gets in melee with. He can choose not to of course, saving allies and prisoners, but anyone else he gets into melee with - on the fighter's turn they die - just fall over dead. The enemy may get a good swing or two in, especially if they pile up, but they're going to die as long as they are in melee. This works, by your logic, because the fighter was going to kill them anyway so no big deal. Right? Doesn't matter so long as the end result is the same?

The same exact result happens with, or without, the ability. Your example doesn't get to break all the rules of the game. The fighter gets one attack on his turn, and then 19 other people get one attack on their turn.

He is the only one who gets to do all of that without needing to succeed on a d20 roll. Going back to the 3e bits I gave before - even the wizard should be rolling a d20 to hit the square at the center of the room - the fighter doesn't need to. He always hits the square, he doesn't even have a 1 in 20 chance of not doing it.

Well I am so glad you gave the villagers a turn finally, even if they only get a turn in your world if the character is a wizard.

I gave the villagers a turn, as you describe it, because the wizard only has 1 fireball spell. The fighter can do what he is doing, killing anyone who gets into melee with him, ALL DAY LONG - as long as he still has HP.

He does need to roll. He needs to roll, and miss, to trigger the ability. It takes his turn. That's it. The wizard needs to roll for some spells as well, but still does damage whether or not he hits or misses, also.

I don't know about all spells in 5e (or even most I daresay) but in 3e only reflex saves saved for half. Fortitude saves saved for zero (usually). Same went for will saves (save to negate). So, no wizards didn't do the same thing. Also, this ability for the fighter isn't a global (area of effect) ability. It doesn't hit all space in all squares. If it did I wouldn't have this objection (I'd likely have others but not this one). If he wants to have an area of effect type effect .... then it should affect an area. If he wants to have a poison type effect (requiring a fort/con save) then he should use poison. Fireballs and swords are not the same thing.

100 out of 100 times he kills you - first round, without a weapon, naked, blindfolded.

Except if one of the many defenses I mentioned is used, in which case most of the time the fighter fails to kill. Is it really that hard to imagine "Gack, rampaging fighter! I ready an action to flee max speed if he steps next to me looking to hit me!"?

You tried to address the "blindfolded, naked, without a weapon" parts, but didn't touch the 100/100 first round bits. As I said (and you ignored, funny that) a rogue fails to hit (assuming he has the best 'to hit' in the world) 1 in 20. The fighter fails to hit... NEVER. He fails to do damage... NEVER. He fails to kill the villager on the first round..... NEVER.

Start addressing the "Nevers" if you please.

 

[tomtill]

* I get that people's understanding of what hit points represent varies, so again, let's read what's been given to us (How to play, p. 22): "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Hit points are an abstraction..."

Hoo boy, you can say that again. Again and again. And somehow, it never sticks.

Losing HP has nothing to do, mechanically, with suffering an injury.

If you have 60 hp, and somebody rolls a natural 20, and does maximum possible damage upon your person with a massive battle axe, you will suffer no injury, except as described by fluff. You will not have any massive gaping wound pumping out your life's blood, you will not have broken bones or a caved in skull, you will not even have sweat dripping into your eyes to blind you. Except as described by fluff.

There will be no impact upon your ability to do battle (except for certain class features).

Mechanically, the only fall out from the worse possible thing that anyone can do to you with a battle axe is that you are now a bit closer to that point where a single blow does matter. Losing HP creates stress in the player because things start to get real when you get into the HP range where a single blow can kill you. Still, it's only the transition from 1 hp to 0 hp that matters.

In truth, the only time in the history of the game that DnD HP loss has ever mechanically represented "injury", is when you go from 1 hp to 0 hp. Everything else is fluff.

You can lose 59 of your 60 hp, and mechanically, you are right as rain, with zero impact upon your ability to perform (massive damage rules in some editions aside). You are 100% an effective combat soldier, with no wounds that have any mechanical effect, as long as you don't lose that 1 additional hp.

Wounds, bleeding, injury, trauma, etc mechanically have nothing to do with HP. They are either fluff, or come from a different subsystem grafted onto or triggered by the HP system.

HP is a gamist abstraction that measures your likelihood of surviving an attack. If the maximal damage from an attack is low relative to your HP, you will definitely survive. You have no chance of dying. If the maximal damage from an attack is more than your HP, you run the risk of dying (maybe). If you have a lot of HP, you can fight a long time before you even have to worry. If you have a few HP, even a mundane dog bite can be lethal.

Some people try to make HP a simulationist concept, because they wish there was such an easy to use and straightforward concept that could simulate taking injury in battle. It only takes a few minutes of unbiased thought about what HP is, mechanically, to understand that HP can never be anything but a gamist abstraction.

If you want a simulationist combat system, you will have to look elsewhere, and it will be either rules light, or very very rules heavy (and good luck finding players).

If you are arguing about what HP "represents" in DnD, you are arguing about fluff.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Sure, maybe you do study the attack, somehow increasing the bonus to the attack roll next time. Maybe you don't. Maybe you just unload the clip. I don't see any reason why you should automatically get a bonus (to damage wasn't it? it's been a while ago in these responses and I forget the specifics) to hit the next time - just because you failed??

It's not automatic. It's if you specifically train yourself to take advantage of that. Just like the current fighting style isn't automatic to all Fighters, not even all two-handed weapon Fighters (as someone pointed out they could choose Defense or Protection), just those who specifically train themselves to take advantage of such tactics.

 

[Mistwell]

Sigh (again). Mirror image is still a spell isn't it? A pit? Where did you pull that out? Readying an action to move away. Casting an illusory wall (or real one).

Okay, two of those are magic (right?) which I covered already as "magic". The next one requires literally moving out of the melee/five foot away range - which bypasses/ignores the question instead of ANSWERING IT.

First, lets clear something up. This whole thing started with you complaining that nothing in the game counters this tactic. You then moved the ball to try and make it about "dodging". But who cares how you avoid the damage, as long as you avoid the damage? The goal you were seeking is "stopping this from working, with any ability in the game". And the answer is "lots of things can do it". You cannot reduce it down to just dodging for your own convenience - that ignores the topic and just presents an entirely meaningless reduction so you can pretend to hit the "i win" button. Our goal here is to explore whether the auto damage can be prevented by things in the game. And I am saying it can be.

Second, I am not sure why you thought it was an honest thing to do, to cut most of the list of things I named and then claim I only listed a few, but I'm not a fool Tovec. Here is the list I have given you so far, most of which you ignored not once, but sometimes twice:

1) Abilities like cunning action (which I've repeated twice, and went into some depth on, and WHICH IS NOT MAGIC and which is for this very situation - it's the Evasion replacement, mostly);
2) flight
3) burrowing
4) swimming
5) pit traps
6) mirror image
7) other illusion spells like illusionary wall
8) anything that denies the fighter the ability to target you, like full cover
9) ready an action to move my speed if the fighter stands next to me and tries to hit me
10) ready an action to create a wall of stone between us if the fighter stands next to me and tries to hit me

That's just the things I've named so far, and at least half the list is non-magic in nature.

The last one is to use a triggered trap... somehow. None of these are things that can be done that actually address the issue of the ability.

All of them do. The "issue" is being auto-damaged by a miss. It is addressed by disallowing the fighter from targeting you with a melee attack, in a variety of ways, because use of the ability requires targeting you.

They are things to avoid being in the situation. They are also the same things that can be done to avoid ANY attack by anyone. They are nothing to avoid this specific ability, which essentially means that if you are in melee with the fighter you are dead.

Well of course they didn't include an ability that JUST applies to avoiding this one sub-classes on sub-ability! Don't be silly Tovec, any answer is going to be more general than that. Evasion was never just for one sub-classes sub-ability either! The issue is "how do you avoid taking this auto-damage" ad all of these are ways in the game to do so. There is no rule that it has to be something tailored just for this ability.

Now, let me look at the original examples you gave.

Don't be in the melee range? Yeah, excellent solution to "being in the melee range and living".
Flight? Okay, how are you getting that sans-magic?
Pit traps, mirror image, and illusion spells (again - obviously, see above).

I don't know why you think "magic doesn't count". But magic counts. You claimed things couldn't avoid the damage - many things avoid the damage. Some are magic, some are not. Why is it relevant that it be mundane?

No, you didn't give me things they can do. You said traps and magic. Magic being of course the answer to all problems, is not an answer to this one. And none of what you have given me helps the villager (including cunning action).

Wait wait wait...so now you're saying it's not that there is no ability in the game to avoid the damage, but just that your typical villager must do it - even though your counter-example was Evasion from 3e which villagers didn't have? Tovec, NO VILLAGER, IN ANY GAME, IS GOING TO SURVIVE. Come on, you're being really disingenuously reductionist here to avoid dealing with this issue head-on. There are abilities in this game which effectively deal with the ability in question. But if any character wants to just kill a peasant, they will be able to kill a peasant. The context is the real challenges an adventurer might face - and those challenges have plenty of options like those I named. THAT is being genuine about this issue.

Of the list given this time, two were magic, one was a pit trap, one ignored the situation entirely. That is hardly "much" non-magic.

Did you not read the list, ignore the list, or are you fibbing? That ten point list is all things I mentioned in prior posts to you in this thread.

As apparently you are not reading anything not replied to you - go see the responses I gave to Kobold Stew's much better arguments against all this.

Wow, OK, now who is not paying attention. Hey Tovec, YOU GAVE THOSE ANSWERS IN THE VERY POST YOU SAID THIS IN! Look up! You what, wanted me to read your mind, or predict you would answer him that way? I get it, you have a lot to reply to. But, this is a pretty big error for you to be making.

Regardless, NOW I've read them, because you just gave them, and you do not address this issue. You must roll an attack to use the ability. Period. And the ability to roll an attack is contingent on a number of things, one of which is the ability to target something. If you can deny the ability to target, you deny the use of this ability. This is all relevant. So stop saying you can do it without even making an attack roll - you MUST make an attack roll to use the ability.

No he doesn't! Again, see my responses to KS.

Again, you made that response contemporaneous with this reply I am replying to right now. You're coming off...poorly...by not realizing that and then repeating it again.

Actually it does have impact. It has impact on how many he kills before he is put down.

He kills ONE. Same number he'd kill without the ability. That's it. It has no impact. The villager has a low AC and a rotten Dex. The fighter has a high attack bonus, and high damage bonus, and will be acting first in your scenario. One villager dies, and then the fighter dies, regardless of the ability.

I say put down, because obviously you can't allow creatures that can do something like this to realistically live in-universe. But it does matter HOW he kills the villagers. It speaks to how balanced (for lack of a better word) an ability is.

If it's meaningless for your example, then I am waiting to hear how it impacts balance appreciably at all. I mean, if it's meaningless for such an unrealistic example like a villager, it's REALLY meaningless for someone with a counter-ability like cunning action.

But beyond that, why not let the fighter have this on a larger scale. Give him an ability that says he "autokills" anyone he gets in melee with. He can choose not to of course, saving allies and prisoners, but anyone else he gets into melee with - on the fighter's turn they die - just fall over dead. The enemy may get a good swing or two in, especially if they pile up, but they're going to die as long as they are in melee. This works, by your logic, because the fighter was going to kill them anyway so no big deal. Right? Doesn't matter so long as the end result is the same?

He auto-kills villagers with three hit points or less. He's going to do that anyway Tovec. Yes, it's no big deal. He's going to auto-kill a single peasant if he wants to. As spelled out above, the DM even has rules to simply declare that he kills the villager with no roll, even without this ability.

He is the only one who gets to do all of that without needing to succeed on a d20 roll.

Everyone is going to be able to kill a villager if they want to. Everyone.

Going back to the 3e bits I gave before - even the wizard should be rolling a d20 to hit the square at the center of the room - the fighter doesn't need to. He always hits the square, he doesn't even have a 1 in 20 chance of not doing it.

The wizard does not need to hit anything. He just waves his hand and aims vaguely near the center, and they all die. It's a fireball. The entire tavern just went up in flames, they all took more fire damage than they have in hit points, they're all dead.

They're peasants Tovec.

I gave the villagers a turn, as you describe it, because the wizard only has 1 fireball spell. The fighter can do what he is doing, killing anyone who gets into melee with him, ALL DAY LONG - as long as he still has HP.

He does it once per turn (that's all he is allowed), and if the villagers get a turn, he cannot do it at all because he just got tackled by as many of those 20 villagers as can grapple him or aid-another on grappling him. Once he's held, he can no longer target anything with an attack.

You tried to address the "blindfolded, naked, without a weapon" parts, but didn't touch the 100/100 first round bits.

Look again. I addressed it directly.

As I said (and you ignored, funny that) a rogue fails to hit (assuming he has the best 'to hit' in the world) 1 in 20. The fighter fails to hit... NEVER. He fails to do damage... NEVER. He fails to kill the villager on the first round..... NEVER.

Start addressing the "Nevers" if you please.

Who cares? They ALL will be able to kill a villager if they want to. The Rogue has advantage and sneak attack, and with assassinate will auto-crit for max damage. And he can do it AT RANGE with a very high attack bonus, and then move and hide after. So if he happened to roll a 1, he can just do it again on round 2 because the villagers spend the next round looking for him. The Wizard magic missiles (auto hit, auto kill the villager). The Cleric with War Priest sub-class with get a PLUS 10 on his attack role and WILL ATTACK TWICE. Heck he can even move between those two attacks and kill two villagers! They all will kill at least one villager Tovec.

 

[Kobold Stew]

. What I am saying is that he doesn't need to roll -
<snip>
He doesn't need to roll damage.
<snip>
my issue is that
<snip>
- he doesn't need to roll. His zero effort

You think that we don't understand your position. We do. It's not even that we disagree with it. But what you state is contrary to the rules, as released so far. Your impressions are valid as far as your table, but beyond that, they are not convincing.

 

[Iosue]

Area of effect. Meaning, it HITS all the squares in the area. It isn't aiming to hit your torso, head, arm, leg, or any part of a single person's body. It is aiming to hit the square. Technically in the 3e days you had to roll to hit that square. After you do hit the square everyone in the affected area need to roll to save - to take less damage as they are stuck in the area.

Example:
I can shoot a gun at you. I may HIT and succeed at placing a bullet in you. I may MISS and fail to put a bullet in you. I may "crit succeed" and shoot you in a vital organ.
Or I can throw a grenade at you. If I can hit the square, the physical place you are standing, then I succeed in blowing up the grenade in that square. Your chance for NOT taking damage is to be lucky and succeed on a save. If you are unlucky you take the full brunt of the effect. There is no situation (where you don't have cover or something) where you take zero damage from me lobbing a grenade.

Now, two handed swords, like all melee weapons and all ranged weapons, require a roll to HIT a person. When they do you can start to roll damage to see how badly someone is hit.
Fireballs/dragon's breath do not require a hit. You take damage for being in the area, even if it is only half damage - from it hitting behind you or something.

All of this cleanly misses the point. My point is not "but saves allow half damage", my point is you can be successful in your "saving throw" and still not be "saved". Many critics of "damage on a miss", and most specifically your very response above run right to the literal meaning of the words. "But 'miss'!" I'm saying you can make saving throws that don't save you, so it's no stretch for misses that do damage.

Can we drop the "but fireballs/dragon's fire" gag now?

No, because it's the elephant in the room. If someone says, like Morrus did earlier in the thread, "Okay, I can see how damage on a miss is like half-damage on saved AoEs, but personally it just doesn't feel right to me", then fine. Subjective reaction. But when people try to prove that its an objectively silly idea, and whip out ad hominems like "special snowflake", then they have to show why half-damage on AoE saves are okay, but STR mod damage on a miss are not. They have to show why literal semantic meaning is so important for "hit" and "miss", but not important for "save". But they can't. It's the same principle at work: simple terms generalized to abstract representations of combat.

 

[Leatherhead]

Having thought about the issue of "damage on miss", I have concluded that I like the idea of every attack doing damage on a miss. With riders being the parts of the attack that fail. It makes combat much more risky, and it could be a way to offset combat healing.

 

[wedgeski]

Having thought about the issue of "damage on miss", I have concluded that I like the idea of every attack doing damage on a miss. With riders being the parts of the attack that fail. It makes combat much more risky, and it could be a way to offset combat healing.

This had occured to me as well. There is the psychological gamer impact of being forever on a downward slope, where every combat is a ticking clock, but it would be a pretty good model for fatigue and would certainly render 90% of this thread completely moot.

 

[Argyle King]

Having thought about the issue of "damage on miss", I have concluded that I like the idea of every attack doing damage on a miss. With riders being the parts of the attack that fail. It makes combat much more risky, and it could be a way to offset combat healing.

This had occured to me as well. There is the psychological gamer impact of being forever on a downward slope, where every combat is a ticking clock, but it would be a pretty good model for fatigue and would certainly render 90% of this thread completely moot.

How would you balance ranged and area attacks? If every attack does damage on a miss, the obviously optimal strategy would be to throw as many ranged and area attacks as you can at the enemy; even missing all of them would be potentially better than actually hitting with a melee attack due to the auto damage applying to multiple people and being applied from further away.