D&D 5E You Roll Low, Nothing Happens. Can this/should this be changed?

[iserith]

I only skimmed most of the responses, so apologies if what I'm posting now was covered.

DMG, page 242: Success at a Cost, Degrees of Failure

Basic Rules, page 58: Ability Checks, "progress with a setback."

Applying these liberally to combat situations will help mitigate the whiff factor in D&D 5e. So will encouraging your players to do things in combat other than "I swing my sword." Encourage creativity not just in describing actions and results but in what actions are taken in the first place!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I see no reason to change it, missing is part of the game, luck of the dice. The players need to do everything they can to minimize the effects but failure is part of the game. Of course its your table so if its more fun to do so go for it.

 

[JWO]

I don't really understand the problem. Surely in combat it makes sense that sometimes you swing your weapon and it either doesn't hit or it doesn't connect enough to actually do damage. Either the enemy dodges out of the way, or you connect with a particularly well armoured part of their body.

Just my opinion of course!

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Sounds like someone is from the "Everyone's a winner!" generation...

Mod Note: Rule #1 is "Keep it civil." Insulting people isn't civil. Understood everyone? Good. Thanks. ~Umbran

 

[LostSoul]

Have you tried the simultaneous initiative variant?

It's a minor change but it might make it seem like every PC action has four outcomes: miss/miss, miss/hit, hit/miss, hit/hit (assuming you're fighting one NPC; more characters increases the complexity). Only one set of rolls results in nothing happening, even though the PC misses just as often.

That may not work but it might be worth a shot.

I only skimmed most of the responses, so apologies if what I'm posting now was covered.

DMG, page 242: Success at a Cost, Degrees of Failure

Basic Rules, page 58: Ability Checks, "progress with a setback."

Applying these liberally to combat situations will help mitigate the whiff factor in D&D 5e. So will encouraging your players to do things in combat other than "I swing my sword." Encourage creativity not just in describing actions and results but in what actions are taken in the first place!

This is kind of tricky to do in D&D because you'll have to ignore the description a lot of the time - unless you want to start dealing with "called shots".

 

[iserith]

This is kind of tricky to do in D&D because you'll have to ignore the description a lot of the time - unless you want to start dealing with "called shots".

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

 

[LostSoul]

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?

Sure. I'll sblock it because it's not really related to this thread.

[sblock]If I'm playing a guy with a bow and I say, "I shoot the orc in the face!" and, on a hit, I roll standard damage, the description of my attack didn't have any affect on resolution - the same thing would have occurred had I just said, "I shoot the orc." However, if it does deal extra damage (or whatever), then the DM needs to balance that extra damage so I don't just shoot every monster I come across in the face for extra damage. Balancing that so that the player still has interesting choices to make is a tricky thing to do.

That's a pretty simple example. There are other issues with different PC actions - hitting an NPC in the leg/knee to slow or bring him down, in the eyes to blind, chopping at the hands to disarm/maim and deal damage, grappling with a lock to break bones, etc.

Solving this design problem is tricky. You can't just apply disadvantage; then, whenever it's dark out, PCs are going to shoot people in the face. A set of flat modifiers might work, but that'll slow combat down as the DM applies those modifiers for each action. Even if that works, the whole idea of damage based on weapon type becomes jarring - stabbing someone in plate mail in the groin with a dagger is probably going to be more lethal that swinging at him or her with your longsword.[/sblock]

 

[kermel]

Sounds like someone is from the "Everyone's a winner!" generation...

I don't know about the OP, but for me this is not about winning or losing, is about getting interesting fights. Beating the crap out of your enemy = interesting. Getting your ass handed to you = interesting. Miss - miss - miss - miss - long streak of nothing happening = not interesting.

[video=youtube;8amLdrMTEJE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8amLdrMTEJE[/video]

That's why 13th Age has the Escalation Die, to keep the ball rolling, to avoid getting stuck in a snorefest.

 

[Gecko85]

I don't know about the OP, but for me this is not about winning or losing, is about getting interesting fights. Beating the crap out of your enemy = interesting. Getting your ass handed to you = interesting. Miss - miss - miss - miss - long streak of nothing happening = not interesting.

[video=youtube;8amLdrMTEJE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8amLdrMTEJE[/video]

That's why 13th Age has the Escalation Die, to keep the ball rolling, to avoid getting stuck in a snorefest.

Here's a famously epic fight, and it's almost all misses (counting blocks as misses):

http://youtu.be/lC6dgtBU6Gs

 

[iserith]

Sure. I'll sblock it because it's not really related to this thread.

[sblock]If I'm playing a guy with a bow and I say, "I shoot the orc in the face!" and, on a hit, I roll standard damage, the description of my attack didn't have any affect on resolution - the same thing would have occurred had I just said, "I shoot the orc." However, if it does deal extra damage (or whatever), then the DM needs to balance that extra damage so I don't just shoot every monster I come across in the face for extra damage. Balancing that so that the player still has interesting choices to make is a tricky thing to do.

That's a pretty simple example. There are other issues with different PC actions - hitting an NPC in the leg/knee to slow or bring him down, in the eyes to blind, chopping at the hands to disarm/maim and deal damage, grappling with a lock to break bones, etc.

Solving this design problem is tricky. You can't just apply disadvantage; then, whenever it's dark out, PCs are going to shoot people in the face. A set of flat modifiers might work, but that'll slow combat down as the DM applies those modifiers for each action. Even if that works, the whole idea of damage based on weapon type becomes jarring - stabbing someone in plate mail in the groin with a dagger is probably going to be more lethal that swinging at him or her with your longsword.[/sblock]

I see what you mean. In my view, this is an easy situation to avoid as it has nothing to do with fiddling with mechanics and much more to do with achieving the Goals of Play. I thus have no problem adjudicating "called shots" as they arise because I know the players at the table agree with the Goals of Play and wouldn't seek to abuse mechanics in a way that causes them to fail to achieve them.

As it relates to this thread, encouraging players to do things other than "I swing my sword" is key to mitigating the whiff factor that has plagued D&D since its inception. There are many ways to affect the outcome of a conflict other than relying upon an attack roll. It just takes paying attention to the environment, remembering your goals, stating your approach, and having a DM that will fairly adjudicate (also with an eye toward achieving the goals of play).

By way of example, my 3rd-level folk hero fighter, Butch Uprise, has used his battleaxe a total of 4 times despite being in many combats. What I do instead is look for creative and exciting things to do that are also effective and just say what I'm doing, allowing the DM to adjudicate accordingly. I've beaten kobolds to death with a kobold under the effect of a sleep spell, threatened a rat's nest to pull the swarms off my allies and onto me, knocked down pillars in a chamber so the roof collapsed on the beast within. And so on. Attack rolls come with a potential whiff attached. Do stuff that will likely be adjudicated into an ability check and the DM has more tools as his or her disposal to make failure on that check more interesting (progress with a setback, success at a cost, etc.).