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

[LostSoul]

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.

Makes sense. I don't share those goals for play, so I wouldn't call it abusing or fiddling with the mechanics; I'd just say they were playing the game.

(By the way, that list of things to do sounds like a perfect place to put an XP system.)

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).

Yeah, I agree. I was pointing out that it can be tricky with D&D's abstract combat system, given certain goals for play.

 

[Chocolategravy]

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."

This isn't true. There is no reason you couldn't have shot the orc in the face and done regular damage. A graze on the cheek and a graze on the shoulder can be a similar damage hit.

What you're ACTUALLY saying is "I shoot the orc for lots of bonus damage!" In situations where the orc is prevented from defending itself, you can do just that with coup de grace. But since the orc is normally defending itself you can't just give yourself as much bonus damage as you want just by saying you do.

 

[LostSoul]

This isn't true. There is no reason you couldn't have shot the orc in the face and done regular damage. A graze on the cheek and a graze on the shoulder can be a similar damage hit.

What you're ACTUALLY saying is "I shoot the orc for lots of bonus damage!" In situations where the orc is prevented from defending itself, you can do just that with coup de grace. But since the orc is normally defending itself you can't just give yourself as much bonus damage as you want just by saying you do.

Well, no, what I'm actually saying at the table is "I shoot the orc in the face!" So, two things:

1. "There is no reason you couldn't have shot the orc in the face and done regular damage. A graze on the cheek and a graze on the shoulder can be a similar damage hit."

That sounds suspiciously like damage on a miss... Remember, I'm shooting him in the face. I don't think it's unreasonable to interpret a graze on the cheek as a miss.

2. If there is no difference in resolution based on what my PC does/attempts to do, then why say it? And if the answer to "whiffing" is to give the description of the attack an impact on resolution, saying that it doesn't impact resolution in any meaningful way isn't really much help.

 

[billd91]

2. If there is no difference in resolution based on what my PC does/attempts to do, then why say it? And if the answer to "whiffing" is to give the description of the attack an impact on resolution, saying that it doesn't impact resolution in any meaningful way isn't really much help.

If there's no difference in resolution, why say it? Because it's a lot better and more fun than "I hit and do 5 damage". This is a game of the imagination - encourage people to use it even if there is no mechanical effect.

 

[LostSoul]

If there's no difference in resolution, why say it? Because it's a lot better and more fun than "I hit and do 5 damage". This is a game of the imagination - encourage people to use it even if there is no mechanical effect.

I agree that it's a lot more fun. Personally I enjoy it when the mechanics tie into the description of the action - the imagined events. (Which is why I've been working on solving the issues I raised above for my goal of play.) But that's just me.

I don't know if describing failed attacks is going to help solve the issue raised in the original post. That's why I asked why you'd do it.