D&D 5E I Don't Like Damage On A Miss

[Ahnehnois]

What is a hit? What is a miss?

Let's try this definition:
A "hit" occurs when a character strikes an opponent with a weapon and inflicts meaningful physical harm. A "miss" is when a character attempts to do this, but it unsuccessful.

In this paradigm, damage on a miss is nonsensical.

Let's try this:
A "hit" occurs when a character may or may not have physically struck his opponent with a weapon but somwhow caused that opponent to have a diminished fighting capacity. A "miss" is when a character attempts to do this, but it unsuccessful.

In this paradigm damage on a miss is still nonsensical.

***

It should be clear that:
*The first definition of hits and misses makes more sense and is more easily operationalized for a game.
*Damage on a miss makes no sense in any remotely D&D-like paradigm.

Of course, all those other things people said about damage on a miss being anticlimactic and unbalanced are true too.

Let's nip this design mistake in the bud.

Urgh, I really hate the dissociation caused by radically different rules for NPCs vs. PCs. Sure, NPCs should be simpler. And that's it - just simpler (out of practicality), not randomly different for no good reason.

XP is off, but that sounds like the voice of reason to me.

 

[ren1999]

Urgh, I really hate the dissociation caused by radically different rules for NPCs vs. PCs. Sure, NPCs should be simpler. And that's it - just simpler (out of practicality), not randomly different for no good reason.

It is for this reason that I believe that monsters and characters should be subject to the same rules. If characters do automatic hit and damage then monsters should get the same. If characters can do 20d6 damage or whatever high level damage with a lightning bolt then so should a monster. If monsters have a 30 ability, while not possible for a human, a human should be able to use magic that the DM allows in the game to increase his ability to 30 too!

I can accept many proposals in the 5th edition play-test now as long as the rules for PC and NPC are the same.

You want to cap humanoids to 20 strength, fine but allow for the possibility of a magically enhanced strength of 30 to match that of the most powerful monster's strength.

You want to take away automatic toHit bonuses every 2 levels, fine but give us a +1 ability bonus choice every level to compensate and give us better toHits without increasing our total ability scores above 20 and our natural bonuses over a natural +5.

 

[herrozerro]

It is for this reason that I believe that monsters and characters should be subject to the same rules. If characters do automatic hit and damage then monsters should get the same. If characters can do 20d6 damage or whatever high level damage with a lightning bolt then so should a monster. If monsters have a 30 ability, while not possible for a human, a human should be able to use magic that the DM allows in the game to increase his ability to 30 too!

All of this can be possible without being built by the same rules. You dont need monsters to have feats for this to be possible, you can jsut give it the trait of being able to do so.

All requiring monster to e built the same way as PCs does is severely limit the kind of NPCs or Monsters that can be made.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

On the topic of misses not making sense when they deal damage:
That's a nonsensical distinction. What do you think a "miss" on a melee attack represents?

I think a miss which by definition of trying to hit is failure to do so. It is failure to make contact. it is a whiff.

Unless you rolled a 1, you missed because you didn't beat the AC. In other words, the attacked creature likely deflected the blow with his shield, his armor, or his naturally thick skin. Or maybe he even dodged.

In 3.x/PF this uncertainty is cleared up somewhat by the use of touch AC. If you couldn't make the touch AC then you missed. Otherwise it was one of a possible assortment of things that protected the target. Not perfect and there are certainly ways to make this mechanic clearer but there you go.

I would prefer that the mechanics didn't obfuscate whether the target had been struck or not. I suppose I would also like hit points split into wounds and then everything else hit points represent for a better mix of clarity and abstraction but that ain't gonna happen. I'm not expecting this in the core rules but I would sincerely appreciate it if they didn't make it harder to unmix the chocolate and peanut butter in creating an advanced module for this stuff by including misses possibly killing and other obfuscations of believabilty. Leave such stuff out of the core rules and add it in the wahoo rules module for the people that like such stuff.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Fifth Element]

Imagine you are 1st level and you are fighting several monsters with reaper and some roll a higher initiative. They decide to all attack you first because you are the weakest. All reapers miss you but because they do half damage you die without having the chance to roll once. You then storm out of the game to go complain on a forum about this new game.

Imagine you are 1st level and you are fighting several monsters with 1/2 damage on a save effects and some roll a higher initiative. They decide to all target you first because you are the weakest. You make all of your saves but because they do half damage you die without having the chance to do anything. You then storm out of the game to go complain on a forum about this old game.

I mean, it's called a "save". If it doesn't "save" you then why is it called a save?

 

[slobo777]

What is a hit? What is a miss?

Let's try this definition:
A "hit" occurs when a character strikes an opponent with a weapon and inflicts meaningful physical harm. A "miss" is when a character attempts to do this, but it unsuccessful.

In this paradigm, damage on a miss is nonsensical.

Let's try this:
A "hit" occurs when a character may or may not have physically struck his opponent with a weapon but somwhow caused that opponent to have a diminished fighting capacity. A "miss" is when a character attempts to do this, but it unsuccessful.

In this paradigm damage on a miss is still nonsensical.

***

It should be clear that:
*The first definition of hits and misses makes more sense and is more easily operationalized for a game.
*Damage on a miss makes no sense in any remotely D&D-like paradigm.

Of course, all those other things people said about damage on a miss being anticlimactic and unbalanced are true too.

Let's nip this design mistake in the bud.

I read the reaper ability simpler than that. He/she always hits with melee weapons (at least in the senses you explain). The D20 roll is just to determine how well. The "hit" and "miss" terms are stretched somewhat (becoming game mechanics terms, not descriptions of the action), but you don't have to take them literally in all circumstances.

 

[ren1999]

Imagine you are 1st level and you are fighting several monsters with 1/2 damage on a save effects and some roll a higher initiative. They decide to all target you first because you are the weakest. You make all of your saves but because they do half damage you die without having the chance to do anything. You then storm out of the game to go complain on a forum about this old game.

I mean, it's called a "save". If it doesn't "save" you then why is it called a save?

But there is nothing about a saving throw with the FighterDwarf's Reaper Feat. It just says the FighterDwarf does half damage on a miss. Am I reading this wrong again?

 

[herrozerro]

But there is nothing about a saving throw with the FighterDwarf's Reaper Feat. It just says the FighterDwarf does half damage on a miss. Am I reading this wrong again?

I believe it's just str mod damage, so it's even less then minimum damage

 

[Fifth Element]

I think a miss which by definition of trying to hit is failure to do so. It is failure to make contact. it is a whiff.

So you're saying that when facing an opponent with an AC of say 18, made up of a base amount of 10 and +8 for some heavy armour, and you roll a 17 to hit, that should be interpreted as a whiff? If your opponent did not have his heavy armour, you would have hit. His heavy armour makes him a dodging machine?

You don't think a more reasonable interpretation is that you made contact, but the armour absorbed the blow? And in such cases, at least, that a bit of damage from a "miss" could still get through the armour? Having a mace smash into your breastplate is hardly a painless experience.

Has "miss" ever been defined in game terms as anything other than "failing to roll high enough on an attack roll"?

 

[eamon]

What is a hit? What is a miss?

Let's try this definition:
A "hit" occurs when a character strikes an opponent with a weapon and inflicts meaningful physical harm. A "miss" is when a character attempts to do this, but it unsuccessful.

In this paradigm, damage on a miss is nonsensical.

If you're trying to do 14 hitpoints of damage on average (meaningful harm), then managing just 3 is not a success.

This is the paradigm I'd use, and I think damage on a miss fits here perfectly.

Also, I think the reasoning is a little backwards: I'd like to start off assuming the in-world occurence makes sense, not assuming some (pretty arbitrary) hit/miss distinction holds. And as explained before, in-world, damage on a miss makes a lot of sense.

Of course, all those other things people said about damage on a miss being anticlimactic and unbalanced are true too.

It's hard to argue against this - it's pretty personal. Killing minor critters with each swing doesn't strike me as an anticlimax; we're not talking about a climactic encounter in the first place, and in any case, the strong fighter simply stomping on weak foes is its own kind of climax. I respect your opinion - it doesn't bother me, but as I said, that's personal. Wouldn't it be enough just to ban the feat if you don't approve? That solution should be OK if it's not unbalanced since there'll be plenty of other viable options.

I'm fairly positive it's not unbalanced; sure, against Kobolds its quite strong, but that's not likely a major issue. In terms of damage output, it's probably somewhere between a +1 and a +2 bonus to damage rolls on hit.

I don't think the feat really adds something particularly valuable to the game, so despite not really disliking it, I wouldn't shed any tears if it goes (with the aim of keeping a diverse set of players happy).

I am a little worried that if even such a fairly harmless feat as this is dropped, 4e lovers will see it as evidence of disrespect for their chosen edition and therefore dislike 5e more.

Urgh, I really hate the dissociation caused by radically different rules for NPCs vs. PCs. Sure, NPCs should be simpler. And that's it - just simpler (out of practicality), not randomly different for no good reason.

XP is off, but that sounds like the voice of reason to me.

Thanks .