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

[Fifth Element]

If instead of AC we had one clear mechanic for dodging and another for resilience, as well as one health mechanic for actual physical damage and others for other things, then these kinds of issues would not happen.

Indeed. But this is an artifact that has always been in D&D. Hard to complain about 4E or 5E based on it.

They may start with more, but anyone can have 3 hit points or less. Moreover, they have full combat effectiveness any time they have more than 0. So yes, 3 damage can be very meaningful.

Yes, read my post as saying "maximum" hp. And the last 3 hp in a battle is only a significant amount if you ignore everything else that has happened to that point in the battle.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Honestly though, I don't think a real swordsman actually swings wildly nearly that often. How often do you fall off your bike? A full 5% of the time? If you're practiced at something, you're probably not making many gross mistakes - the "miss" would have been caused by active intervention by the defending party, and that active intervention means it at least cost the defender energy and likely a minor hit to his armor, shield or weapon.

I can't ride a bike. That said, I think it's entirely reasonable that even an expert swordsman faced with a marginally competent opponent will fail to inflict any harm for a period of at least six seconds on occasion. Not necessarily by swinging wildly and ineptly; there are plenty of ways to miss.

It's a simplification. In almost all cases, you can assume that a "miss" doesn't mean no contact at all, it just means the defender deflected the blow. For maximal precision, you'd want to distinguish between a sudden dodge (mostly just effort, so very little hit point cost - partly the Dex mod to AC here), a subtle parry (most energy deflected) up to a block (possibly jarring) or a solid strike to the armor (likely very jarring). But precision means complicated rules, and it's just a few points of damage; is it really worth it?

A fair question. Complicated rules are bad. Nonetheless, given how complicated the D&D rules can get elsewhere, it's amazing that they leave the most important ones so vague. It's amazing to me that people want multiple options for the types of attacks a fighter makes, but not to describe the outcomes of those attacks. I'd add in dodging vs blocking and vitality vs wounds before I'd see a fighter having class abilities other than simple mathematical bonuses.

 

[eamon]

This reminds me a bit of dragon's tail slaps. I've always found it a bit odd that PC's can somehow avoid this just by armor. I mean, if this huge beast swipes its massive tail at you, I can't see how armor is going to completely cushion you from the blow. And the tail is long too; it's not like its going to need to try very hard to make contact. Even the shock of a well-defended blow might be crippling to a weak creature.

A strong fighter hitting a fragile, untrained kobold looks kind of similar. If the kobold were trained, he might be better able to deflect the force of the blow or jump right over the weapon - and that would mean he'd have more hitpoints; but as-is, the fighter can sweep through a large enough area around the kobold that some contact is inevitable for a competent, trained fighter vs. a weak, untrained kobold; and then even if the kobold is defending well, the sheer power imbalance is just too much.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Indeed. But this is an artifact that has always been in D&D. Hard to complain about 4E or 5E based on it.

It is an artifact of D&D. Given that 5e is new and still in its infancy and purports to be full of options, I think it is entirely reasonable to discuss how fundamental combat mechanics might be expanded beyond what has previously existed in D&D.

And the last 3 hp in a battle is only a significant amount if you ignore everything else that has happened to that point in the battle.

The entire battle does matter. However, if you have a highly dangerous opponent, almost dead, the fighter attacks it, rolls a 2 and misses, and that opponent goes on to kill a PC the next round, the fighter player will be saving "man I wish I was a slayer". Conversely, if the same situation arises and a slayer rolls a 2, misses the enemy's AC by 15, and still kills it, the DM will be incredibly frustrated, and anyone with a hint of objectivity will smell the cheesiness of it. As written, the ability can be the deciding factor in a battle in some (IMO) really unreasonable scenarios, regardless of how one gets to the scenario.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Then why have an attack roll at all? Why not just have a damage roll and be done with it?

To see how hard you hit. There's a lot more damage you could potentially do.

Though, for 3 hp kobolds, you don't need to have an attack roll at all.

Which is because kobolds are weak and pathetic and sniveling, and a fighter should be able to kill them in droves without breaking a sweat.

 

[eamon]

I can't ride a bike. That said, I think it's entirely reasonable that even an expert swordsman faced with a marginally competent opponent will fail to inflict any harm for a period of at least six seconds on occasion. Not necessarily by swinging wildly and ineptly; there are plenty of ways to miss.

Which all take effort and likely contact by the defender. In a hitpoint system that partially also accounts for skill, endurance, and bruises, a bit of minor damage isn't that inappropriate for a blow that failed to cause a significant wound, but did cost effort and perhaps a bruise to deflect.

Complicated rules are bad. Nonetheless, given how complicated the D&D rules can get elsewhere, it's amazing that they leave the most important ones so vague. It's amazing to me that people want multiple options for the types of attacks a fighter makes, but not to describe the outcomes of those attacks. I'd add in dodging vs blocking and vitality vs wounds before I'd see a fighter having class abilities other than simple mathematical bonuses.

Yeah; totally! I'd love to see modules like that. And despite 5e's aim of modularity, I'm not sure this is the kind of modularity meant. Still, we can always hope . The return of different melee damage types is perhaps a small step in the right direction.

 

[LordBill]

In general, missing is not fun and drags out combat.

So in most cases, I don't mind 3 points of damage on a miss.

 

[eamon]

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.

If PC's are capped at 20 strength, I think it's reasonable that comparable monsters are too. But a dragon isn't human - just because a dragon might be very strong doesn't mean a human can be just as strong. In this way, the rules for PC's and NPCs might very well be equivalent and still allow for monsters that are much stronger than the strongest PCs.

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.

Why are scaling attack rolls necessary?

 

[CleverNickName]

And that's one possible narrative. It postulates one kind of fiction for D&D's world - fireballs are basically instantaneous explosions. I'm asking why D&D is using that narrative instead of the, "Spells can be dodged by the nimble" one, where a fireball moves that much more slowly.


...and? You're rolling a saving throw, no? Based on Dexterity? If you save, you should "save" yourself from the whole effect, just like with Hold Person. Kind of like if you "miss" with a sword, you should really, really miss, right?

My point is just this: These are arbitrary distinctions.

Of course they are arbitrary; we are talking about a role-playing game here. Nobody is actually throwing fireballs. Or at least I hope not. It is the style of arbitration that we are discussing here. And we can discuss it all day long, but nobody is going to change anyone's mind.

EDIT: This post is just too freaking long. I've SBLOCKed it into easy-to-ignore portions.

Spoiler: That Same Old Attack vs. Save Throw Argument

Attack rolls have a chance to hit or miss, but save throws have a chance to pass or fail. Attacks cause harm (i.e., deal damage) on a "hit," but not on a "miss," while save throws can avoid or reduce the effect of a variety of different attacks (including but not necessarily limited to damage.) We can argue about what is and is not a "miss," or what is and is not "damage," but these are the default assumptions that many gamers have when playing Dungeons & Dragons.

You might have a different set of default assumptions, however. You might imagine "damage" as a variety of physical or psychological effects, and that is fine. I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. If that's how you roll, then roll on, brother.

Spoiler: Repeating Myself on the Subject of Narrative Play

Like I said in a previous post, damage can be narrated in a variety of ways: some of us visualize the fighter hitting someone so hard that they get the breath knocked out of them, or some other non-damage equivalent. Others see it as a glancing blow that cuts the target, still inflicting damage but not nearly as much as it would have if it had connected properly. Some people see this as an uncanny superpower that prevents the fighter from ever missing his target.

But they all have this one thing in common: the DM is going to cross off a number and write a smaller number in its place.

So what difference does it make, from a game mechanics point of view? Either way, the number of hit points get reduced. Call them what you want, describe them in two or two hundred words, but you are still going to come back to this. When that number gets reduced, some people default to "this creature is hurt," others default to "this creature might be wounded, or really tired, or perhaps it is winded, or slightly nauseous, or it doesn't feel as lucky as it did a few minutes earlier, it just depends on the situation." Trying to prove that one argument is better than the other is futile...people are going to play the game the way they want to play it (or they won't play it at all.)

Spoiler: My Plea to the Game Designers

This is why the game designers need to avoid polarizing points of view, and strive for universal appeal instead. Unless "Damage on a miss" is absolutely necessary for game balance purposes, they should keep it optional. Why bother trying to change the way gamers describe and interpret damage? It's just a number on a sheet of paper.

Spoiler: My Playtest Experience Regarding Auto-Damage

Some of us don't care for automatic damage. At my playtest, the player felt like her choices didn't matter in combat. She wondered why she was even making attack rolls, if she was always going to hit the creature anyway. During the battle scenes, she was sitting with her chin propped up on her elbow, rolling dice without looking at them, announcing "I kill another kobold," in a deadpan tone of voice when I asked her to call her action. She wasn't enjoying the game. She really enjoyed the rogue, however, and she absolutely loved playing the Cleric of Moradin in other playtests.

But enough about the problem; let's talk solutions.

Spoiler: Alternatives to Auto-Damage

So I think a good alternative to automatic damage would be to use the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. Instead of just handing out damage anyway regardless of the attack roll result, they could change it to "on a miss, your opponent gains Disadvantage until the end of your next turn." This does a much better job of describing your opponent being winded or dazed or knocked off balance...and it gives your party all sorts of tactical options (the rogue, especially).

Or they could change it to "on a miss, you automatically gain Advantage on your next attack against the same opponent." This does a better job of describing a near-hit, but doesn't give as many options for the rest of the party.

But just handing out free damage no matter what you roll? Zzzzz.

 

[Obryn]

D&D was a big tent, it took 4E to make it small, specific and suspension-of-disbelief destroying. And now those elements are coming back for another round. How is that a big tent, when such elements manage to take the D&D out of D&D for so many? The compromise for fans of pre-4E D&D has already happened - we sat it out until it got canned. The game needs to compromise by excluding the non-D&Dish elements of 4E from the core. Keep your peanut butter out of the chocolate.

If WotC wants Next to succeed, it needs to persuade all sorts of D&D players - including 4e players, who don't see 4e as not-D&Dish at all. There's already retroclones, Pathfinder, and so on - WotC needs to make a convincing argument to everyone to accomplish their goals, not just a select group.

I understand you don't like 4e. I do. Let me turn this around - what parts of 4e would you keep?

An ad hominem attack ("irrational anger" as a synonym for pointing out some rule is suspension-of-disbelief destroying nonsense) and a trivialization of any concern for the game being any good because it's all just pretending to be magic elves. Yes, I understand that you have little discretion regarding mechanics, but the argument that they can put any crap in between the covers because it's all just magic elves is just more nonsense from your camp.

You can't make any sense, so you attack the opponent and tell them that any complaint is immature because the game itself is immature, therefore asking for any standards for it is taking it all too seriously. Your personal attack and appeal to triviality is a crock, and not a real argument at all.

Ad-hominems while saying I have little discretion regarding mechanics? Wow.

I want good rules. I think I'm more invested in the mechanics of the game than most. However, it is a game - hence the "magical elves" bit - and I think actual anger about it is irrational.

There's a huge difference between a good game and a bad game, though, and I want a good game. I'm willing to believe you want a good game that's to your tastes. You seem unwilling to give me the same benefit of the doubt, and insult my tastes to boot.

-O