D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[Weather Report]

Comparing damage on a miss to saving throws is disingenuous, these spells never miss, they hit everything in the area, there's just a reactionary roll to see if you take less.

For now I will just house-rule 1/2 x mod extra damage on a hit.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Comparing damage on a miss to saving throws is disingenuous, these spells never miss, they hit everything in the area, there's just a reactionary roll to see if you take less.

For now I will just house-rule 1/2 x mod extra damage on a hit.

I totally agree with the 1/2 x mod, min 1, extra damage on each hit. If you have an 18 Str you are doing an extra 6 points of damage per hit.

This is a lot better than the "damage on a miss crap".

 

[Ahnehnois]

Relentlessness. In much the same way that a barbarian's rage represents fury.

A relentless person is one who keeps trying in the face of adversity, not one who keeps succeeding where others fail. There's a big distinction between effort and results.

Relentlessness also a fairly abstract personality trait, whereas rage is a more specific and observable emotional state.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Comparing damage on a miss to saving throws is disingenuous, these spells never miss, they hit everything in the area, there's just a reactionary roll to see if you take less.

It's different, yes, but I'm not trying to be disingenuous here. I'm comparing on a very abstract level.

The main thing I'm looking to compare is the perverse incentives this rule creates. Regular evasion rewards a character for succeeding. Much like the extra damage on a hit you propose. It makes the roll swingier, and incentivizes the character to use resources to make his bonus as good as possible.

Conversely, improved evasion (or damage on a miss) rewards failure. It incentivizes the character not to become good at the underlying task, and offers no benefit for a character who is good at it. Neither of these mechanics affects the chance of success, nor what happens when you succeed.

In simple terms, one mechanic rewards competence, and the other rewards incompetence. I'm against rewarding incompetence.

 

[Weather Report]

It's different, yes, but I'm not trying to be disingenuous here.

I don't think you are, I generally agree that they should ditch damage on a miss for GWF as default. it's obviously contentious.

 

[herrozerro]

Comparing damage on a miss to saving throws is disingenuous, these spells never miss, they hit everything in the area, there's just a reactionary roll to see if you take less.

For now I will just house-rule 1/2 x mod extra damage on a hit.

It that the same for single target spells? They just never miss?

 

[Ahnehnois]

It that the same for single target spells? They just never miss?

Spells that involve attacks sometimes (I daresay frequently) miss. Spells that are targeted never hit or miss because there is no attack being made.

 

[MJS]

It needn't but it can. A low attack roll could mean the best-placed blow ever, but parried by an even more skillful defender. (In other words - D&D has no active defence mechanic, and hence the attack roll represents both attacker's and defender's efforts.)
.

Just because combat is abstract doesn't mean it has no internal consistency. A low roll (say 1-3) NEVER means the best-placed blow ever, which was then parried. That is nonsense within abstraction. The attack roll does NOT represent the defender's efforts. AC + Dex is the defender.
A well placed blow that is narrowly parried is a 19 that still misses.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Hit has always meant success while miss has always meant no success. Killing something on a miss is still a success along with damaging it.

 

[pemerton]

Just because combat is abstract doesn't mean it has no internal consistency.

I don't see anyone denying consistency. The question is over how different sorts of rolls can be interpreted.

A low roll (say 1-3) NEVER means the best-placed blow ever, which was then parried. That is nonsense within abstraction. The attack roll does NOT represent the defender's efforts. AC + Dex is the defender.
A well placed blow that is narrowly parried is a 19 that still misses.

Can you show me any rules text that supports this?

If you are right, that means that an ordinary orc with AC 7 or so (AD&D) or AC 14 or so (3E) - whom no PC can ever miss on a 19 - can never parry a blow. It also means that no one ever parries better or worse, because their defence is always static.

Here is the definition of "attack roll" from AD&D where Gygax, at least, disagrees with you (DMG p 61):

During a a one-minute mele round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the "to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it to was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever.​

Nothing there entails, or even suggests, that a roll of 1 to 3 may not be the best-placed blow ever which is nevertheless parried by a skilled or lucky opponent.