D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[the Jester]

I favor misses with weapons being treated as actual misses-- so I voted "scrap it". But your poll options are pretty terrible here, in that they ascribe reasoning to the "like it" or "don't like it" answers. Many people might like the mechanic despite finding it unbelievable, while others might find the idea reasonable but still hate the mechanic. I'm pretty sure you're going to get weird results because people often don't vote for "my answer for the wrong reason" poll choices.

That said, I'm not of a strong mind either way on this one.

EDIT: No offense intended by my criticism- just trying to help dial in your methodology for next time.

 

[urLordy]

I genuinely believe that this mechanic is too controversial to belong in the core rules exactly as is, if only because it's inclusion or absence has become a zero sum game (and that's definitely against D&D Next design philosophy):

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think a lot of this comes down to how fast and loose you like the HP abstraction to be, and perhaps that's reflective of how you like your games to feel.

I don't think it is. The hp aspect is incidental. If we were talking about any ability that turned failure into a success it would be an issue.

For example, if there was an ability that rogues could get that said something like "if you fail a Stealth check, you can avoid detection for a round", or a bard ability that said "if you fail a Diplomacy check, you still improve one party's attitude" or a Wizard ability that said "if you fail a Knowledge check, you still get some partial but accurate and pertinent information", those would not be good. It violates the whole d20 paradigm wherein beating the DC is success and not beating it is failure.

It also makes total failure impossible, which carries a variety of problematic implications. Such as the points I made in the other thread about incentivizing ineptitude or subverting extremely difficult encounters. And, more fundamentally, that failure is part of the game and is important and valuable for a variety of reasons.

The damage on a miss mechanic also fails the simple test of parsimony. It makes up a new amount of damage other than the normal paradigm for damage on a hit, and is not in any worthwhile way superior to a variety of existing approaches for making a martial character better at combat.

 

[Texicles]

The problem, as has been pointed out, is that even the abstract argument falls apart under this mechanic. You say that it's bruises from dented armour. Well how do you describe it against something that isn't wearing armour, or how do you describe missing something but it dies anyway? Each time you come up with a reason as to why, there is another right behind it that contradicts that reasoning, and then that gets contradicted by another etc..

I believe I covered more than just bruises, accounted for any level of armor and failed to contradict myself in any way (bolded for clarity):

Damage on a miss? Maybe that's bruises from dented armor, maybe it's "luck" running out, or maybe it was just such a near miss that the foe had a serious sphincter pucker moment, weakening his resolve and ultimately reducing the amount of fight he's got left in him.

I also provided an example where game mechanics (not even damage on miss, might I add) could cause the improbable "death" of a character in the case of Wizard v. Housecat. Loose abstraction of HP means that 0 HP isn't precisely tied to the concept of death. This isn't something I just made up either. How many times has some baddie been dropped to 0 HP, only to not really be dead (yet or ever) so the PCs can receive some crucial plot information?

 

[Mistwell]

Or take the Defense fighting style or Protection fighting style.

Yeah, seriously, protection is a much better option anyway, from a "power" perspective. There are precious few things in this version of the game that increase your AC, and this effectively gives a substantial bonus to an ally's AC. That's simply more powerful, over the course of a campaign, than strength damage on a miss (which will eventually be nearly meaningless as hit points increase with level).

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think it is. The hp aspect is incidental. If we were talking about any ability that turned failure into a success it would be an issue.

For example, if there was an ability that rogues could get that said something like "if you fail a Stealth check, you can avoid detection for a round", or a bard ability that said "if you fail a Diplomacy check, you still improve one party's attitude" or a Wizard ability that said "if you fail a Knowledge check, you still get some partial but accurate and pertinent information", those would not be good. It violates the whole d20 paradigm wherein beating the DC is success and not beating it is failure.

If you fail a balance check by more than 5, you fall. If you fail it by less than 5, you simply stay put and do not move.

If you fail a climb check by more than 5, you fall. If you fail it by less than 5, you simply stay put and do not move.

If you miss with a fireball, it still does half damage.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Nope.

Mechanics like these are like a virus or a cancer, they begin to spread throughout the game which would eventually cause me to change so much that I might as well build my own system.

Wait...What?

And you dont think that changes made to D&D rules, hell, RPG's in general DONT have their origins in house rules from peoples home games? This sort of thinking is EXTREMELY narrow. I dont care for 4E but as a system I can appreciate the design that went into it. And I dont think that house rules aka rules that are made to suit a particular group are a cancer. That's a dire statement and just another way of pointing and declaring BADWRONGFUN.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you fail a balance check by more than 5, you fall. If you fail it by less than 5, you simply stay put and do not move.

If you fail a climb check by more than 5, you fall. If you fail it by less than 5, you simply stay put and do not move.

Since you were making the check in order to move, not moving is a failure. Potentially a very costly one.

In this case, there are degrees of failure, as there often are degrees of success.

If you miss with a fireball, it still does half damage.

In the rare case that you need to make an attack roll with Fireball, a miss detonates the bead on whatever surface you were trying to avoid. In general, it explodes as an AoE, and like all AoE's, does not involve attack rolls, and thus does not involve hits or misses.

 

[D'karr]

Nope.

Mechanics like these are like a virus or a cancer, they begin to spread throughout the game which would eventually cause me to change so much that I might as well build my own system.

Do you not understand how this attitude displays complete scorn and contempt for those that don't agree with you. Thanks for making it easy to make my decision.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And I dont think that house rules aka rules that are made to suit a particular group are a cancer.

Depends on the rule, doesn't it? I don't see that its origin is really relevant.