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

[Raith5]

What does that have to do with not achieving success because that is what a "miss" is.

In a game of hit point ablation - the only "success" is getting the target to zero hp.

In the video I linked to there are a few points where Ali is not being successful in clearly hitting his opponent but still being successful in having an impact on his opponent.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=83533]Burninator[/MENTION]
Good points. In these kinds of debates, the last refuge of scoundrels is often to try and make it a playstyle thing or an edition thing. This is one of those mechanics that doesn't stand up to any type of scrutiny regardless of those types of things. There are just so many things wrong with it.

 

[Manbearcat]

Indeed.

The definition of HP is irrelevant to the phrase "When I miss you with my sword my sword damages you"

People use the word abstraction incorrectly, to allow HP's abstraction to "abstractify" by proxy the words that are used around it. If one attempts to narrate the effect of this mechanic using casual language, you are forced to not use the term "I missed you" and "with my sword so that causes you damage" in the same sentence.

It is obvious nonsense on its face. Abstractions are meant to reduce complexity, not increase it, and certainly cannot make false statements true, or impossible things possible.

This is not true and you're missing a key component to the issue here (2 below).

Abstractions, generally, are not meant to reduce complexity. Their primary concern is to be concerned with the broadness of ideas rather than the specificity of an event. That certainly is the primary, most apparent application with respect to its function in the D&D engine. This is why D&D, specifically the architecture and its varying components, is such a horrible process simulator.

1 - HPs are concerned with the broadness of ideas rather than the specificity of an event.

2 - The resolution mechanics of a combat round (action economy, attack rolls, saving throws, et al) are concerned with the broadness of ideas rather than the specificity of an event.

Layer them on top of one another and expecting it to spit out a functional simulation of process, and then going a step further and expecting derivative knock-on effects (such as "damage on a miss") to adhere to some sought coherency (that isn't to be found in its progenitor), is asking for trouble. Expecting universal or majority buy-in from others is asking for further trouble.

Its like measuring data without accounting for error, smoothing the time series data and then using that as an input to other analysis. What comes out of that analysis is a spurious signal with no confident, predictive power. Same thing happens with D&D combat and ablation mechanics. That is why fortune in the middle is the most functional route in dealing with D&D combat resolution.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Burninator
Good points. In these kinds of debates, the last refuge of scoundrels is often to try and make it a playstyle thing or an edition thing. This is one of those mechanics that doesn't stand up to any type of scrutiny regardless of those types of things. There are just so many things wrong with it.

Scoundrels?

 

[pemerton]

The mechanic does cause the hit point reasoning to break down and has been proven many many times already.

It has been asserted. Assertion is not the same thing as proof.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as the hit point reasoning. It's obvious that different players interpret hit point loss in different ways. For instance, some players seem to insist that losing 1 hp always means the same thing. Whereas in my games, a character at 100 hp who loses 1 hp has had something different happen from a character who has 1 hp left and loses 1 hp.

That was 4th editions problem, it was always about balance which caused things to fall apart.

In what way did 4e make things "fall apart"? What things? I GM a 4e game and the things I encounter in the course of that are pretty intact.

I think posters like you forget what role playing games are all about with a big emphasis on "role playing".

I don't see how "role playing" is relevant to this particular issue. For instance: I am playing a great weapon fighter, who is a relentless opponent from whom there is no escape. I will take down my enemies. If that is the character whom I'm roleplaying, then the mechanic supports my roleplaying.

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?

The first question was answered in the post you replied to:

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.

As for the second question, the answer is that a mechanical "miss" does not correspond to an in-fiction miss. It is a game state about determining when the damage dice are rolled; the ingame state is then narrated around this.

For instance, if the great weapon fighter with 16 STR is fighting goblins and kobolds (hp 3 and 2 respectively, I believe) then the player doesn't need to roll the dice: s/he simply declares an attack and the target falls like wheat before the scythe! That's what this particular incarnation of the great weapon fighter is all about!

Here's a non-profound idea: How about the core rules unifies both playstyles by offering an interesting GWF mechanic that doesn't break immersion for almost 40% of Enworlders thus far and offer a tactical module that allows you to swap the core GWF mechanic for the damage-on-a-miss. Now both camps can enjoyably use the core rules, without placing the burden on the DM for houseruling.

Here's an alternative idea: that the game have a rule that supports the play of 60% of ENworlders, and has an optional "hit points as meat" module where those who don't like the core hp mechanic can swap to some other GWF mechanic that suits them.

Now that we've got that out of the way, can we stop pretending that changing the rules to suit the "gritty" style is not neutral as to the preferences of those who favour the "gonzo" style?

 

[Burninator]

So lets remove half damage on a save spells as well. it's the exact same problem. If a monster is low enough a wizard just has to say "I cast X spell. Half damage is more than the monsters HP so it's dead."

It's not really the same thing though, for Aoe spells, like Fireball, that engulf entire areas and your character is definitely inside those areas. I defy anyone in the midst of a massive explosion to not even get a single scratch on them, even a bruise or a scrape from some debris.

Weapons either hit you, or they don't. If they do hit you, maybe they don't hit very hard? Fine, that makes sense. But if they don't hit you, because they missed you, that's not the same as saving throws giving 1/2 damage and not being able to have no damage.

There is nothing comparable between a fireball and an axe. Fireballs area of effect auto-hits, so 1/2 damage-on-a-failed-save is not equivalent to damage-on-a-miss.

You seem to keep bringing up that "point" without ever actually reading or trying to understand why it's invalid and not comparable. Spells auto-succeed at targetting their area of effect. Whether that's a person, a location, whatever. That part is "auto-hit". You aren't targetting a person with a fireball, you're targetting a place. Think of it like a mortar cannon with a big explosion. Some guys in the blast radius will be blown to bits, and others will manage to duck out of the way of most of the energy which is not distributed uniformly.

The two issues are not the same, which I brought up in my points. Hitting or missing, is both a binary proposition in D&D rules, as well as in real life. Hitting is necessary but not sufficient to deal damage in real life, but it is in D&D rules. However, the same cannot be said about missing with a sword in real life, and no attempt is made to explain how a weapon can harm you if an attacker misses you.

Just saying "abstraction" does not prove anything. The definition of hit points in this packet aren't even self-consistent. On one line they say no weapon connections are made at all with your body until the one that kills you, then in the very next line, it says when you at 1/2 HP and below you exhibit signs of cuts, scrapes, wounds, etc. They can't even get their own nonsensical "abstract" definition consistent with itself.

 

[herrozerro]

It's not really the same thing though, for Aoe spells, like Fireball, that engulf entire areas and your character is definitely inside those areas. I defy anyone in the midst of a massive explosion to not even get a single scratch on them, even a bruise or a scrape from some debris.

Weapons either hit you, or they don't. If they do hit you, maybe they don't hit very hard? Fine, that makes sense. But if they don't hit you, because they missed you, that's not the same as saving throws giving 1/2 damage and not being able to have no damage.

There is nothing comparable between a fireball and an axe. Fireballs area of effect auto-hits, so 1/2 damage-on-a-failed-save is not equivalent to damage-on-a-miss.

You seem to keep bringing up that "point" without ever actually reading or trying to understand why it's invalid and not comparable. Spells auto-succeed at targetting their area of effect. Whether that's a person, a location, whatever. That part is "auto-hit". You aren't targetting a person with a fireball, you're targetting a place. Think of it like a mortar cannon with a big explosion. Some guys in the blast radius will be blown to bits, and others will manage to duck out of the way of most of the energy which is not distributed uniformly.

The two issues are not the same, which I brought up in my points. Hitting or missing, is both a binary proposition in D&D rules, as well as in real life. Hitting is necessary but not sufficient to deal damage in real life, but it is in D&D rules. However, the same cannot be said about missing with a sword in real life, and no attempt is made to explain how a weapon can harm you if an attacker misses you.

Just saying "abstraction" does not prove anything. The definition of hit points in this packet aren't even self-consistent. On one line they say no weapon connections are made at all with your body until the one that kills you, then in the very next line, it says when you at 1/2 HP and below you exhibit signs of cuts, scrapes, wounds, etc. They can't even get their own nonsensical "abstract" definition consistent with itself.

No, you asserted that removing the dice from the equation makes the game lame. Spells fall right into that category. If a creature has less than the minimum damage on a miss of a spell (not just aoe mind you) then there is no need to roll any dice. Making the game lame as you put it.

 

[pemerton]

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.

You mean like the rogue's "Ace in the Hole" ability?

 

[Jester David]

I don't think it's a 1st level character power.
I also don't think a flat "if you miss you still deal damage" works, as it allows for damage on natural 1s and the like.

If damage on a miss is included, I'd prefer it to be a specialized ability at higher level.
And I'd only like it to apply to near misses. "If you miss by less than 5" or something.

 

[urLordy]

Here's an alternative idea: that the game have a rule that supports the play of 60% of ENworlders, and has an optional "hit points as meat" module where those who don't like the core hp mechanic can swap to some other GWF mechanic that suits them.

Now that we've got that out of the way, can we stop pretending that changing the rules to suit the "gritty" style is not neutral as to the preferences of those who favour the "gonzo" style?

Um, Legends & Lore did mention a gritty optional module with wound tracks and such, but I don't see the controvery with damage on miss being exclusively correlated to the "hp-as-meat" vs "gonzo" playstyle. Certaintly, my reading comprehension of all the intelligible effort that various posters have invested would not lead me to that simplified conclusion. What is the criteria you feel is required to keep a controversial mechanic in the core rules instead of an optional tactical module? If you put a gamist mechanic in a tactical module, you can have fun interesting mechanics without having to make annoying compromises. Whereas every rule in the core rules has to deal with compromising with those pesky other playstyles.