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

[Ahnehnois]

Well, actually, I've always interpreted to simply mean you are exceptional at finding the cover, not that you don't make an effort. I don't like the do damage on a miss because it effectively means you can't miss but I don't think its quite comparable to Improved Evasion. Even with Improved Evasion, you still end up taking damage if you fail, its just you never take full damage from an area effect.

It's not quite the same, just the closest precedent I could find.

Certainly, on the character creation level, the incentives are reversed. Evasion rewards a good ref save. Improved evasion rewards a bad ref save.

 

[bogmad]

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.

Not even accounting for the change from 1 minute to 6 second turns already mentioned, it's just common sense:

If someone rolls a 17 to hit an AC of 18 the response is usually more along the lines of"So close! You just barely missed!"
No one says that if you roll a 2, and they especially don't say that if you fumble on a one.

Skill checks are already set up on the idea that the closer to or higher the result compared to a DC, the more successful the result, with rolls exceptionally lower entailing hazards and such. Why should an attack roll be under a totally different paradigm where everything is totally binary and a 5 is exactly the same as a 15 if both "miss"?

 

[Wicht]

It's not quite the same, just the closest precedent I could find.

Certainly, on the character creation level, the incentives are reversed. Evasion rewards a good ref save. Improved evasion rewards a bad ref save.

I'm not sure I agree with that last. No damage still trumps half damage. I think of it more as a type of damage resistance to area effects, but not because of lack of effort to avoid, just through the assumption that there is an effort made to avoid the damage that is always partially successful. An individual with Improved Evasion who is denied the ability to move, dodge, or otherwise get out of the way can't use the ability, which goes against your image of them not doing anything.

But anyway, I concede your point that they are not quite the same, but marginally comparable in that both have failure produce a result other than absolute failure.

 

[Jester David]

Much like magic missile? Or an AoE vs low-hp opponents?

Magic is different from melee attack. It should be. Because it's magic.

But from a game perspective, if you're burning a limited use resource, it should usually do something. But a fighter's attack, usable all say every day, need not. No real resources are being expended so having no effect is excusable.
Personally, if they added damage on a miss to something like Action Surge it might be easier to overlook. Because it's not coming up every other round, and because it's tied to a limited resource people don't want to waste.

A 1st level fighter is trained in all weapons and armour, and can best multiple experienced warriors (goblins, orcs etc). To me, that is not redolent of "no experience" or "unskilled".

The potency of first level characters (heroes vs skilled amateurs) is larger topic there is no answer to, as there is a range of taste.

But a first level fighter might be compared to someone fresh out of boot camp. They've only ever practiced; this is their first real combat (otherwise they'd have higher than 0 XP).
They shouldn't be able to just close their eyes (disadvantage) and swing wildly and still drop kobolds.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm not sure I agree with that last. No damage still trumps half damage.

True, but a character with improved evasion already had evasion, which means that the only thing that has "improved" is what happens on a failed save. It's still not wise to actively seek death, but half damage on an area effect is usually not dangerous (and can not infrequently be soaked by resistances).

An individual with Improved Evasion who is denied the ability to move, dodge, or otherwise get out of the way can't use the ability, which goes against your image of them not doing anything.

True, the character has to do something, it's the player that doesn't.

But anyway, I concede your point that they are not quite the same, but marginally comparable in that both have failure produce a result other than absolute failure.

Not a perfect comparison by any means, just something I used to illustrate one point.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, but what's a trained warrior? Is a first level fighter a trained warrior?

Well, yes. I mean, if she wasn't a trained warrior at some level, why would she be called a fighter? Isn't that part of what the fighter class signifies? Warrior training? If a first-level fighter isn't a trained warrior, what would be?

This gets tricky because someone people want first level characters to already be heroes, while other people want them to be unskilled yet have great potential, and other still want them to be the equivalent of Bilbo Baggins running out of his house without handkerchiefs.

I don't think this plays into that, though. That someone who fights with a big weapon can hit you hard enough that you feel some pain even if the connect isn't solid doesn't mandate any particular level of incredible heroism or fantasy power. It doesn't remove playing Bilbo Baggins, it just perhaps removes playing him as a greatweapon fighter (which would be a weird way to play Bilbo anyway). Bilbo's got other things he's good at, like sneaking -- which makes him a solid first-level thief, I bet. But some of those other dwarves with warrior training who know how to hack at a goblin? Yeah, I buy that those guys get to kill a goblin when they decide to. Goblins aren't particularly known for their ability to withstand blows, anyway.

I'm wary about solving a problematic rule by making another rule. If a mechanic isn't working well, and you have to add general clarifications, clauses, and exceptions to keep it working as intended then the rule might not be work salvaging.

I hear you. FWIW, I'm a fan of [MENTION=6695559]bogmad[/MENTION] 's idea, too, so that damage on a miss becomes damage on a near miss.

Ultimately, I see why some people have legit issues with this particular implementation of damage-on-a-miss, but I don't see those as necessarily conceptual, more particular.

 

[n00bdragon]

An interesting point, in that it illustrates exactly why damage on a miss is bad. If someone throws a grenade at you and you have improved evasion, it reduces or eliminates your motivation to jump for cover. Similarly, if you have damage on a miss and you're attacking an opponent who's almost gone, there's no reason to try to swing effectively.

So every person who has ever dodged behind something to avoid an explosion has the evasion ability? Have all the characters who lack the evasion ability mysteriously lost the ability to 'hit the dirt' so to speak? There is simply no good real-life reason why an explosion or other area of effect should totally guarantee damage even on the "miss" of passed save. It's pure gaming abstraction held over from the game's Chainmail and wargaming roots. It's just silly that attack rolls are held to some higher level of "verisimilitude" (god D&D forums have taught me to hate that word) than explosions.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's just silly that attack rolls are held to some higher level of "verisimilitude" (god D&D forums have taught me to hate that word) than explosions.

Yes, it is. Explosions should certainly be held to the same, higher standard. That simply wasn't the thread topic here.

 

[n00bdragon]

Yes, it is. Explosions should certainly be held to the same, higher standard. That simply wasn't the thread topic here.

But it is relevant to the discussion. People seem to hold damage on a miss as A-Okay for explosions but the embodiment of evil for attack rolls. It's hypocritical and that needs to be pointed out.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But it is relevant to the discussion. People seem to hold damage on a miss as A-Okay for explosions but the embodiment of evil for attack rolls. It's hypocritical and that needs to be pointed out.

I don't think the two things are similar enough for it to be blatantly hypocritical.

If an explosion goes off near you, the force and whatever hot projectiles that are thrown out cover the surrounding area in an evenly distributed three-dimensional space. A sword stroke, even under the best of circumstances or with several strokes combined, is not an explosion.

But in any case, even if it is hypocritical, that only suggests that the two opinions are inconsistent, not that the mechanics for hits should be the ones disregarded in favor of the mechanics for explosions.