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

[TwoSix]

Kobold Stew tried with the +1 to damage. And you IIRC verified the math that +2 would be about right. So there was some dabbling in a compromise, but ya, arguing is fun too.

I think the problem is, like many compromise solutions, +2 to damage is a little boring. One thing that (Str Mod on a miss) does is increase the average damage by increasing reliability of damage, but not increasing the maximum damage. So something with a similar flavor would be a better compromise.

At its most basic, a +X to hit would increase reliability without increasing the max damage. But that's pretty boring.

Since Next uses advantage, maybe use that. Say that GW users can make "Broad Swings", which gives you advantage on your attack roll but only does half damage.

Or similarly, maybe borrow the 3e "fail by less than 5" conceit that gets used in some skill checks. Maybe using a two-handed weapon gives you a -2 to hit, BUT if you miss by less than 5, you still do half damage. Obviously, many games use degrees of success for attack rolls, I think you can borrow it for Next while still making it "feel" like D&D.

 

[Halivar]

Comes off as a few straggling whiners that are miffed that 5th Ed will not be a 4.5/13th Age deal.

Are you really calling names over something this silly? Didn't we have enough of this crap in 2008?

I know WoTc employees come here so I want them to see what people think about it.

Fair enough. But I still think it should not have been couched as another poll. It's ok to rant, and label it as such. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Derren]

Maybe using a two-handed weapon gives you a -2 to hit, BUT if you miss by less than 5, you still do half damage. Obviously, many games use degrees of success for attack rolls, I think you can borrow it for Next while still making it "feel" like D&D.

3E had the advantage of having touch and flat footed AC.
"Less than 5" still runs into the same problem that a completely naked guy who relies only on dodging gets clobbered down by near hits.

 

[Weather Report]

Are you really calling names over something this silly? Didn't we have enough of this crap in 2008?

No, not calling names, I started the 4th Ed Avengers (Steely Dan, WotC boards), much to my chagrin.

 

[urLordy]

I think the problem is, like many compromise solutions, +2 to damage is a little boring.

How two mechanics: always +1 to damage w/ 2-hd, and then something like Broad Swing. And maybe that Broad Swing can be at-will, or recharges on a critical or recharges on a miss. Would that be less boring?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I could see this:

If you miss by 5 or less, take a -2 to your next attack roll and turn that miss into a hit.

 

[TwoSix]

3E had the advantage of having touch and flat footed AC.
"Less than 5" still runs into the same problem that a completely naked guy who relies only on dodging gets clobbered down by near hits.

True, but whenever we get into problems modeled by naked guys, we run into the conundrum that armor should really be damage reduction, not a hit avoider.

Maybe people with no appreciable armor have weapon damage vulnerability.

 

[TwoSix]

How two mechanics: always +1 to damage w/ 2-hd, and then something like Broad Swing. And maybe that Broad Swing can be at-will, or recharges on a critical or recharges on a miss. Would that be less boring?

Sure, although recharges on a critical seems awfully gamey. Why shouldn't it be at-will? (It's fun being the infernal advocate! )

Another concept: You gain advantage with melee attacks. If both d20s would be hits, you do full damage. If only one hits, you do half damage.

 

[TwoSix]

I could see this:

If you miss by 5 or less, take a -2 to your next attack roll and turn that miss into a hit.

I'm not seeing that one....how did the character suddenly know to turn the miss into a hit?

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Not wading through the rhetoric; just responding to the OP's request.

Why do I find damage on a miss believable?

First of all, Mike Mearls has clearly stated what hit points represent: "Hit points represent an element of physical wear that involves a combination of fatigue and physical injury. As you take more damage, you have more evident wounds"

So, the question can be restated thus:

Why do I find a combination of fatigue and physical injury on a miss believable?

The reason is because I have personally experienced it. I have fought at martial arts competitions locally and nationally, and absolutely it makes complete sense to me that avoiding an attack (and thus causing it to miss) will increase my fatigue.

In fact it is also true that I have suffered physical injury on a miss. I assume that if an attack is blocked, then it counts as a miss, and it is absolutely true that I have seen physical injury -- bruising, torn muscles, that sort of thing. I think I once got a broken rib when a blocked kick smashed by fist into my chest. I know I entered the fight without a broken rib, and only dropped a point, so odds are I suffered the break on a "missed attack"

Sadly, I have even been seen people defeated by misses -- one guy so exhausted and bruised up he dropped to the floor and was unable to continue.

If you have the view that a miss is something that never causes damage, then by definition this mechanic is not believable, but enough other stuff in the game causes damage on a miss that you cannot make that general statement for D&D. It's pretty clear that, speaking very generally, damage can occur on something classified a miss.

D&D is a mostly binary system. Criticals and Fumbles blur the line a little, but most modern games (and quite a few old D&D spells) have a more smoothed approach where you can fail, but have a little effect. That is all this mechanic is -- a failure to do a significant hit, but it still wears out the opposition a bit. Given that I have seen that happen a lot in real life, it definitely seems realistic to me.

If you want something unrealistic, a much easier target is the fact that a guy with a dagger doing d4+0 cannot possibly kill someone with 30 hit points no matter how good an attack he does and no matter how bad a defense the other guys does. Given that HUGE level of unrealism in combat, damage on a miss seems a pretty minor thing to worry about.