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

[Mistwell]

That's true, but a debate requires two sides. I don't see anyone really arguing his (or my, or [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION] 's) points.

Of course we are. You just disagree with the responses. I'm fine with that - as I said, in my feedback, I said get rid of it because my players just didn't like it. But, there are logical and valid views on both sides of this debate.

 

[Burninator]

Yes, there is. Some people disagree with you on this topic. Their personal opinion is exactly as equal to your personal opinion. Period. This is a fact you need to accept.

I do not need to do any such thing.

Somebody tells me "the easter bunny is real", I laugh at it. Absurd and false on its face.

Same thing for "I swing my sword at you and miss. The sword damages you nonetheless". It's nonsense.

The words hit, miss, and damage are not defined game terms, their meanings and definitions are not subjective, hard to understand, or ambiguous in the slightest. They aren't vague, misleading, confusing in any way.

The game rules, as written are. They use the english language grossly incorrectly. Rodney's cop out BS answer in his QA session is a non-sequitur: it has no relevance to the fact that in his preliminary game rules:

"I swing with my sword, and if I hit, my sword damages the target"

and "I swing with my sword, and if I miss, my sword damages the target"

are both statements that can be made by the same character, and even in the same round! Kind of in-your-face stupid to pay for such an idiotic game where the designer doesn't realize what a patently obvious contradiction it is, isn't it.

The same guy who rolls D20 and Damage die. Essentially D20 doesn't determine whether you do any damage, it just determines how much. Kind of like, what? The damage roll! Bingo! It makes the D20 and the Damage roll redundant, because it's an auto-hit mechanic. Implying perfect accuracy.

Damage is a simple english term meaning harm is caused (look it up).
Hit is a specific term implying physical contact is made between two solid objects.
Miss is defined as a !Hit, its negation.

If physical contact is not made between a weapon and a target, it cannot damage it.

You may digress into the non-sequitur that "hit points are abstract", but it doesn't make the casual use, round by round, of the contradictory sentence "my sword damages the target without touching it". No, it cannot. A side effect of a sword swing missing, such as it causing wind a candle's flame catch onto a tapestry, is entirely possible, but the sword itself cannot cause harm to anyone, for the same reason as a bullet that flies an inch from your head does you no harm, at least no persistent harm other than perhaps emotional harm, which for tough heros used to it, is absurd. If near-harm causes harm, why doesn't harm cause even more harm. D&D does not model emotional pain, traumatic memories, or anything of the sort from sword wounds. Those things are handwaved away, because your HP go back to full after a night's rest (ask a veteran if their PTSD just goes away in one day, you'll realize how absurd it is).

So no, there really isn't any use debating english terms, D&D designers can re-define them in game rules, but they haven't. And nor should they. HP and AC are game terms, hit damage and miss have clear, concise meanings that are not up for debate.

Saying gameplay preferences are subjective is one thing, fine. But saying that simple, clear, straightforward sentences have subjective validity is not a valid form of argumentation. If one cannot accept that some sentences are wrong (i.e. false i.e. contradictions), then nothing concrete can be said about anything, no truths can be discerned from falsehoods, and we all live in a soup of self-referential nonsense.

I don't want to pay a game company to assault my sanity or sense of reason to play the game. That's not the purpose of this one, at least. If you want to make it so, just say that, instead, and I can say : see? Humans cling to false ideas, they make false statements all the time. In a forum discussing game rules, the terms need to be defined otherwise you're arguing for nothing. And if fall back on "everything's subjective", then I know precisely what type of conversation I'm having : a futile one.

Ask anyone who doesn't play D&D what it would mean if you said "rats, I missed the orc with my sword. My sword damages the orc for 5 hit points"

It's even there in the terms, for x-sake : HIT points. Hint : they are points that are taken away when hits are made.

Case closed.

 

[herrozerro]

Ooooo... So since spells never actually "hit" anything, they just effect things that do not save. we shouldn't be using them for hit point damage?

 

[Mistwell]

I do not need to do any such thing.

Somebody tells me "the easter bunny is real", I laugh at it. Absurd and false on its face.

Nobody is telling you that you must believe in the Easter Bunny. They are telling you some people do believe, and there is nothing you can do about them believing that, and it's not a bad thing that they believe.

They're also telling you that a game rule of this nature isn't an issue of belief or non-belief in objective reality - it's just a game rule, and just a tiny rule at that. You keep conflating this rule with reality. It's not. It's still, no matter how passionate you are, just a game rule. And some people will play the game different than you, no matter how much you wish they did not.

So no, there really isn't any use debating english terms, D&D designers can re-define them in game rules, but they haven't. And nor should they. HP and AC are game terms, hit damage and miss have clear, concise meanings that are not up for debate.

They really are up for debate. They are not English words, they are game terms not found in the regular English language. Look up Armor Class and Hit Points in Websters Dictionary and you will not find them. They are defined by the authors of the game. No matter how much you wish they were not.

Saying gameplay preferences are subjective is one thing, fine. But saying that simple, clear, straightforward sentences have subjective validity is not a valid form of argumentation.

They are not simple and straightforward. Because your view of what hit points are, is not shared by everyone, nor is it the same as what we've seen in all versions of the game. The last edition of the game totally disagreed with your view, and you cannot pretend that version of the game didn't happen. Well, you can pretend, but that's all you're doing is pretending - reality is it did happen, and it did disagree with your view on this, and some people liked it that way.

If one cannot accept that some sentences are wrong (i.e. false i.e. contradictions), then nothing concrete can be said about anything, no truths can be discerned from falsehoods, and we all live in a soup of self-referential nonsense.

I understand your need for a concrete world. Welcome to reality - most of the time, it really isn't. And this game rule just isn't. Some people view it one way, others another, and they can be both right. Even though you think the people you disagree with cannot be right - they still can be right.

I don't want to pay a game company to assault my sanity or sense of reason to play the game.

OK.

 

[Mistwell]

Ooooo... So since spells never actually "hit" anything, they just effect things that do not save. we shouldn't be using them for hit point damage?

I am going to have to dig up some 3e spells that required an attack roll and also did half damage on a miss. They existed, I just need to remember some examples.

 

[Morrus]

While I'm no fan of damage on a miss, I can happily concede (without diminishing my dislike for it) that "damage" and "miss" in D&D are NOT the common English usage. Damage has very specifically included morale, luck, fatigue and more for a couple of editions now; especially 4E. On top of that, even ability scores have taken "damage" for decades - including "damage" to wisdom or charisma. The word "damage" in the context of the game of D&D has a wide range of meaning.

 

[Stormonu]

Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being Killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic flghter can take that much punishment. The some holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit paints are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

emphasis mine.

 

[Burninator]

So, we're all agreed that D&D uses the english language inconsistently.

The question is : what do we do about it when advocating rules to be included in a new edition?

When you find yourself in a ditch, do you reach for a shovel? Or do you try and climb out of the dirt.

The definition of HP in no way alters what the casual use of the sentences I described. It's one of those concepts that's just handwaved, because it makes no sense, and never has.

Any metric that encompasses so many different things at once, is basically meaningless. So why not solidify it / clarify it? To improve the game? Are we to be beholden to sacred cows for all eternity? They've eliminated alignment from any mechanical impact from the game, especially the paladin, and that was in AD&D. Why not discard confusing and nonsensical definitions for HP ? Especially when they are used to justify game events like "I miss with my sword and damage the orc for 5 HIT points".

I mean, it has a contradiction in the same sentence! Surely, editions should be used to clarify, not obfuscate further. This mechanic is a step in the wrong direction, away from sensible reason and further towards the depths of the rhetorical abyss.

Confusing / nonsensical concepts are not simple. Simple game = fun, and fast. If you define hits and misses using english language or game terms, surely misses must be the opposite of hits. Which currently they aren't. Your character achieves the same outcome on a miss as a hit. So why make me do the D20 roll anyway? I like the D20, but I don't like wasting my time.

And I don't like fighters breaking/bypassing the rules for fighting. It kinds of makes me think, I'm about to sign on to play a game that is silly and stupid. And maybe I shouldn't bother, and instead focus on VR fantasy games where swords need to connect before they deliver damage. Good plan.

 

[LostSoul]

"I miss with my sword and damage the orc for 5 HIT points".

Check this out:

Player: "I stab the orc in the face!"
[roll to hit; hit; roll damage; 5 damage]
DM: "You missed; you hit him in the leg instead. He takes 5 damage."

What is going on here?

 

[Burninator]

A guy doing a called shot to the head, then missing, then using some kind of reverse cleave contingency riposte (which makes sense from both a realism and a gameplay perspective, so why not). That second attack hits the leg, doing damage. Nothing about the miss itself allowing damage. You are saying, you miss, but you hit when you use this ability. It's really, good point, the only way to narrate it.

It's also pointless fluff. I like adding fluff text to describe events, but only if I'm not forced to use discrete, exclusionary terms like hit and miss interchangeably.