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

[bogmad]

If we were dealing in system that needed to go the extra mile for detailed simulation in these situations we'd have to invoke either "Touch AC" or "Reflex Defense" to determine a "hit," and then Armor Class and Damage Reduction to assess the state of a "wound." If you don't make Touch AC / Reflex you don't make contact - the attack is blocked, parried, dodged, or fumbled. If you beat Touch AC / Reflex but fail to overcome Armor Class and Damage Reduction then you don't score a significant wound (or any damage at all in the case of Damage Reduction) unless the opponent is already extremely vulnerable (low AC).

Also, I'm just going to point out that you can gain full-use from non-contact poisons applied to bludgeoning weapons in many editions of D&D. You have short-bows doing damage to guys in Full Plate Armor. That stuff makes efforts to demand simulation compliance from Hit Points and Damage on a "Miss" look akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

- Marty Lund

I'm not looking for a system to go the extra mile in terms of simulating touch AC, etc. I'm just looking for one with a certain minimal threshold for simulation. It doesn't need to be precise, but it does need to leave open the idea that sometimes you might "touch" something and sometimes you might miss entirely with a melee weapon attack. I can wing it according to what a guys AC is and what he's wearing without too much trouble
The GWF ability as described doesn't do that, and all the examples people are giving for how else it might work look to be the tail wagging the dog (mechanics stretching to find an explanation instead of an idea well expressed through mechanics).

 

[TwoSix]

The only problem I have with damage on a miss is: "Damn, I missed!" "No, you still did 3 points of damage, and hey, its dead!"

The problem with "damage on a miss" isn't the damage part, it's the miss part. Effects either have a greater or a lesser effect, depending on the result of the die roll. Sometimes the lesser effect is to do no damage, which can then be narrated as a miss.

 

[Weather Report]

Touch AC in 5th Ed is just 10 +/- the Dex mod, right?

 

[Weather Report]

The problem with "damage on a miss" isn't the damage part, it's the miss part. Effects either have a greater or a lesser effect, depending on the result of the die roll. Sometimes the lesser effect is to do no damage, which can then be narrated as a miss.

Yeah, see, no, I don't follow that line of reasoning/rationalisation/justification, part of D&D is gambling, rolling dice, I do no want a sliding scale for my d20 rolls all the time.

 

[bogmad]

Yeah, see, no, I don't follow that line of reasoning/rationalisation/justification, part of D&D is gambling, rolling dice, I do no want a sliding scale for my d20 rolls all the time.

And if a "miss" has no numerical effect in terms of hit points then we can have it both ways. I can describe a low miss how I want and you can describe it completely differently. When you add damage on a miss is when it dictates a greater or lesser effect.
Personally, I find effects having a greater or lesser effect according to the die roll pretty intuitive, so I don't have a problem with a "near miss" mechanic as a compromise for everyone clamoring for miss-damage, but if it causes this much consternation it wouldn't bother me to leave it out.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, see, no, I don't follow that line of reasoning/rationalisation/justification, part of D&D is gambling, rolling dice, I do no want a sliding scale for my d20 rolls all the time.

You seemed to follow my line of reasoning perfectly well. You just don't agree with it.

 

[Weather Report]

And if a "miss" has no numerical effect in terms of hit points then we can have it both ways. I can describe a low miss how I want and you can describe it completely differently. When you add damage on a miss is when it dictates a greater or lesser effect.
Personally, I find effects having a greater or lesser effect according to the die roll pretty intuitive, so I don't have a problem with a "near miss" mechanic as a compromise for everyone clamoring for miss-damage, but if it causes this much consternation it wouldn't bother me to leave it out.

Too muddy for me.

 

[Weather Report]

You seemed to follow my line of reasoning perfectly well. You just don't agree with it.

"...ya follah?" *as said by Robert Shaw in The Sting*

I guess you're right, I just do not want it in D&D, the save vs, spell for half action is as far as it goes.

 

[Weather Report]

I do not want any minutiae within the attack roll.

 

[TwoSix]

And if a "miss" has no numerical effect in terms of hit points then we can have it both ways. I can describe a low miss how I want and you can describe it completely differently. When you add damage on a miss is when it dictates a greater or lesser effect.
Personally, I find effects having a greater or lesser effect according to the die roll pretty intuitive, so I don't have a problem with a "near miss" mechanic as a compromise for everyone clamoring for miss-damage, but if it causes this much consternation it wouldn't bother me to leave it out.

Yes. Get rid of the "hit-miss" descriptors. That's for narration, not for mechanics.