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

[urLordy]

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

You need something for triggers. Roll d20, if your modified roll is equal to or higher than the target's AC, your PC has harmed the opponent. So then "harm" becomes the trigger for other abilities. Mind you, if you failed to "harm" the opponent on the attack roll, then can you still "harm" them anyway? Can you harm an enemy's luck or morale or stamina? And doesn't "harm" sound stupid when you write it several times? Hit sounds better, no matter how many times you say it. I'm so blabbering right now. I think this thread has damaged me even on a miss.

 

[TwoSix]

You need something for triggers. Roll d20, if your modified roll is equal to or higher than the target's AC, your PC has harmed the opponent. So then "harm" becomes the trigger for other abilities. Mind you, if you failed to "harm" the opponent on the attack roll, then can you still "harm" them anyway? Can you harm an enemy's luck or morale or stamina? And doesn't "harm" sound stupid when you write it several times? Hit sounds better, no matter how many times you say it. I'm so blabbering right now. I think this thread has damaged me even on a miss.

Body Tackle
Str check vs AC
Success: The opponent take Str mod damage and falls prone.
Failure: The opponent takes Str mod damage, but you fall prone.

 

[Mistwell]

Even if they did, what would it matter? This thread isn't about spells.

I am constantly hearing the retort that it's "just area of attack spells like fireball", that "saving throws are not like AC", or magic missile which "is the exception". I already gave an example from the 5e rules of an attack spell, that requires an attack roll, that does half damage on a miss. But a firmer example from 3e would help put this in perspective and end all that stuff at least.

 

[urLordy]

Body Tackle
Str check vs AC
Success: The opponent take Str mod damage and falls prone.
Failure: The opponent takes Str mod damage, but you fall prone.

And if the body tackle misses completely or just clips the opponent?

 

[TwoSix]

And if the body tackle misses completely or just clips the opponent?

It doesn't. It's right there in the ability. If you want anything to miss completely, give the defender an ability to negate damage with Dexterity checks.

Or roll a 1. I agree with [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] that there's nothing wrong with a nat 1 being a drastic failure.

 

[urLordy]

It doesn't. It's right there in the ability. If you want anything to miss completely, give the defender an ability to negate damage with Dexterity checks.

How do you model both falling prone?

 

[TwoSix]

How do you model both falling prone?

Not sure. I kind of imagined it as being you running into the guy. Either he bounces off you, or you bounce off him. I'd probably rewrite it if it was more of a diving tackle.

 

[urLordy]

Not sure. I kind of imagined it as being you running into the guy. Either he bounces off you, or you bounce off him. I'd probably rewrite it if it was more of a diving tackle.

OK, well, either way, I see where you're going with that (Success, Failure, and Dex checks to negate damage) that you've decoupled the concept of success=hit and failure=miss, and that makes sense to me. It does, though, break up an action (body tackle) into separate components (the Str-based damage potential upon impact, and the evasion potential as a rewind). For all it's troubles, the hit and miss abstraction kinda rolls that into one paradigm.

 

[TwoSix]

OK, well, either way, I see where you're going with that (Success, Failure, and Dex checks to negate damage) that you've decoupled the concept of success=hit and failure=miss, and that makes sense to me. It does, though, break up an action (body tackle) into separate components (the Str-based damage potential upon impact, and the evasion potential as a rewind). For all it's troubles, the hit and miss abstraction kinda rolls that into one paradigm.

Maybe the hit-miss paradigm needs to move into a "defender rolls" paradigm. Maybe you declare an attack, the defender rolls the relevant defense, and then the attacker rolls damage. Or none, if the attack is the type where a successful defense does no damage.

 

[urLordy]

Maybe the hit-miss paradigm needs to move into a "defender rolls" paradigm. Maybe you declare an attack, the defender rolls the relevant defense, and then the attacker rolls damage. Or none, if the attack is the type where a successful defense does no damage.

13th Age seemed to move in that direction, didn't it, with (mostly) everyone doing damage on a miss, like damage in combat is inevitable.