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

[urLordy]

I agree. My argument is mostly because it really bugs me when people say an optional playstyle should be excluded from the game because they personally dislike it.

Ya, that's the most difficult part of this: the zero sum game.

I think it's about the stakes. I don't mean to belittle anyone, but my perception is that those who dislike damage on a miss have more at stake, and those who like damage on a miss have less at stake. Whether that's actually true or not doesn't matter as much as the perception fueling the fire.

For example, take the argument about the "hit" and "miss" being meaningless or mostly meaningless. Firstly, it's not objectively meaningless when some people do see meaning. And I don't think the argument is as clean-cut as they want to make out to be. Anyway, to those that hit and miss are meaningless terms, damage-on-a-miss fits just fine into their core game -- it costs them nothing to embrace it. To those hit and miss are meaningful terms, damage-on-a-miss does not fit just fine into the core rules; conversely, it messes up their paradigm and may compromise their playstyle. The other side doesn't have that problem. So different stakes in that zero sum game.

By asking someone to accept an optional playstyle in their game and thinking them selfish to spurn you is not irrational. But you're asking them perhaps more than you realize, if the very existence of that rule in the core game is compromising their playstyle including but not limited to attribution of meaning to hit and miss.

I think some people know that, and so their argument is reduced to attributing hit-on-a-miss as incoherent nonsense, which of course, continues to invalidate and incense the other side. And so it goes...

(This is my assessment; I do not presume to be neutral)

It actually disappointed me that so few others have stood up to Burninator's over the top histrionics, just because they agree with his position.

I think histrionics on a forum are somewhat normalized, because someone can make some very good points, then feels those arguments are being disregarded or invalidated, and gets and more defensive and angry. That's not really anyone else's business other than the mods. Secondly, Burninator makes some very strong arguments -- yes, lots overstating too, but really both sides are guilty of that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The "hit" and "miss" paradigm is rife with incoherency and I'm certain everyone knows this.

Let's see you do better. Creating a model of reality that plays as a game is hard. The d20 system works because it's simple, not because it's perfect.

Otherwise, if a miss is a miss is a miss is a miss then every single attack against the high AC, gigantic, notoriously lumbering, dex-deficient tarrasque renders the fiction utterly incoherent as its morphed into a swashbuckling mythical monster deftly sidestepping a blow in the same way that Errol Flynn might do. A miss on these giant, slow, heavily armored creatures means the same thing as a miss against an Air Elemental. If anything is at tension, it is that binary interpretation of the D&D hit/miss paradigm.

If you're arguing that AC and DR should be separate and that the Tarrasque should have AC 4 and DR 50/-, that's fine. I don't get the sense that you are. That being said, I don't have any trouble imagining the swords of adventurers bouncing off the Tarrasque ineffectually and seeing that as a failure in the effort to attack.

There are dozens of these examples. Glancing blows occur all over the place in real life. Collateral damage occurs all over the place in real life. You intend a takedown but in the fog of the melee your head smashes into their nose.

Sure. It doesn't require the assailant to have some special ability though.

And in real life, outright misses happen all the time, too.

If you have to have HP as meat, then damage on a miss might be a lucern hammer "hitting" the plate mail (which absorbs much of the blow, thus denying standard damage resolution) and the pierced edge poking through enough to abrade the flesh and the force of the impact still being absorbed by the soft tissue as the plate mail doesn't cause the kinetic energy to fully dissipate (Str damage).

Yes, when an ogre attacks a halfling, misses by 1 because of the halfling's buckler, and nothing happens to the target, it does strain credibility. I do not see how a damage on a miss fighter ability improves this situation.

In general, this kind of rationale translates to: "certain aspects of the game suck already, so why not add in a completely new sucky aspect". I've never really bought that logic.

Or any number of renderings such as the one I outlined above where the Great White Shark "missing" the bite attack on the fur seal but his size, ferocity, and velocity causing "damage on a miss" as his girth barrels into the seal at 25 MPH despite missing the bite attack. Etc, etc. I'm pretty sure the fur seal doesn't agree with the Great White Shark that it was a "miss!"

Finally, we have the rationale for damage on a miss. The fighter's sword misses, but he accidentally bumps into his foe, dealing his strength modifier in damage. Damage by miss, available only to those who know the secret technique of klutziness. Problem solved!

In D&D, the shark scenario you described isn't damage on a miss, it's simply another way of narrating a hit.

 

[Manbearcat]

If you're arguing that AC and DR should be separate and that the Tarrasque should have AC 4 and DR 50/-, that's fine. I don't get the sense that you are. That being said, I don't have any trouble imagining the swords of adventurers bouncing off the Tarrasque ineffectually and seeing that as a failure in the effort to attack.

If you think you can decouple the deeply abstract mush of Armor Class as Dodge + Dissipation of Force (mitigation), then I'm not even sure how the conversation can continue. It is absolutely central. You can't remove it. It sows disfunction in the paradigm you're supporting in the same way as (i) the mush of HP and as the (ii) gamist abstraction of action economy within a 1 minute, 12-15 second or 6 second combat round. You have 3 piles of mush layered on top of each other, each deepening the incoherency and mandating malleable narrative renderings of the fictional state/value of "hit" and "miss".

This and every thing you say below it actually supports the premise that, within the fiction, a "miss" is amenable to a "hit" (eg the Dodge portion of Armor being circumvented in the fiction) being turned into a "miss" (eg the Disspipation of Force element - mitigation via natural/real armor, magical warding, et al) such that there is an actual "collision between two bodies" (a hit) but the damage is ablated due to the primacy of Dissipation of Force in the output (a miss). So. A "hit" with respect to "collision between two bodies as the dodge portion of AC was overcome" but a "miss" with respect to deploying some/most/all damage as "the energy of the impact was fully/mostly dissipated due to natural/real/magical armor."

 

[Paraxis]

Hit and miss can't be based on if the target takes damage from an attack in in NEXT.

Orc "hits" our hero with an axe doing 1d8+3 damage, he rolls a 1, the hero has heavy armor mastery and an 18 con, he takes no damage.

Hero "misses" the orc with his maul doing 4 points of damage from his strength modifier thanks to great weapon fighting style.

Not all hits do damage, not all misses don't do damage that is just how it is.

 

[Morrus]

Hit and miss can't be based on if the target takes damage from an attack in in NEXT.

Orc "hits" our hero with an axe doing 1d8+3 damage, he rolls a 1, the hero has heavy armor mastery and an 18 con, he takes no damage.

Hero "misses" the orc with his maul doing 4 points of damage from his strength modifier thanks to great weapon fighting style.

Not all hits do damage, not all misses don't do damage that is just how it is.

That's an excellent summary of what this 314-post thread is about!

 

[Holy Bovine]

As I've noted elsewhere, I don't think that believability is the only issue here. However, it does fail that test by violating the basic model of how the d20 system works: if you roll equal to or higher than the DC, you succeed, and if you roll lower than the DC, you fail.

And take 1/2 damage? Is this all that different than making a Reflex saving throw? I don't think it is. It gives certain powers a little boost in usefulness.

 

[Umbran]

Ladies and gents, carry on as if Burninator was not going to be answering your posts for a while. 'Cause he isn't.

Keep it civil, people.

 

[TwoSix]

I think it's about the stakes. I don't mean to belittle anyone, but my perception is that those who dislike damage on a miss have more at stake, and those who like damage on a miss have less at stake. Whether that's actually true or not doesn't matter as much as the perception fueling the fire.

I'll agree with this. As I said, damage on a miss isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. Especially since it's being applied only to one build of one class. If they had made it a base feature of a new, more narrative combat system....than yea, that would increase my stake in the fight.

For example, take the argument about the "hit" and "miss" being meaningless or mostly meaningless. Firstly, it's not objectively meaningless when some people do see meaning. And I don't think the argument is as clean-cut as they want to make out to be. Anyway, to those that hit and miss are meaningless terms, damage-on-a-miss fits just fine into their core game -- it costs them nothing to embrace it. To those hit and miss are meaningful terms, damage-on-a-miss does not fit just fine into the core rules; conversely, it messes up their paradigm and may compromise their playstyle. The other side doesn't have that problem. So different stakes in that zero sum game.

Sure, I'll agree with that. It's not a feature I need to run solid narrative combat, it's just a useful tool.

I think histrionics on a forum are somewhat normalized, because someone can make some very good points, then feels those arguments are being disregarded or invalidated, and gets and more defensive and angry. That's not really anyone else's business other than the mods. Secondly, Burninator makes some very strong arguments -- yes, lots overstating too, but really both sides are guilty of that.

Sure, everyone's a little riled up. But "my side's" (to grossly generalize into two opposing camps) argument is that there are many ways to play D&D, of which combat process sim is merely one, albeit a popular one with significant historical inertia. The other side fails to recognize the validity of our approach to a game of D&D, viewing it as a deviant minority position that corrupts the purity of the D&D lineage and has prevented it from following its intended trajectory to still purer simulation.

 

[urLordy]

The other side fails to recognize the validity of our approach to a game of D&D, viewing it as a deviant minority position that corrupts the purity of the D&D lineage...

I agree that's wrong, given that "The other side fails to recognize" is a generalization. I don't know what percentage of people view 4e-ish play as a deviant minority position, and I don't particularily want the damage-on-a-miss debate to be caught up with badwrongfun positions.

... and has prevented it from following its intended trajectory to still purer simulation.

I think on this thread, it's more about preventing D&D from following a trajectory that is less simulation-friendly. (For more sim, a speculative upcoming gritty module could add a layer of more simulation.) I don't think complaints about damage-on-a-miss are all about the validity of the playstyle that supports it.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think complaints about damage-on-a-miss are all about the validity of the playstyle that supports it.

No, they don't. The larger (and better, to my mind) complaint is that DoaM (yay, acronyms!) changes the overall mental processing of combat from the way it's presented overall in the D&D Next ruleset. Better to choose a single approach and keep everything consistent. Changes to the desired approach can be placed in a module.

I've been brainstorming some ideas for how to present process-sim mechanics in a way that allows easy narrative (player-authored) hooks to be added later. I think the trick is to present abilities as being tied to a certain fictional positioning. Sandboxers can just present the fictional positioning as it's been written down or generated, storytellers can shift positioning to allow player abilities to be used in dramatic moments, and narrativists can have a currency to allow assertion of the required fictional positioning in play.