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

[urLordy]

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 couldn't agree more.

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.

I'd love to see threads about stuff like this. Arguing is fun, but that angle sounds much more productive.

 

[bogmad]

The "hit" and "miss" paradigm is rife with incoherency and I'm certain everyone knows this. If you throw in the implication rider of "hit <such that you roll damage + modifiers>" or "miss <such that you do not roll damage + modifiers but may deploy any effects that apply on a miss>" then the fiction makes sense.

I agree here mostly, except with "miss =such that you do not roll damage + modifiers but may deploy any effects that apply on a miss" then the fiction makes sense"
It only makes sense if the rider that applies on a miss can makes sense against that opponent. An ability that penetrates AC to do strength damage on miss doesn't make sense against an enemy who's AC is comprised entirely of the ability to dodge. Then it only makes sense in the context of touch AC or with a "near miss" mechanic, or if you change the fluff of the mechanic. It doesn't solve the "pixie dodge" problem sufficiently for a lot of players.

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.

You still have the tarrasque being "hit" and not dodging, it's just not being hit well enough to beat it's AC and "hit" by the technical definition (doing damage). It's not required to dodge or assume hit points= meat just because we're not allowing damage on a miss.

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.

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). 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!"

The way I see it you can easily not have "hit points as meat" if "hit" as a game term means "damage." I'm just not sure why the Great White thinks his "less than max damage roll" when he clipped the fur seal was a "miss"

Sure it's a bit fuzzy if "hit" and "miss" mean certain things in the context of an attack roll, but to strip them out seems like murdering a pretty big sacred cow that most of us didn't even know we were worshipping. There's better solutions that aren't as confusing.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sure it's a bit fuzzy if "hit" and "miss" mean certain things in the context of an attack roll, but to strip them out seems like murdering a pretty big sacred cow that most of us didn't even know we were worshipping. There's better solutions that aren't as confusing.

Honestly mate, I don't even know what people are advocating at this point. It seems that some people are advocating that the D&D TTRPG term "hit" with respect to the "attack roll versus defense" mechanical resolution must mean "a collision between two objects". Conversely, the term "miss" must mean "lack of collision between two objects." However, I've seen evidence all over the map in this thread that those with that exact same position advocate a "miss" can be "a collision between two objects" but the "kinetic energy of the colliding force is dissipated due to mitagatory effects (armor, arcane warding, etc)."

Its all over the map. I have no idea what position is being taken. And I roundly dispute that it is a sacred cow being slaughtered. I've been playing this game from its inception. I've played with tons and tons and tons of people. The idea that the D&D mechanical resolution outcome of "miss" must equal "lack of collision between two objects" is not orthodox to my play history nor the history of those I have played with directly.

If we have an Elder Air Elemental (supreme coordination and dodge) versus a Tarrasque (0 dodge but extreme thickness of hide) and they have the same % chance "to hit" versus one another, I am not narrating universal "lack of collision between two objects" for every single "miss condition" that turns up in the mechanical resolution of "attack versus defense." I am narrating "mitigated collisions" when the miss condition comes up for the Elder Air Elemental and "lack of collision (dodge)" when the miss condition comes up for the Tarrasque. I would be shocked if this is deviant behavior. As such, the binary position of "hit must always equal collision between two objects" and "miss must always equal lack of collision between two objects" strikes me as utterly untenable. If that is true, then extending from that, if "a miss can be a hit (only fully force of impact fully dissipated/mitigated)", then where is the problem of a relentless berserker/dreadnaught who is an implacable fury that afflicts such force upon his foes when "a miss is a hit" that its "impossible for the impact to be fully dissipated/mitigated (eg damage on a miss)." That is what is happening when a Great White Shark breach attacks a fur seal. His bite may miss 70 % of the time but the fur seal is pretty much always going to feel the impact of the breach event due his size/girth/velocity.

 

[bogmad]

Honestly mate, I don't even know what people are advocating at this point. It seems that some people are advocating that the D&D TTRPG term "hit" with respect to the "attack roll versus defense" mechanical resolution must mean "a collision between two objects". Conversely, the term "miss" must mean "lack of collision between two objects." However, I've seen evidence all over the map in this thread that those with that exact same position advocate a "miss" can be "a collision between two objects" but the "kinetic energy of the colliding force is dissipated due to mitagatory effects (armor, arcane warding, etc)."

Its all over the map. I have no idea what position is being taken. And I roundly dispute that it is a sacred cow being slaughtered. I've been playing this game from its inception. I've played with tons and tons and tons of people. The idea that the D&D mechanical resolution outcome of "miss" must equal "lack of collision between two objects" is not orthodox to my play history nor the history of those I have played with directly.

If we have an Elder Air Elemental (supreme coordination and dodge) versus a Tarrasque (0 dodge but extreme thickness of hide) and they have the same % chance "to hit" versus one another, I am not narrating universal "lack of collision between two objects" for every single "miss condition" that turns up in the mechanical resolution of "attack versus defense." I am narrating "mitigated collisions" when the miss condition comes up for the Elder Air Elemental and "lack of collision (dodge)" when the miss condition comes up for the Tarrasque. I would be shocked if this is deviant behavior. As such, the binary position of "hit must always equal collision between two objects" and "miss must always equal lack of collision between two objects" strikes me as utterly untenable. If that is true, then extending from that, if "a miss can be a hit (only fully force of impact fully dissipated/mitigated)", then where is the problem of a relentless berserker/dreadnaught who is an implacable fury that afflicts such force upon his foes when "a miss is a hit" that its "impossible for the impact to be fully dissipated/mitigated (eg damage on a miss)." That is what is happening when a Great White Shark breach attacks a fur seal. His bite may miss 70 % of the time but the fur seal is pretty much always going to feel the impact of the breach event due his size/girth/velocity.

I can see how it is confusing. I don't necessarily agree that a hit must always count as a collision, but if we're picking "sides" my arguments will usually please those in that camp more. For me it's simpler if a"hit" means "to do damage." If there were some fluff that made sense with a specific abiltity ALWAYS hurting a guy I could maybe get along with it, but all the explanations I've seen so far negates my ability to miss a certain way. Every swing is then a "glancing blow" without the possibility of no contact made.

Now, a few people have advocated that you could miss totally, but the effort of dodging saps the target of energy (hp), but I haven't seen a good reason that fluff works unless you can apply it to every attack roll in the game. And most of the damage on a miss arguing has been over giving it to a specific fighter who just can't help but hit hard.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Gary Gygax in Dungeon Masters Guide, Revised Edition - December 1979, page 82 under the heading Hit Points, discussing the reason for increasing hit pionts when advancing in levels: "Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect boith the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat [...] the "sixth sense" which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protections."

Damage in D&D never meant physical harm in a sense "anyone off the street" would use the term.

Gygax never explained what the ratio is so what you have posted is irrelevant.

Also, what HP represents is also irrelevant because where damage on a miss fails is not only believability, but also consistency. We don't need to continue bringing up Gygax.

Every pro-damage on a miss user has yet to give us a logic consistent reason as to why it's a good mechanic for a game that is based on imagination. They have also not given us a reason for why it makes sense that you can kill creatures with a miss which in turn equals a success.

I think the problem here is the devs think a miss means you were unsuccessful in using your full potential. They have completely changed the meaning of the words hit and miss.

 

[TwoSix]

... for a game that is based on imagination....

What does this even mean?

 

[Paraxis]

Every pro-damage on a miss user has yet to give us a logic consistent reason as to why it's a good mechanic for a game that is based on imagination. They have also not given us a reason for why it makes sense that you can kill creatures with a miss which in turn equals a success.

Why is it a good mechanic for a game that is based on imagination?
-My players think it is fun, and it adds enjoyment to the game. If that is not enough, how about how in a game of imagination I can narrate or imagine all kinds of ways that an attack caused the target to expend a resource based on skill, luck, divine intervention, and stamina.

Why it makes sense that you can kill creatures with a miss which in turn equals a success?
-First the success part many mechanics in games let you turn a failure into a success if that is your characters thing, sometimes this is just a partial success sometimes a re-roll, or counting a low roll as an average roll.
-Second the killing part, because the target lost the last little bit of luck, stamina, skill, or divine intervention that was keeping him going. Also note nothing says that the monster going to 0 h.p = it being beheaded or anything as the DM you can narrate the monster getting taken out of the fight anyway you want to. He could be knocked out, just collapses from exhaustion, dies from some unlucky happenstance, or something else...anything else this is a game of imagination remember.

 

[Mistwell]

Gygax never explained what the ratio is so what you have posted is irrelevant.

Despite your attempted dismissivness, it's relevant. You start from the premise that there is a ratio, and then try to figure out roughly what it might be. But you cannot even start, until you post what the comment was to begin with. It's highly relevant.

Also, what HP represents is also irrelevant because where damage on a miss fails is not only believability, but also consistency.

It's also quite consistent, and therefore relevant. People keep pretending the "it's magic" answer to spells doing damage on a miss is somehow a powerful argument. It's not, particularly concerning the topic of "is this a consistent mechanic". It's consistent in D&D that some things do damage even on a miss. Spells do it, and sometimes non-magical things do as well when looking at things like poison gas, and this kind of ability. Now that doesn't mean you have to agree, but it does mean it's relevant to the discussion to raise those issues. Just dismissing it out of hand as not relevant because you disagree is, at best, non-productive and rude.

We don't need to continue bringing up Gygax.

I don't recall anyone saying you needed to do anything. But, it's helpful in that a lot of people are bringing up the historical context of the issue - the reason it "feels" wrong, or "seems" not-believable or not consistent, is because of the history of the concept. So, citing the history of the concept that supports hit points as being something other than simply physical damage is relevant and useful, at least for some people even if it is not helpful for you.

Every pro-damage on a miss user has yet to give us a logic consistent reason as to why it's a good mechanic for a game that is based on imagination.

People have given you lots of logical consistent reasons. They've said you are so strong that even glancing contact does damage (and that in a game where the goal is to simplify the system you assume a glancing blow for every 6-second exchange of attacks instead of adding touch-AC to the game which increases complexity). They've said the sweep of the arm with such weapons is so great that any swing at a target makes at least glancing contact. They've said your training is such that you will always at least make glancing contact with anything you're aiming at that is next to you. They've said there is some element of your power that makes contact even if you miss, or which reduces your luck or puts you in poor positioning to take a blow that was not the primary blow. They've said they're ability to wear you down is such that simply dodging your series of attacks does damage. They've said the die roll simply represents a symbolic number for a series of attacks made during that 6 second period, and the strength damage represents a hit in that series of blows which was not the primary attempted attack but a secondary one. Some have even tied it to magic.

Now you don't like those reasons, but not liking them is not the same as them being illogical or inconsistent.

They have also not given us a reason for why it makes sense that you can kill creatures with a miss which in turn equals a success.

Spells do this. Some poisons do this. The game allows for killing very low hit-point things on a miss in several aspects. This simply expands the realm of things that can kill low-hit-point creatures on a miss to include a single martial ability, due to power or training or weapon or swing or strength or any of the explanations given. Again, you don't like the explanations given - but please stop saying that your dislike of them equates with them not existing or them having no sense of logic or consistency to them.

I think the problem here is the devs think a miss means you were unsuccessful in using your full potential. They have completely changed the meaning of the words hit and miss.

I miss you with a poison gas cylinder I just threw at you. Though you take no hit points damage, you die. Or, you take hit point damage anyway, and you die. This is a concept that has a long history in this game. Sometimes, a miss can still kill things. Because sometimes the attack roll was simply to determine how much hit point damage you potentially take and not whether you are going to take damage, or how big an area the death spreads, or what precise area the death spreads in. Sometimes, you're doomed the moment they try to aim at you.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Despite your attempted dismissivness, it's relevant. You start from the premise that there is a ratio, and then try to figure out roughly what it might be. But you cannot even start, until you post what the comment was to begin with. It's highly relevant.



It's also quite consistent, and therefore relevant. People keep pretending the "it's magic" answer to spells doing damage on a miss is somehow a powerful argument. It's not, particularly concerning the topic of "is this a consistent mechanic". It's consistent in D&D that some things do damage even on a miss. Spells do it, and sometimes non-magical things do as well when looking at things like poison gas, and this kind of ability. Now that doesn't mean you have to agree, but it does mean it's relevant to the discussion to raise those issues. Just dismissing it out of hand as not relevant because you disagree is, at best, non-productive and rude.



I don't recall anyone saying you needed to do anything. But, it's helpful in that a lot of people are bringing up the historical context of the issue - the reason it "feels" wrong, or "seems" not-believable or not consistent, is because of the history of the concept. So, citing the history of the concept that supports hit points as being something other than simply physical damage is relevant and useful, at least for some people even if it is not helpful for you.



People have given you lots of logical consistent reasons. They've said you are so strong that even glancing contact does damage. They've said the sweep of the arm with such weapons is so great that any swing at a target makes at least glancing contact. Some have even tied it to magic. Now you don't like those reasons, but not liking them is no the same as them being illogical or inconsistent.



Spells do this. Some poisons do this. The game allows for killing very low hit-point things on a miss in several aspects. This simply expands the realm of things that can kill low-hit-point creatures on a miss to include a single martial ability, due to power or training or weapon or swing or strength or any of the explanations given. Again, you don't like the explanations given - but please stop saying that your dislike of them equates with them not existing or them having no sense of logic or consistency to them.



I miss you with a poison gas cylinder I just threw at you. Though you take no hit points damage, you die. Or, you take hit point damage anyway, and you die. This is a concept that has a long history in this game. Sometimes, a miss can still kill things. Because sometimes the attack roll was simply to determine how much hit point damage you potentially take and not whether you are going to take damage, or how big an area the death spreads, or what precise area the death spreads in. Sometimes, you're doomed the moment they try to aim at you.

I can dismiss it because it isn't relevant.

 

[Mistwell]

I can dismiss it because it isn't relevant.

You can try. But, you'll continue to fail. When people make good arguments, and you just hand-waive dismiss them, you're not persuading anyone of anything, or informing anyone of anything, or establishing credibility, or anything positive on your behalf or on behalf of your position or the game. When people see you group a long detailed logical and understanding reply and simply respond with "I dismiss this", it's about the equivalent of a schoolyard kid saying "I know you are but what am I".

Do you want to be known as that guy?