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

[herrozerro]

Yes, a simple miss rule would go along way to fixing the problem. At this point my group will have no choice but to house rule in Contact AC for all damage on a miss attacks in the game.

Secondary attacks are great. I'd rather have more attacks for the chance to make extra improvised actions, especially for fighter types.

Have you seen my idea above? It might provide you with an alternate method.

 

[dmgorgon]

With all of that said, I am all for modifying GWF. I could see having GWF being a stance that needs to be activated, or a variable damage like you do str mod damage on a miss minus what you missed by. So if your mod is 5, if you miss by 4 you still do 1 damage.

Actually what I like the best is: "You force your enemies to treat you with caution, when you miss with an attack that target must attempt to shift back from you (whatever wording for the movement) or take your STR mod in damage. If the target cannot move away, it takes the damage."

Or change the above movement with any kind of penalty for having to be cautious or damage. Gives the target a choice, take the damage or a penalty.

What you said here brings to mind the metagaming issue I have with GWF.

Can an NPC know he will automatically take damage? For example, does a wizard who is in melee range of a GWF know it's pointless to cast spells that increase AC or grant disadvantage to his attacker? Does he know enough to just to move away? What if the spell is 9th level? Will it be enough save the poor wizard who has 4 hit points from the 1st level fighter? What is it exactly about a big weapon that makes all such spells useless in this case?

 

[herrozerro]

What you said here brings to mind the metagaming issue I have with GWF.

Can an NPC know he will automatically take damage? For example, does a wizard who is in melee range of a GWF know it's pointless to cast spells that increase AC or grant disadvantage to his attacker? Does he know enough to just to move away? What if the spell is 9th level? Will it be enough save the poor wizard who has 4 hit points from the 1st level fighter? What is it exactly about a big weapon that makes all such spells useless in this case?

I figure it's right about when the large weapon is being swung in your direction is when you know that you need to either get out of the way (or whatever penalty is required) or take damage. I don't see this as metagaming, I'll bet if you encountered someone with anything called a Great Weapon who was swinging at you, not being hit is probably the first thing on your mind even if you were wearing armor.

It's not perfect yet, but it addresses several issues. It gives some of the agency to the enemy, the damage can be avoided and it gives an interesting tactical ability.

 

[Tovec]

he was wrong

You rather failed to prove that he was wrong. You can say he is, but that is no more convincing than when you say others are being dismissive.

Plus it isn't a melee weapon. I seem to recall saying that this ability would be best defined as a grenade effect - but since claymores are generally not explosives they shouldn't get the effect.

The fact that one is a ranged attack with a 10' range, and the other is a melee weapon, seems inconsequential to me. Both are non-magical forms of attack. The argument was "it's magic" in response to things like magic missile and fireball. Not "it's ranged". Or would you be fine if the fighter threw a dagger and did auto-damage on a miss with a thrown dagger? I doubt it.

I don't see anywhere in that little sentence where I mentioned the range of the splash weapon. And yes both are non-magical forms of attack. My objection was not once "that is is ranged." You should probably take a look at that.

The fighter ability is being described like splash damage. But, everyone's upset about describing it that way. For some reason they are fine with a small vial of liquid hitting every single spot across a 15' area exactly evenly without any ability to dodge it or have armor prevent damage from it, but they're not OK with a fighter hitting everyone in a single 5' square with their big weapon, with at least a glancing blow.

I understand that YOU think it is 'inconsequential' for it to be a splash weapon/grenade, but it is really rather the point. The alchemists fire also sets things on fire - can this fighter ability? No, of course not. However the property of grenade/splash weapons is that they cause a burst of damage to all targets in the squares they hit. It is the same as a fireball, but it is alchemical instead of a purely magical effect. You can't simply call it 'inconsequential' when it is the defining feature of the weapon. If it were not able to splash, say a random rock that had no liquid properties, then it would seems similarly dumb to expect it to hit everyone in the area.

And I don't get that. Throw a bottle of something and watch it break - the splash almost always goes in the direction of the momentum of the bottle, and never evenly disperses across a 15' area.

This is something we can address I suppose. Though the reason we generally don't is that it brings up a lot more REAL physics in a game of make believe.

I'd say hitting everyone in a five foot area with a sword, with at least a glancing blow, is more realistic than alchemist fire hitting everyone in a 15' square exactly evenly with no ability to dodge it or have plate armor prevent damage from it.

Because last I checked, like a fireball or a grenade, a SWORD ISN'T AN EXPLOSION.

 

[mlund]

No, it's failing to simulate the chance of him doing no damage that round.

What chance? His combat style is such that if you're unfortunate to be the focus of attention while he's locked into close combat with you for 6 seconds worth of crashing-bashing-slicing-and-dicing you come away with less hit points (maybe from fatigue, maybe from injury, maybe using up your luck) unless you have at least some low-level damage reduction or regeneration. If you don't want to suffer that effect you'd best not be in melee with him. Similarly, if you don't want to take damage from a fire get some Fire Resistance or stay out of the fire.

Personally I'd like to see it fail to do any damage on a natural 1, to make the natural 1 have a little more meaning since it isn't a pure fumble anymore. That's how 13th Age handles it and it works well. Their explanation of "Damage on a Miss" is very clear and simulation / narrative based as well. Every PC does it with non-Nat-1 melee attacks, and some class options can increase that effective "damage floor" of a melee attack. The idea that a life-or-death melee engagement inevitably causes attrition of the stuff that keeps you alive (health, endurance, concentration, luck) round after round even if you avoid the brunt of the strikes is a glaring omission from D&D as a Combat Simulator.

Frankly, you probably have much better chances of coming through unscathed when taking a running leap through a narrow curtail of fire for half a second than you do going toe-to-toe with a powerful, trained killer trying to drop you with a sword (and any other instrument he has at his disposal - shield, hands, feet, shoulder, helmet) for 6 seconds but in many editions that's the exact opposite of how the mechanics play out - because they were putting Game Functions and Narrative ahead of Simulation. Setting up a wall of flames (magical or otherwise) requires more effort and they kept the rules for passing through hazardous areas relatively concise.

- Marty Lund

 

[ForeverSlayer]

But, rolling it back around, do you apply the same logic to magic? After all, it is impossible to not be damaged on a Save Half spell (barring special abilities of course). No matter what, you will be damaged by a Save Half spell. Is that a unacceptable limitation on narrative space?

And, if it's not, why is it unacceptable when a certain kind of fighter does it?

How much narrative space are we actually losing? I guess that's my question with this line of reasoning. Yup, with this specific kind of fighter (note it's only one kind of fighter - there's no reason this fighter has to appear in your game), we cannot narrate a complete miss on attacks. Is this really such a huge loss of narrative space? Haven't we also gained a lot of narrative space to narrate near, but also damaging, attacks?

This has already been discussed.

"Magic" is the keyword here. I see people keep going back to this like it's a firm justification for the argument when it's not.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

How about this?

Let's use a molotov cocktail. Now, which do you think is going to do more damage?

A: I throw it 2 feet away from you and it shatters.

B: I hit you with it directly and it shatters as it hits your body.

 

[mlund]

This has already been discussed.

"Magic" is the keyword here. I see people keep going back to this like it's a firm justification for the argument when it's not.

I fail to see how "it's magic" answers the question, "is that an unacceptable limitation on narrative space?"

Especially considering there are non-magical explosive effects that, likewise, automatically deal damage even on a missed attack roll, and if we're being sticklers for simulation it is way more likely for a single round of ranged ammunition to go wildly off-target and completely fail to affect a target than it is for 6 seconds of life-and-death melee to fail to affect the participants.

Is "you can't completely avoid losing hit points," not limiting narrative space? It's true regardless of whether you try to apply it to a targeted explosive burst or being nose-to-nose locked in melee with someone trying to murder you. The real question is: "Why does being locked in a deadly melee engagement causing automatic HP loss break down verisimilitude so much worse than a targeted explosion causing automatic HP loss?"

The answer seems to keep coming back, "Targeted explosions are mainly a wizard thing and anything is OK if a wizard does it because wizards should always be cooler than grogs."

How about this?

Let's use a molotov cocktail. Now, which do you think is going to do more damage?

A: I throw it 2 feet away from you and it shatters.

B: I hit you with it directly and it shatters as it hits your body.

Ironically, if you hit someone with a molotov cocktail directly anywhere but on the skull or a hard joint (knee, elbow) it probably won't shatter. It'll deal bludgeoning damage like any other thrown bottle. The problem will arise once it shatters at their feet, but if you hit them in the chest, abdomen, or on muscle it will be bouncing - away - from them when it hits and likely have momentum carrying the contents away from them as well. Of course, if they happen to be armored the likelihood of shattering on impact goes way up - as their armor actually makes it much easier to "score a hit" with that particular weapon.

The proper way to try and set someone on fire with a thrown molotov cocktail is to throw it directly at hard ground in front of someone's feet so the gasoline splashes up onto their body while catching fire. You can't count on the fuse or seal reliably enough to use it as a hurled explosive. They are typically best for smoke screens, property damage, and burning out people in enclosed spaces like vehicles or smaller rooms.

- Marty Lund

 

[Bluenose]

Why should training in any particular martial style give you the power to always do damage? There should always be a chance that you don't even make contact with your foe. Rolling a 1 is the standard method of making that determination in D&D, but apparently even that core and iconic rule is ignored with this style.

If the only possible interpretation for hit points being lost is physical damage, then you might have a point. If hit point loss includes other things, than it's perfectly simulationist to believe that someone has a particular fighting style due to the training they have that puts an opponent under so much pressure that they will get closer to losing the fight than they were before.

Even a 20th level fighter with a sword and shield can't even hope to compare to the 1st level GWF in that regard. Apparently once you decide to use a two handed weapon (even if it's just a long pointed stick) no amount of armor, dexterity, magic, level etc can ever prevent that 1st level GWF from doing damage.

For a situationist, the rule is idiotic on far too many levels. Even for those who just want an intuitive game the rule doesn't work.

So could you explain, as a "situationist", how a critical hit with a great axe has absolutely no effect on anything the unfortunate person who received it can do - they remain completely capable in all ways - unless it turns out to be enough to reduce them to dying?

 

[Ahnehnois]

What chance? His combat style is such that if you're unfortunate to be the focus of attention while he's locked into close combat with you for 6 seconds worth of crashing-bashing-slicing-and-dicing you come away with less hit points (maybe from fatigue, maybe from injury, maybe using up your luck) unless you have at least some low-level damage reduction or regeneration. If you don't want to suffer that effect you'd best not be in melee with him. Similarly, if you don't want to take damage from a fire get some Fire Resistance or stay out of the fire.

So his whirling storm of blade strikes is impossible to avoid by even the most agile defenders with the most powerful protections...but if he actually hits he does no more damage than before? Possibly a very small amount? That really doesn't make any sense.

The situation you're describing is better modeled by simply getting an attack bonus so high you can't miss except on a 1. Which can already happen.

I fail to see how "it's magic" answers the question, "is that an unacceptable limitation on narrative space?"

The "narrative space" available for magical abilities is inherently going to be larger than for other abilities. In D&D, it's often much larger.