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

[Ahnehnois]

I can't recall a DM I've ever played under who actually did do much more than that. So, I'm wondering just how widespread lengthy narration of misses is. Have I just not had DM's who do this or are we talking about a pretty small minority of DM's for whom this might actually be an issue.

Well, I'd say "you deal 8 damage" is about as common as "you miss". It's a few more words, but not much going on there. Conversely, I'd say "your axe cleaves through the orc's shield, spraying blood across your face" is no more common than "you swing wildly at the knight, but your sword clangs harmlessly off his shield".

AFAIC, the level of detail in narration depends more on things like how competitive the battle is and how much time is available for the session as opposed to the valence of the outcome. YMMV.

 

[dmgorgon]

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.

You have missed the point. In this case, the wizard thinks, " Hey if I use this powerful spell that grants cover, I just might be able to complete the ritual this round". What he doesn't know is that he's automatically dead on the fighters turn. Against any other foe that doesn't happen.

Also, I hope you realize that not all great weapons are swung in a huge arc over your head. How about that long pointed stick called a long spear?

 

[dmgorgon]

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

And when he is locked into combat with you from behind cover, is intoxicated, and you have a blur spell active. Is there still no chance to take no damage?

At least you agree that there should be some chance for the character to miss and do no damage.

 

[herrozerro]

You have missed the point. In this case, the wizard thinks, " Hey if I use this powerful spell that grants cover, I just might be able to complete the ritual this round". What he doesn't know is that he's automatically dead on the fighters turn. Against any other foe that doesn't happen.

Also, I hope you realize that not all great weapons are swung in a huge arc over your head. How about that long pointed stick called a long spear?

I didn't miss the point, I just think the wizard would be wrong. Is there anything with that? He may think that this powerful spell can protect him, but nope! It doesn't.

 

[bogmad]

I didn't miss the point, I just think the wizard would be wrong. Is there anything with that? He may think that this powerful spell can protect him, but nope! It doesn't.

And it never will protect him. The wizard may think his powerful spell can protect him, but the player playing him will be well aware that the spell is always useless in that situation, which creates a disconnect than can be a bit jarring. Especially if you're a player who favors an immersive versus gamist style.

 

[dmgorgon]

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.

That's not true at all. Even if I take your interpretation for hit points, I could argue that on a 1 the GWF shouldn't do anything to effectively reduce hit points. If the GWF practically fumbles his sword his opponent shouldn't be forced to take any damage (physical or not). Regardless of how you interpret hit point damage there should always be a chance that you fail to be effective, especially when the odds are greatly against you. Things like Cover, Intoxicated, Blindness, Blur, and several other conditions and situations shouldn't just be ignored.

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?

In this situation, hit points must be interpreted differently. That much is obvious. That doesn't mean that hit point damage should always be non-physical. If I tell a player that he has an arrow stuck in him and he's going to bleed every round, I certainly don't want the game to nullify that description of hit points later on when MR warlord gives him a pep talk. Hit points are abstract enough to fit the situation at hand. There are situations in which hit point damage can be 100% physical and there are others in which it can't. The game should not force it to be any one thing in particular all the time, unless you are willing to add more rules to deal with it.

In this case, the simulationist would add more house rules to solve those problems. The 2e options books does a great job at simulating things like crits, broken bones, limb loss, decapitation, etc. So yes hit points are abstract in the base D&D game, but the simulationist will often use a set of expanded rules to deal with the problem you're talking about. What we don't want are a set of base rules that are incompatible with that style of play.

For example, I've played in games in which the hit point totals were reduced to under 20 for all characters. In this case, armor reduced damage and was the only thing keeping you alive most of the time.

 

[herrozerro]

And it never will protect him. The wizard may think his powerful spell can protect him, but the player playing him will be well aware that the spell is always useless in that situation, which creates a disconnect than can be a bit jarring. Especially if you're a player who favors an immersive versus gamist style.

Ah, so your issue is with meta gaming, not with this ability. I don't know, seems like any observation of the GWF in action should tell the wizard in game that it's not going to help.

 

[Wicht]

I can't reconcile my differences with anyone who has a problem with Come and Get It.

And I think that pretty well sums up the impasse.

Putting things like this into 5e is going to mean that a certain segment of our gaming population is going to be unable to utilize the rules in a truly satisfactory manner, and the other segment is going to wonder what all the fuss is about and never really understand why the game gets such grief.

 

[dmgorgon]

I didn't miss the point, I just think the wizard would be wrong. Is there anything with that? He may think that this powerful spell can protect him, but nope! It doesn't.

Yes, and that's a big problem. In this case the PC would have to just stand there. Even if the player knows his character's spells will do nothing, for the sake of role playing, he will allow his character be wrong and die.

btw, do you think a wish spell will work?

If you say yes, then why can't an equally powerful 9th level spell do the same?


IMO, there are serious problems with this rule especially with the current combat rules. It nullifies far too many conditions and combat actions for it to be acceptable.

Even if you are dodging for the round and you have someone else hindering the intoxicated prone GWF you are still going to take damage. With only 4 hit points left you are going down and nothing short of Wish can save you.

Paladin: "Quick everyone protect the princess. Knock him down, shield the the girl, and cast protection spells on her!"

Bard: "Um.. MR paladumb... He appears to be great weapon specialist... there is actually nothing we can do he's already within range"

 

[bogmad]

Ah, so your issue is with meta gaming, not with this ability. I don't know, seems like any observation of the GWF in action should tell the wizard in game that it's not going to help.

That's one issue I have.
Another one can be easily described with the same example. An unlimited use ability in that situation (GWF miss dmg) negates a limited use ability (the spell). Other than reaping strike, the large majority of damage on a miss powers in 4e are restricted to limited use or daily abilities, for partially gamist reasons. It's not as fun when you this thing you can only do once totally misses.

It may be more fun to do damage on a miss (that's the boiled down reason I see a lot of it's advocates use), but the simple ability to miss doesn't ruin your fun. We usually assume you can miss by default. Being unable to miss however may ruin fun for others. I think mechanics that break established conventions (i.e. a miss = no damage) should at least be reserved for limited use cases.