D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[Manbearcat]

No, but in 3x, Dexterity and Dodge both make you dodge better and they improve your AC, showing that AC is reflective of both the quality of one's armor and the quickness with which one avoids being hit.

i've attempted to make this issue central multiple times now, as it is not supportive of the idea that "damage on a miss" is impossible.

1) A "dodge" is the successful imposition by the defender of the condition of lack of collision between the aggressor's offensive implement and the defender's mass; "miss".

2) When a collision does indeed occur between the aggressor's offensive implement and the defender's mass - a "hit" -, "armor" is the successful imposition by the defender of the condition of the energy transfer between the two objects being blunted/lessened/dissipated)status + other).

3) "Armor Class" is mulitvariate defensive statistic whereby dodge + armor are folded together.

4) A contest in D&D to determine "damage-output" between aggressor and defender is a singular check against both of these dispirate elements.

Now, 5 should follow that the narration of the consequence of 1 - 4 could be either (i) "lack of collision between two bodies" (dodge) or (ii) "a collision between two bodies" (armor). With (ii) being a possible output to the "Attack versus Armor Class" contest, energy transfer can be a consqueence of the contest. Further, it will occur, even if partially/mostly mitigated, if the "armor" portion of AC is invoked when the "miss" condition is met. When something "misses" the Tarrasque it almost certainly "hits" it (with respect to a collision between agressor's implement and the Tarrasque's mass) and there will be energy transfer. Its inescapable. It may just be partially/mostly/fully mitigated. The Tarrasque isn't "dodging" blows when the "miss condition" is met against it in an "Attack versus Armor Class" contest.

None of this, of course, gets into the gross abstraction of the combat round action economy:real world time, and the HP question. This is simply invoking the facets of "Attack versus Armor Class" and what they mean to the "hit means a collision" and "miss always means a lack of collision therefore 0 chance of energy transfer."

 

[bogmad]

I rather like it, actually. But then, I would.

The more I think about it the more I think I might too.
A certain amount of skill can make it easier to negate the worst effects of an explosion, but to end up completely unscathed by the random chaos of a 30 ft ball of fire? That takes pure luck.

Maybe it would interfere with improved evasion though?
What if for the "non-improved" it took a natural 20 to emerge from an AoE completely unscathed, and an "unnatural" 20 meant the improved evasion guy was skilled enough to negate it all?

 

[Wicht]

When I use my injury system, which includes hit locations and called shots, in non-D&D d20 games, it works great.

How do your players feel when an NPC calls "arrow in the eye," on them and succeeds?

 

[Manbearcat]

I think Uncanny Dodge being extended as below, and being a feat (buffed as required to meet the potency of other feat options) that anyone can take would address this problem for most folks:

Uncanny Dodge: On a successful Reflex Saving Throw, the defender does not take any damage from area of effect attacks that deal damage on a successful Reflex Saving Throw. Further, the target is allowed a Reflex Saving Throw (whatever the DC would be) to avoid damage that normally ocurrs as a result of an enemy's failed Weapon Atack versus Armor Class.

 

[dmgorgon]

The more I think about it the more I think I might too.
A certain amount of skill can make it easier to negate the worst effects of an explosion, but to end up completely unscathed by the random chaos of a 30 ft ball of fire? That takes pure luck.

Maybe it would interfere with improved evasion though?
What if for the "non-improved" it took a natural 20 to emerge from an AoE completely unscathed, and an "unnatural" 20 meant the improved evasion guy was skilled enough to negate it all?

I have a cousin who was within the kill radius of a mortar and he wasn't even hit. Call it luck I guess.

 

[TwoSix]

The more I think about it the more I think I might too.
A certain amount of skill can make it easier to negate the worst effects of an explosion, but to end up completely unscathed by the random chaos of a 30 ft ball of fire? That takes pure luck.

Maybe it would interfere with improved evasion though?
What if for the "non-improved" it took a natural 20 to emerge from an AoE completely unscathed, and an "unnatural" 20 meant the improved evasion guy was skilled enough to negate it all?

It impacts evasion, really, not improved evasion, by slightly weakening evasion. Evasion used to change the result from (min success roll) up to 20 to be no damage, from half damage. Now it only changes (min success roll) up to 19 to no damage from half damage. Not a huge issue, I think. Evasion is still very useful.

 

[Wicht]

i've attempted to make this issue central multiple times now, as it is not supportive of the idea that "damage on a miss" is impossible.

Well this gets to semantics but...

If, on the one hand, if a "miss" is defined as an attack which fails to deal damage, then it is impossible and "damage on a miss" equals "never misses." Which I think is troublesome. I don't like the concept of a warrior that never misses.

If on the other hand, a miss is a combination of both failure to connect and failure to penetrate and wound, then "damage on a miss" by fiat negates the narration of Dexterity and Dodge, making it non-existent (which I think is a point others have tried to make). It is forcing an interpretation of the rules and narration so that hitting only equals a failure to penetrate defenses and wound. There is no such thing anymore as an ability to dodge a strike. And that's troublesome.

The whole thing is just a bad idea, more trouble than its worth, and going to, in the end, if adopted, lead to an increase of complexity as additional rules are piled on to counteract the narration of the first rule.

 

[TwoSix]

I think Uncanny Dodge being extended as below, and being a feat (buffed as required to meet the potency of other feat options) that anyone can take would address this problem for most folks:

Uncanny Dodge: On a successful Reflex Saving Throw, the defender does not take any damage from area of effect attacks that deal damage on a successful Reflex Saving Throw. Further, the target is allowed a Reflex Saving Throw (whatever the DC would be) to avoid damage that normally ocurrs as a result of an enemy's failed Weapon Atack versus Armor Class.

I like it. Although with that exception in play, I'd expect to see a broadening of DoaM effects. (Or DoaF, damage on a fail. I like pass-fail better than hit-miss.) Hit-miss puts too much intent-based resolution into a task-based declaration for me.

Oh, [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], check out this thread when you have a chance...I think you'd appreciate the discussion. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?707167-Intent-based-vs-Task-based-Resolution

 

[TwoSix]

If on the other hand, a miss is a combination of both failure to connect and failure to penetrate and wound, then "damage on a miss" by fiat negates the narration of Dexterity and Dodge, making it non-existent (which I think is a point others have tried to make). It is forcing an interpretation of the rules and narration so that hitting only equals a failure to penetrate defenses and wound. There is no such thing anymore as an ability to dodge a strike. And that's troublesome.

I think the issue that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is presenting (and something I've alluded to elsewhere) is that Armor + Dexterity being rolled into a single AC value means that "a miss is a combination of both failure to connect OR (not and) failure to penetrate and wound". It means that the narration must be presented as based on the fiction, not by any rules process, which I believe is somewhat antithetical to your desires.

 

[Wicht]

Taking out the eyes is a classic of the fiction though... as is hamstringing to induce a slowed effect.

With the critical deck we have had both of those things actually. But its randomly determined rather than being personally chosen. Its the choosing of the effect which leads to a breakdown in narration and game-flow. I have nothing against such things in general though.

The random nature of Dungeons and Dragons combat has always created a rather loose connection between the choices of the Player and the actual actions of the Character. If you read Gygax's thinking about it, it was meant to model an extended back and forth with the assumption the PC would know better than the Player what would be the right choice given the abilities and position of the other. Called Shots break this assumption and so does not work well with the mechanics as originally structured. The randomizer of a deck, however, maintains the assumption but also introduces the actual effects into the game in a simple and elegant way.