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

[urLordy]

Now that's a poll I would like to see!

Seconded. Somewhere inside the patchwork Frankenstein monster of D&D there is a fun, elegant, cohesive core combat engine just waiting to be born, and nobody on the Internet will argue about damage-on-a-miss or evasion or splash weapons because the system is honest about its agenda. And there will be peace on earth. Until then, I have my flesh golem thingy.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'm tempted to start a "I don't like no damage on a hit" poll and complain about damage reduction and evasion.

You could. It's hardly the same thing, though. Monsters that can only be damaged by specific types of weapons are rife in fantasy lore; the idea that other weapons bounce off of them even on successful hits is not particularly radical. And indeed, one could argue that a hit that deals no damage and an attack that misses due to armor are variations on the same thing.

And on a more basic level, the logical contradiction isn't there. With damage on a miss, you're either saying that you deal potentially lethal damage while possibly failing to even touch the target, or you're saying that it's impossible for you to fail to touch the target. In this new scenario, all it's saying is that you can physically contact the target without doing any real harm, which isn't a contradiction (though it is potentially unsatisfying on a gamist level).

 

[TwoSix]

You could. It's hardly the same thing, though. Monsters that can only be damaged by specific types of weapons are rife in fantasy lore; the idea that other weapons bounce off of them even on successful hits is not particularly radical. And indeed, one could argue that a hit that deals no damage and an attack that misses due to armor are variations on the same thing.

And on a more basic level, the logical contradiction isn't there. With damage on a miss, you're either saying that you deal potentially lethal damage while possibly failing to even touch the target, or you're saying that it's impossible for you to fail to touch the target. In this new scenario, all it's saying is that you can physically contact the target without doing any real harm, which isn't a contradiction (though it is potentially unsatisfying on a gamist level).

My fun, why must you suck it out like a vampire?

 

[Ahnehnois]

My fun, why must you suck it out like a vampire?

Because it's badwrong I guess*.

*Not to be taken literally.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

My fun, why must you suck it out like a vampire?

Because it sounds like your fun isn't the same as my fun.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I still think D&D could have used the RIFTs combat engine where you always miss on a 1 through 4 and you possibly hit after that when the dodge roll is made.

 

[pemerton]

With damage on a miss, you're either saying that you deal potentially lethal damage while possibly failing to even touch the target, or you're saying that it's impossible for you to fail to touch the target.

Neither A nor B. You're saying that every lethal blow was lethal. You're also saying that every 6 rounds of combat wears down the target.

The mechanics (as is always the case with a hit and with a damage roll in D&D) can't be given an in-fiction interpretation until the effect on the target is known.

I still think D&D could have used the RIFTs combat engine where you always miss on a 1 through 4 and you possibly hit after that when the dodge roll is made.

If D&D had a completely different combat system then sure, damage on a miss may not fit. Obviously, for instance, damage on a miss would make no sense in RQ.

But D&D doesn't have such a combat system.

This relates back to my puzzle that many of those who don't like the mechanic seem to regard D&D's combat mechanics as some sort of second-best compromise, yet seem to be painting themselves as D&D patriots.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

Just so you know, I just closed the other thread on this subject because it was adequately demonstrated to me that the participants were no longer actually conveying information to one another. All that was left was argument.

Let us not repeat that pattern here, please. Thanks for your time and attention.

 

[urLordy]

This relates back to my puzzle that many of those who don't like the mechanic seem to regard D&D's combat mechanics as some sort of second-best compromise, yet seem to be painting themselves as D&D patriots.

D&D patriots? In context of the mod's warning, the only information I can convey is to question your usage of "D&D patriots" and I'm not sure that angle is going to help you solve your puzzle.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Neither A nor B. You're saying that every lethal blow was lethal. You're also saying that every 6 rounds of combat wears down the target.

The mechanics (as is always the case with a hit and with a damage roll in D&D) can't be given an in-fiction interpretation until the effect on the target is known.

If D&D had a completely different combat system then sure, damage on a miss may not fit. Obviously, for instance, damage on a miss would make no sense in RQ.

But D&D doesn't have such a combat system.

This relates back to my puzzle that many of those who don't like the mechanic seem to regard D&D's combat mechanics as some sort of second-best compromise, yet seem to be painting themselves as D&D patriots.

Now in all fairness, compared to some of the other combat systems out there, D&D's combat system is a bit second rate in my opinion.