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

[ForeverSlayer]

Climb checks.
Balance checks.
Still laughing?

Wut?

You fall when you fail a climb check or a balance check so yeah, I'm still laughing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Though I rather think you would be claiming a hit even if your blow hadn't penetrated his suit. Depending on the exact type of fencing and where and how the blow landed, you might even be right.

Maybe. The point is, in contemporary swordfighting, a "hit" is not necessarily equated with any physical contact to the target.

The same is true in most kinds of fighting, I suspect. If a boxer punches and hits the other guy's raised boxing gloves, I don't think it counts as a hit. There has to be a substantial body blow doesn't there? (Clearly not a boxing expert). Certainly when I took karate as a child I understood there to be a substantial difference between hitting someone and touching them as part of a maneuver.

I understand the point you're trying to make, that the definition of "hit" D&D is kind of murky, but I think that there's similar ambiguity in the word outside of a D&D context.

Now you're getting into Called Shot mechanics, where it's perfectly plausible to have an attack that connects with the wrong part of the target be a failure at achieving your objective but still a hit on the target.

In the absence of called shot mechanics, these kinds of situations are handled very abstractly. I suspect that in Star Wars d20, the scenario I described would fall under a miss. I also suspect that if a D&D character attacks the Tarrasque and misses, a player would not object to the DM narrating that miss as a blow that dents its carapace but causes no appreciable harm.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, to be fair, it may be possible depending on what abilities the enemy has. Just because the fighter can declare that their attack does some damage doesn't mean an enemy can't have an ability to declare that they take no damage from the next attack. The real question for those declarations is how to control their deployment, and what resources constrain them.

Right if they have something special to offset my characters something special..

 

[Mistwell]

Wut?

You fall when you fail a climb check or a balance check so yeah, I'm still laughing.

Read them again. Unlike a swing of your sword, the climb and balance checks have three possible results, not two.

It has an intermediate step. You can fall (failure), you can succeed (move), or you can stand still (intermediate - a roll that fails by 5 or less). For both climb and balance checks, the primary thing you're trying to do is NOT FALL TO YOUR DOOM (at least some times). You can achieve that primary goal, without succeeding on the roll. So when he says "Failure doesn't necessarily mean you completely accomplish zero either", that applies for balance and climb checks, where you can accomplish not falling, even on a failed roll.

 

[Garthanos]

You fall when you fail a climb check

Or do you fail to advance further up the wall or advance along the rope or not make it to the other side before you were caught by an enemy... but you are still partially en-route.
Binary results are so boring.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Binary results are so boring.

If that's true, why are you arguing for a mechanic that reduces the scope of possible outcomes rather than increasing it?

 

[Garthanos]

I understand the point you're trying to make, that the definition of "hit" D&D is kind of murky, but I think that there's similar ambiguity in the word outside of a D&D context.

Yes, because the socalled hit/miss paradigm you think is being "dumped" on NEVER has been absolute like you are claiming.

 

[Garthanos]

If that's true, why are you arguing for a mechanic that reduces the scope of possible outcomes rather than increasing it?

Hit on a Miss doesnt because you get some situations where somebody will swish on a miss and some where they dont - that is more possible outcomes.. where the players choices determined which it was.

(As I said I want the reliable attack as an option and a choice preferably not one bound by weapon but rather selected tactically)

 

[Wicht]

I make my own traditions too... I dont think others need to treat my traditions as inviolate and sacrosanct

When the rules are changed in such a way as to violate a rather broad tradition, its significant and such a change should not be done lightly. Otherwise you end up with a game that loses its core audience.

Dungeons and Dragons is the grandfather of RPGs. The traditions around it are part and parcel of what makes it valuable. Throwing them off just because is a rather chancy proposition and potentially undercuts its standing as the king of RPGs. I would posit that part of 4e's problem was a lack of respect for tradition. And now DnD is no longer king of the hill. I was hoping 5e would return to roots.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Hit on a Miss doesnt because you get some situations where somebody will swish on a miss and some where they dont - that is more possible outcomes.. where the players choices determined which it was.

I think what you're saying is that a character with this ability has different outcomes than one who doesn't. However, the character in and of himself is still making a binary attack; it's just that instead of hitting or missing, he's hitting or sort of hitting. This is not like the skill examples above where one roll made by one character could have three or more distinct results.