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

[pemerton]

Sleep generally has pretty restrictive conditions, so it's not a guarantee outside of those conditions.

Likewise for damage on a miss. For instance, you have to be in circumstances where you can declare an attack against your target. This involves both action economy issues and positioning issues, to start with.

"effectiveness" is somewhat subjective. Damage is clearly a lasting effect, but sleep is transient

Damage is transient too - it heals. Sometimes quite quickly.

If one simply opens one's mind enough to see "failure" as "attacking, but dealing no damage", then an ability that prevents this outcome from occurring is infallibility.

I find a lack of potential to fail to be rather stale myself.

Removing the possibility of NOT defeating the target is anticlimactic to me.

I don't really feel the force of this. The aim of attacking, in D&D, is to defeat your enemy. Doing damage round-by-round is simply a means to this end. (Contrast a crit system, or SoD, where the point of each round is to generate a chance of delivering the single killing blow. That's the difference between D&D-style hit point ablation, and those other approaches to combat resolution.) Damage on a miss does not remove the possibility of not defeating the target! Even without [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]'s various options, it might simply happen that the PC loses all his/her hit points before the enemy loses all of its.

how in a game where rolling equal to or higher than a DC is a success and rolling lower than the DC is a failure (I of course can't copy that text either), should there be one specific character ability that redefines failure on one of the most common and important rolls you make to be a qualified success?

Page 1 of "How to Play" says this:

Roll a d20, add and subtract the appropriate modifiers, and then compare the modified result to the target number. If you equal or exceed that number, you succeed.​

Page 1, 2 and 28 go on to define "failure" for ability checks and saving throws (but not attacks) - when you fail an ability check you do not make progress, or perhaps suffer some sort of setback; when you fail a saving throw the GM (or the spell, in the case of saving vs a spell)tells you the effects of failure (or success, for that matter).

As [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] has pointed out, you can succeed on a saving throw yet not realise your intent of saving your PC (eg if you die from half damage). And nothing in any of this text suggests that failing to succeed on an attack roll does not permit partial success.

The "redefinition" you keep referring to is not a redefinition of anything as defind in the rules text. It is only a redefinition of your conception of the rules. Which, obviously, those who like GWF do not share.

The idea that half damage on a save is somehow removing dice seems rather far-fetched.

Likewise for the idea that STR damage on a miss is somehow removing dice - as [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] said.

In the case of GWF you are narrating part of the result without dice.

<snip>

GWF uses the mechanic-first narrative-second approach to gaming. The reason is that the narrative is always changing based on the situation at hand. For example, you certainly can't use Rodney's explanation for DoaM if you're attacking a pixie who has no armor. You have to use a different narrative that fits the mechanic.

Lots of D&D involves narrating part of the result without dice. For instance, if a mage casts a fireball spell part of the results - namely, the presence of a fiery explosion which burns everyone in the area - is narrated without dice.

As for your second bit, that's no different from hit point loss in general. The narrative of "lose 15 hit points" changes quite dramatically depending on whether the target had 100 hp, or 1 hp, remaining prior to taking the damage!

The damage on a miss principle was deconstructed and criticized by quite a few people in several different ways in both of these threads. All of those people were coming at it from different perspectives.

Conversely, the blanket response has been to do anything but address those criticisms.

I've addressed them at length. Those criticisms can be put into two broad categories:

(1) You can't hurt someone by not striking them. I (and others) have addressed that by pointing out that "hitting" in D&D doesn't mean striking, but is simply a mechanical state that triggers the rolling of damage dice (which in turn, although involving hit point loss, don't pe se entail physical injury). I have also pointed out that, in fact, in melee you can hurt someone by not striking them, for instance by causing them to dodge or parry in such a way as to suffer injury.

(2) It's not traditional. I (and others) have addressed that by pointing out that D&D has long had abilities that do auto-damage; and have also explained why we don't feel the force of the purported AoE vs single target contrast that some point to.​

The real question is, does anyone have something to say about the value of the damage on a miss mechanic?

I have said this multiple times. I'll try again:

(1) In mechanical terms, it sets a minimum level of damage per round;

(2) In story terms, it establishes the PC as a relentless dreadnought fighter whose opponent cannot but be worn down in 6 seconds of confrontation.​

The question is not whether you can persuade me to like it. The question is whether you can persuade me that other people like it. At the moment, I see two large threads full of people who hate damage on a miss for quite a diverse variety of reasons, and people who like calling that first group of people names.

<snip>

I haven't heard anything that would suggest to me that even its promoters would really prefer the damage on a miss over a simple bump to attack or damage, both of which also model relentless attacking and reduce the chance of an ineffectual turn, without all this madness.

success or failure on an attack roll is pretty clearly defined already, and this ability is quite radically redefining it.

wouldn't you rather just have the ability to take 10 on an attack roll or sweep through an area and deal area damage? You not only have to get this outcome, you have to take a dump on the hit/miss paradigm in the process?

I like damage on a miss. I don't think it's madness because, as I've mentioned upthread, and reiterated earlier in this post, I don't share your interpretation of the "hit/miss paradigm". I posted the definition of "hit" upthread, and of "miss", and thre is nothing in those definitions that is changed or redefined by damage on a miss.

And the other mechanical options you suggest are not the same. A bonus to damage, even if it produces the same DPR as auto-damage, is not an equivalent action. Expected utility is not the only relevant consideration - damage on a miss is expected utility + maximin.

The ability to take 10 is not the same either. For instance, it doesn't permit crits. And, depending on the relationship between attack bonus and enemy AC, it doesn't guarantee a hit.

I don't understand why you can't accept that some people play the game differently from the way that you do.

I have added interpretations to what die rolls mean and have claimed the authority of tradition for that interpretation. This change to the rules forces some of us to change the ways we traditionally play the game and interpret rolls.

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.

I believe that Mearls said that damage on a miss is testing well. Maybe that's because many people don't find it contrary to tradition (eg because D&D has long had rules for partial damage, as has been discussed at length in this thread).

I'm not sure on what basis you are so confident that your practices are widespread tradtional ones, and that those who like damage on a miss are all heretics.

 

[Zardnaar]

Likewise for damage on a miss. For instance, you have to be in circumstances where you can declare an attack against your target. This involves both action economy issues and positioning issues, to start with.

Damage is transient too - it heals. Sometimes quite quickly.




I don't really feel the force of this. The aim of attacking, in D&D, is to defeat your enemy. Doing damage round-by-round is simply a means to this end. (Contrast a crit system, or SoD, where the point of each round is to generate a chance of delivering the single killing blow. That's the difference between D&D-style hit point ablation, and those other approaches to combat resolution.) Damage on a miss does not remove the possibility of not defeating the target! Even without @Mistwell's various options, it might simply happen that the PC loses all his/her hit points before the enemy loses all of its.


Page 1 of "How to Play" says this:

Roll a d20, add and subtract the appropriate modifiers, and then compare the modified result to the target number. If you equal or exceed that number, you succeed.​

Page 1, 2 and 28 go on to define "failure" for ability checks and saving throws (but not attacks) - when you fail an ability check you do not make progress, or perhaps suffer some sort of setback; when you fail a saving throw the GM (or the spell, in the case of saving vs a spell)tells you the effects of failure (or success, for that matter).

As @Garthanos has pointed out, you can succeed on a saving throw yet not realise your intent of saving your PC (eg if you die from half damage). And nothing in any of this text suggests that failing to succeed on an attack roll does not permit partial success.

The "redefinition" you keep referring to is not a redefinition of anything as defind in the rules text. It is only a redefinition of your conception of the rules. Which, obviously, those who like GWF do not share.

Likewise for the idea that STR damage on a miss is somehow removing dice - as @Garthanos said.

Lots of D&D involves narrating part of the result without dice. For instance, if a mage casts a fireball spell part of the results - namely, the presence of a fiery explosion which burns everyone in the area - is narrated without dice.

As for your second bit, that's no different from hit point loss in general. The narrative of "lose 15 hit points" changes quite dramatically depending on whether the target had 100 hp, or 1 hp, remaining prior to taking the damage!

I've addressed them at length. Those criticisms can be put into two broad categories:

(1) You can't hurt someone by not striking them. I (and others) have addressed that by pointing out that "hitting" in D&D doesn't mean striking, but is simply a mechanical state that triggers the rolling of damage dice (which in turn, although involving hit point loss, don't pe se entail physical injury). I have also pointed out that, in fact, in melee you can hurt someone by not striking them, for instance by causing them to dodge or parry in such a way as to suffer injury.

(2) It's not traditional. I (and others) have addressed that by pointing out that D&D has long had abilities that do auto-damage; and have also explained why we don't feel the force of the purported AoE vs single target contrast that some point to.​

I have said this multiple times. I'll try again:

(1) In mechanical terms, it sets a minimum level of damage per round;

(2) In story terms, it establishes the PC as a relentless dreadnought fighter whose opponent cannot but be worn down in 6 seconds of confrontation.​

I like damage on a miss. I don't think it's madness because, as I've mentioned upthread, and reiterated earlier in this post, I don't share your interpretation of the "hit/miss paradigm". I posted the definition of "hit" upthread, and of "miss", and thre is nothing in those definitions that is changed or redefined by damage on a miss.

And the other mechanical options you suggest are not the same. A bonus to damage, even if it produces the same DPR as auto-damage, is not an equivalent action. Expected utility is not the only relevant consideration - damage on a miss is expected utility + maximin.

The ability to take 10 is not the same either. For instance, it doesn't permit crits. And, depending on the relationship between attack bonus and enemy AC, it doesn't guarantee a hit.

I don't understand why you can't accept that some people play the game differently from the way that you do.


I believe that Mearls said that damage on a miss is testing well. Maybe that's because many people don't find it contrary to tradition (eg because D&D has long had rules for partial damage, as has been discussed at length in this thread).

I'm not sure on what basis you are so confident that your practices are widespread tradtional ones, and that those who like damage on a miss are all heretics.

He said that initially but later came back with it was confusing and will be looked at.

 

[pemerton]

But why does someone need a semi-reward for failing?

Why does the wizard ned to do auto-damage, via fireball, but the thief not? The question doesn't really make sense.

"Failing" here isn't a moral category. It's a mechanical one. We're not talking about what people deserve. We're talking about what sort of mechanical space (and corresponding story space) is feasible within the overall parameters of the game. In the case of the GWF, the player has a range of options to choose from in PC building. This one lets him/her choose a guarantee of damage rather than a self defence buff or an ally defence buff. S/he doesn't need to do that, but presumably - having chosen it - s/he wanted to do that.

S/he has chosen a PC build where part of the capability of that build lies in being mechanically guaranteed a minimum effect from a declared attack. This capability doesn't, mechanically, break the game - for instance, the PC who has it is not overpowered as far as overall combat capability is concerned. It makes the PC distinctive from other PCs. And in my view, at least, it also establishes a distinctive persona for the PC.

That would be like someone passing "go" and they collect 200 while everyone else gets 50.

No. It's more like some PCs having spells, and other PCs not. As is often pointed out, it's an RPG, not a board game. The different players are expected to play characters with different abilities. (I think the technical term is "assymetric balance".)

 

[pemerton]

He said that initially but later came back with it was confusing and will be looked at.

I don't follow Twitter, but as I understand it from what others have posted, the confusion was around what damage riders are triggered, not around the basic idea of damage on a miss.
[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], are you able to clarify this?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Why does the wizard ned to do auto-damage, via fireball, but the thief not? The question doesn't really make sense.

"Failing" here isn't a moral category. It's a mechanical one. We're not talking about what people deserve. We're talking about what sort of mechanical space (and corresponding story space) is feasible within the overall parameters of the game. In the case of the GWF, the player has a range of options to choose from in PC building. This one lets him/her choose a guarantee of damage rather than a self defence buff or an ally defence buff. S/he doesn't need to do that, but presumably - having chosen it - s/he wanted to do that.

S/he has chosen a PC build where part of the capability of that build lies in being mechanically guaranteed a minimum effect from a declared attack. This capability doesn't, mechanically, break the game - for instance, the PC who has it is not overpowered as far as overall combat capability is concerned. It makes the PC distinctive from other PCs. And in my view, at least, it also establishes a distinctive persona for the PC.

No. It's more like some PCs having spells, and other PCs not. As is often pointed out, it's an RPG, not a board game. The different players are expected to play characters with different abilities. (I think the technical term is "assymetric balance".)

Once again, you are trying to bring limited, magical area effects into the argument which have no place.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't understand why you can't accept that some people play the game differently from the way that you do.

I don't understand why you or [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] think personal attacks are appropriate or productive. It sure sounds cool to paint other people as being close-minded, but that isn't enough reason to keep posting to that effect, particularly in the absence of a rationale. It's almost as if you think pursuing this angle "relentlessly" guarantees that you will accomplish something even if your argument fails. (It won't).

I accept that everyone plays the game differently than I do. And indeed, if I thought I was doing something that had been done elsewhere by someone else, that would be reason enough for me not to do it. However, the game has rules, and those rules have meaning, and some ways of using those rules are more valid than others as a consequence of that.

I could, for example, introduce an ability in which a fighter deals damage only on a miss, and fails to deal any on a hit. It's describable in mechanical terms, and I've no doubt that someone could tack a broad adjective on it (instead of relentless, maybe resourceful?), and it would introduce a distinctive gameplay element. But it would still be nonsensical given the general model of how checks work, and it would be a pretty stupid ability. Damage on a miss is wrong in the same way, but incrementally less so.

And the other mechanical options you suggest are not the same. A bonus to damage, even if it produces the same DPR as auto-damage, is not an equivalent action. Expected utility is not the only relevant consideration - damage on a miss is expected utility + maximin.

The ability to take 10 is not the same either. For instance, it doesn't permit crits. And, depending on the relationship between attack bonus and enemy AC, it doesn't guarantee a hit.

I'm aware that they aren't the same. If they were the same, there would be no point in me bringing them up as alternatives. However, what I'm doing is explaining that there are other options that exist in a similar conceptual space but are more mechanically sound.

Like, for example, one might try to make a "tough" fighter, and experiment with several different mechanics, ranging from static bonuses to parameters like hp and fort saves, accelerated healing, damage reduction, etc. All of those mechanics might relate in some way to that concept, but some might be more appropriate for the game than others. If I were to say that I wanted a character with damage reduction, and someone else were to say that DR in that implementation is overpowered or unrealistic or otherwise inappropriate, it would hardly be appropriate for me to argue that its removal would eliminate my ability to play a tough fighter.

(1) In mechanical terms, it sets a minimum level of damage per round;

(2) In story terms, it establishes the PC as a relentless dreadnought fighter whose opponent cannot but be worn down in 6 seconds of confrontation.

Those points are simply descriptions (and a tenuous description in the second case) of what the ability is. They're not explanations of why it's valuable. Yes, it sets a minimum damage level (other than the default of zero), but is that a good thing? Is a fighter with damage on a miss a better option to add to the game than one with any of the numerous other conceptually related abilities that have been suggested?

I say no.

 

[Aenghus]

Once again, you are trying to bring limited, magical area effects into the argument which have no place.

Wands and scrolls , as they worked in some previous editions, can make such effects much less limited. Magical crafting rules and/or purchasable magic items can make some of these effects available every round for practical purposes to those who can wield them.

 

[Wicht]

I don't really feel the force of this. The aim of attacking, in D&D, is to defeat your enemy. Doing damage round-by-round is simply a means to this end. (Contrast a crit system, or SoD, where the point of each round is to generate a chance of delivering the single killing blow. That's the difference between D&D-style hit point ablation, and those other approaches to combat resolution.) Damage on a miss does not remove the possibility of not defeating the target! Even without [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]'s various options, it might simply happen that the PC loses all his/her hit points before the enemy loses all of its.

That's fine you don't feel the force of it. I do and I am representative of myself. The idea that the fighter might miss the bad guy but the bad guy collapses anyway from the sheer force of the wind whiffling by him is annoying to me. The fact that someone would argue that it obviously did not miss because otherwise the guy wouldn't be dead is obnoxious to me. There's really not much going to change my opinion of the possibility of rolling a bad miss but still managing to take out the bad guy.

As for your second bit, that's no different from hit point loss in general. The narrative of "lose 15 hit points" changes quite dramatically depending on whether the target had 100 hp, or 1 hp, remaining prior to taking the damage!

Not necessarily. I think I have already stated that I tend to narrate the severity of the hit based on the amount of damage rolled. The last attack might be only a straw, but if the camel's back is broke, it is enough. Likewise the first blow might rip the guy apart, but he is still going by sheer strength of will, managing to stand after a blow that would have felled lesser men.

I believe that Mearls said that damage on a miss is testing well. Maybe that's because many people don't find it contrary to tradition (eg because D&D has long had rules for partial damage, as has been discussed at length in this thread).

I'm not sure on what basis you are so confident that your practices are widespread tradtional ones, and that those who like damage on a miss are all heretics.

I would actually be surprised if my customary way of describing hits and damage was not fairly typical of a decent percentage of DMs. I would not claim it is universal, but its a percentage greater than myself alone. I am confident of this because it is the most natural way to do it and because I have heard others describe something similar. I suppose we could do a poll on it.

As for "heretics," please don't go putting words in my mouth. I don't think I have made that accusation. People are welcome to play however they like, but I do think, as I said, that WotC would be well advised to look at the traditions of the game and build upon those as they make their game. That is all. That, and I don't like damage on a miss by a melee fighter, especially as a constant power that means they never actually, ever miss.

 

[Wicht]

Wands and scrolls , as they worked in some previous editions, can make such effects much less limited.

less limited still does not equal unlimited.

 

[Hussar]

But why does someone need a semi-reward for failing?

That would be like someone passing "go" and they collect 200 while everyone else gets 50.

But, if the other characters got something else that was equivalent - perhaps one gets to Get out of Jail Free any time he likes, another can land on any single house property and not pay money, - that sort of thing, is it still a semi-reward for failing?

It's already been admitted that you can make contact and "miss" in any edition of D&D. That's been given. So, since you can make contact, why can't a "miss" (as in failure to beat an AC) still deal damage?

I asked another question some time ago, and it got lost in the scrum, so I'll try again:

My character needs a 15 to hit the target. He scores an 8. What happened in the fiction, and can you prove that narration mechanically in D&D?

I believe that you can't. There's nothing in the mechanics that actually tell you why or how you missed. The problem is, people have tried adding simulationist tendencies to the narration without actually adding in supporting mechanics. Compare to a more sim based combat system:

Option 1: Attack misses cleanly (whiff).
Option 2: Attack is successful, but, the target dodges the attack with an active defense (like dodge).
Option 3: Attack is successful, but, the target parries the attack with an active defense like parry.
Option 4: Attack is successful, unblocked, not dodged. Hit for damage.

In this system, I can tell you exactly what happened during the attack. I can tell you exactly why the attack was successful or unsuccessful. You cannot do that in D&D. Nothing in D&D tells you why you missed or how. Any time you try to narrate it, you're simply free forming without any mechanical basis. Did I whiff the heavily armored bad guy or did I clang off his shield or off his armor? Who knows? I suppose in 3e, with Touch AC, you kinda had an idea, but, since 5e is not going down that road, we cannot know.

This is the "tradition" that Wicht is referring to, IMO. The idea that you can use the mechanics to narrate the action. It's been internalized to the point where people don't even recognize the fact that they're doing it without any actual mechanical support.

After all, in 3e, if my attack bonus is greater than the target's touch AC, it is impossible for me to miss that target (as in whiff). Except on a 1 of course. But, I can certainly miss the target (as in fail to deal damage). I wonder how many times DM's have narrated a whiff that wasn't actually a whiff in 3e.