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

[billd91]

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.

Does it really matter? What matters is the character failed to ablate his target's hit points. The lack of mechanical specificity means the GM and the players have freedom to narrate how they like - to use that to differentiate between an air elemental's swift dodging and nebulous body and a dragon's thick scales and awe inspiring toughness. The same, by the way, holds with a hit. Did it find a weak spot between armored scales or hit the scales hard enough to cause injury anyway? Who cares as long as it sounds good.

 

[billd91]

(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.[/indent]

My local grocery store has long sold fruit - of course, they are apples and oranges...

 

[pemerton]

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

What do you mean "have no place"? You asked why a player of a fighter might be entitled to a semi-reward for failing to succeed on an attack roll? My answer is - for the same reason that the player of a magic-user mght be: namely, that it is a mechanical element within their character build that serves some mechanical and/or story purpose for that player.

Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed had a system for "hero points", and one feat - Born Hero - allowed a PC to get more hero points than other players. That's another example of the same thing: a player chooses a particular build option for his/her PC and gets the mechanical benefit of it.

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.

Are yo saying that it's obnoxious to you that, in my game, if a fighter kills an enemy with damage dealt on a failed attack roll that I would narrate that as a killing blow? If so, I'm puzzle - why do you care what happens in my game?

Or are you simply saying that you don't want to play a game which opens up that possibility? In which case, don't use the GWF ability. Or Melf's Acid Arrow.

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.

<snip>

I would actually be surprised if my customary way of describing hits and damage was not fairly typical of a decent percentage of DMs.

<snip>

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.

I would gobsmacked if more than a fraction of GM's narrated a 15 hp blow to a dragon with 200 hp remaining, and a 15 hp blow to an orc with 3 hp remaining, the same way. To the extent that you play this way, I do not personally feel that you are typical.

Nothing I have ever read or experienced in over 30 years of playing D&D makes me think that narrating things in such a way is traditional.

 

[pemerton]

I accept that everyone plays the game differently than I do.

<snip>

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 have posted the meaning of the relevant terms, as defined in the D&Dnext "How to Play" file. Nothing in damage on a miss contradicts those rules.

There is no issue here of "invalidity". Armour classs is a mechanical device. An attack roll is a mechanical device. The rules specify that succeeding on an attack roll permits the rolling of damage and thereby a corresponding reduction in the enemy's hit points. GWF provides an alternative way of reducing hit points - one of many in the game system that do not depend upon succeeding at an attack roll.

The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it invalid. That's not the criterion for validity. As I have said multiple times, not every one interprets the game rules in the same way you do.

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.

That would contradict the existing rules. The only D&D game element that I'm aware of that worked this way was the Nilbog from Fiend Folio.

I've no doubt that someone could tack a broad adjective on it (instead of relentless, maybe resourceful?)

What is resourceful about this character?

What you have here is a attacker who, the tougher or more evasive the opponent, the more damaging s/he becomes - but who is also notably weak against minor opponents. That's something of a comedic archetype. (And the Nilbog was intended as a somewhat comedic monster.) "The clown who comes through in a pinch" might be the proper characterisation of this character, and while there are some games in which s/he could well play a useful role I don't think default D&D would be one.

(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.

All you are reiterating here is that you don't like it. (1) is good for those people who want to have a guaranteed mechanical effectiveness every round. (2) is good for those people who want to play a character who fits that conception. I value those things, and the fact that you don't doesn't make me change my mind about wanting them as options in the game.

If you don't understand why I value them, I'm not sure I can help - after all, I've posted my reasons multiple times now in this thread (as have others). The reason I value (1) is because I can see the appeal of maximin strategies in a game (I'm not particularly a gambler). The paladin I am playing in [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s play by post scenario has Hammer Rhythm for this reason.

The reason I value (2) is because I like the conception of my paladin as a relentless warrior who lays into all and sundry with his heavy mace. He is not unstoppable - few fantasy RPG PCs are - but those in melee with him get worn down. They might wear him down too - with a guaranteed 3 damage per round he is certainly not guaranteed to win (Hammer Rhythm is based on CON, which is 17 for this particular PC) - but they won't do so without feeling the effects of having fought him!

A third reason, related to (2), is that it also gives me a richer sense of what is happening in the 6 seconds of the round. It is not like the "clerical duel" that was parodied to some effect in Order of the Stick. The fight is a continuous affair, an ongoing back-and-forth between combatants. And by paying for the build feature (Hammer Rhythm, GWF) I have paid for a guarantee that my PC is always making some progress in that back-and-forth. It's a player fiat ability, much like (as I've mentioned upthread) the player of a magic-user doesn't have to make a check to memorise a spell, nor (typically) to cast a spell. Those are fiat abilities too.

Now some of the posters in this thread have distinguished spell casting from combat, by saying that there is an ingame rationale for why spell casting never fails (to do with the Vancian mechanics). That's fine for those people, but I don't care about an ingame rationale for fiat abilities. I am happy for them to operate at the metagame level. (Much as it is a purely metagame convention that we typically don't inquire into the PCs' toileting practices.) Given my preference, it is valuable to have fiat abilities for character types other than casters. GWF is such an ability.

 

[pemerton]

apples and oranges

For you. Not for me. Which is my point. You can't claim to be representing "tradition" in objecting to damage on a miss, when the game has always had ways of yielding hit point ablation without a successful attack roll being required. One person's preferences, or one's persons view of what is or is not the acceptable boundary for hit point loss without an attack roll doesn't, on its own, amount to "tradition".

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.

Does it really matter? What matters is the character failed to ablate his target's hit points. The lack of mechanical specificity means the GM and the players have freedom to narrate how they like - to use that to differentiate between an air elemental's swift dodging and nebulous body and a dragon's thick scales and awe inspiring toughness. The same, by the way, holds with a hit. Did it find a weak spot between armored scales or hit the scales hard enough to cause injury anyway? Who cares as long as it sounds good.

The same thing applies to damage on a miss. You narrate it as suits the context. Which is to say, contrary some posters on this thread, damage on a miss does not cause any sort of breakdown in coherence of narration.

Now to be honest I've lost track of whether or not you are somone who is making that claim, but [MENTION=91812]ForeverSlayer[/MENTION], to whom [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] was replying, is one of those people.

 

[sheadunne]

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.

With the right feats and or abilities, you won't even miss on a 1

 

[billd91]

The same thing applies to damage on a miss. You narrate it as suits the context. Which is to say, contrary some posters on this thread, damage on a miss does not cause any sort of breakdown in coherence of narration.

You can paper over a lot of issues with a narrative but that doesn't prevent the mechanic from being a dubious one for the game. What this mechanic can do, among other things, is invalidate other narratives that rely on a miss actually being a miss. Can a tough warrior "rope a dope" against someone doing damage on a miss? No. Can a wily swashbuckler do exactly what Julio is doing in the latest Order of the Stick comic against someone doing damage on a miss? No. And that's because the damage on a miss mechanic runs roughshod over defensive narratives since it is, in effect, unstoppable and unlimited. It places the cost burden on the defensive strategy rather than on the offense, a contrast from most area of effect/damage on a miss abilities in D&D which are limited or charged. And it's a contrast from the general trend that defense is cheaper than offense.

 

[ImperatorK]

Fighters Can't Have Nice Things is a tradition to some, I guess.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.

To be honest, the way that magic has been described in D&D, there really is no impossible or "doesn't make sense" description you can place on magic. Magic has already given us the mental image of doing the impossible so it's all good. I look at magic as having lingering effects even if you make your save. If you notice though, all spells that used to requires a "to hit" roll didn't do anything if you missed. If you missed with your Scorching Ray, back in 3rd edition, then it did no damage. Spells like Fireball didn't require a "to hit" because you just sent it into an area where people needed to make their saves in order to minimize the damage.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Fighters Can't Have Nice Things is a tradition to some, I guess.

Well this isn't a nice thing so the fighter isn't missing out on much.