D&D 5E Damage on a Miss: Because otherwise Armour Class makes no sense

[Neonchameleon]

As everyone knows, AC refers to Armour Class and makes you harder to hit. This does not mean that wearing plate armour makes you leap around like a ninja (it doesn't slow you the way urban myths claim - but it certainly doesn't speed you up). Plate armour is utterly mundane and doesn't have a magical forcefield - but still adds 8 to your AC, making you much much harder to hit.

So what does this mean?
A significant proportion of blows that "miss" must be hitting your armour - otherwise armour class makes no sense at all because it does mean that plate armour turns you into a rapidly moving ninja.

Armour will absorb the force of most blows. Damage on a miss with brass knuckles would be ... bizarre. But when a giant swings a greatclub at you, armour will not help you get out of the way. It also isn't some magical inertia-neutralising thing - that greatclub still has momentum, and the only thing preventing it breaking your ribs is your armour so you must take blows on your armour. And with that much momentum you're going to end up with a full-torso bruise at the very least. Of course if you hadn't been wearing armour you'd be much worse off. You'd have taken the full force of the blow to your unprotected body. Ouch.

That's damage on a miss. And without it, large high impact weapons that will rattle the enemy by sheer force and momentum and AD&D's armour paradigm make no sense at all. (DR doesn't work any better because of the vast difference in what it stops between bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing).

 

[ExploderWizard]

This might make more sense if the "to hit" roll represented a single swing of a weapon which it doesn't. A melee "hit" is merely a representation of the best attack effort of the round. Either a given fighter is effective enough to wear down his foe (score damage) or not. The relative effectiveness of such efforts is represented by the damage roll, in which case larger weapons have more potential.

It might be argued that great weapons don't have enough damage potential over smaller weapons, but that is another issue.

 

[Cadence]

So what does this mean?
A significant proportion of blows that "miss" must be hitting your armour - otherwise armour class makes no sense at all because it does mean that plate armour turns you into a rapidly moving ninja.

So, doesn't your argument mean that the damage on a miss should happen, but only happen if you would have hit the touch AC but not the full AC?

 

[the Jester]

This might make more sense if the "to hit" roll represented a single swing of a weapon which it doesn't.

I disagree with this- one attack or many, it's clear that heavy armor's AC value has little to do with actually being struck by the enemy and much more to do with cushioning the blow. One attack or many, the effects are the same.

So, doesn't your argument mean that the damage on a miss should happen, but only happen if you would have hit the touch AC but not the full AC?

If there were one, maybe, but AFAIK there ain't no touch AC in 5e.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

Arguable. AC still made sense a lot of times, even when DoaM isn't in play.

Honestly, AC can mean a lot of things due to it's abstract nature. When you fail to roll against AC, it could mean any number of things; maybe you whiffed completely, maybe you slipped and didn't get a good footing to make your attack hit hard enough, maybe you tinked against his armor, maybe he blocked it with a shield, etc.

Depending on the attack being made and whatever other circumstances, AC can mean anything.

 

[delericho]

As everyone knows, AC refers to Armour Class and makes you harder to hit.

Not quite. AC does indeed refer to Armour Class, but it doesn't make you easier to hit, it makes you easier to hurt.

And as soon as that distinction is made, Damage on a Miss makes no sense whatsoever - an attack failed to hurt you, but it does damage anyway?

This does not mean that wearing plate armour makes you leap around like a ninja

Fair enough. But what about the high-AC characters who have that AC because they do, in fact, leap around like a ninja?

A significant proportion of blows that "miss" must be hitting your armour

Yep, fair enough. But how do you distinguish between those 'misses' that are indeed missed attacks, versus those 'misses' that hit but failed to connect solidly, or those 'misses' that were actually parried attacks, or those 'misses' that were entirely absorbed by armour, or...?

In a game without DoaM, the answer is simple: a successful attack roll indicates the attack connects well enough to do damage; a failed attack roll does not for whatever reason - it might be a miss, it might be a parry, it might be... but whatever the cause, it failed to do damage.

 

[Alzrius]

As everyone knows, AC refers to Armour Class and makes you harder to hit. This does not mean that wearing plate armour makes you leap around like a ninja (it doesn't slow you the way urban myths claim - but it certainly doesn't speed you up). Plate armour is utterly mundane and doesn't have a magical forcefield - but still adds 8 to your AC, making you much much harder to hit.

So what does this mean?
A significant proportion of blows that "miss" must be hitting your armour - otherwise armour class makes no sense at all because it does mean that plate armour turns you into a rapidly moving ninja.

You're coming to the right conclusion, but I have a slight disagreement with your premise. Armor Class doesn't make you "harder to hit," which carries the implication that a failed attack must therefore be a miss; rather, Armor Class makes you harder to land a damaging blow on. That's a small but important distinction, because the addition of the "damaging" qualifier means that you can avoid the blow entirely, or stop it (typically via blocking) to the point where it causes no damage to you despite having made some sort of physical contact.

AC is, therefore, an aggregate measure of both blocking and dodging. Since there's no specification about what range on your AC total corresponds to what component (e.g. "if you have a 26 AC, a to-hit roll between 10-17 lands on your breastplate, a roll of 18 is dodged from your Dex, a roll of 19-21 is blocked by your +1 shield..." etc.), you're free to narrate precisely how a failed attack failed.

Armour will absorb the force of most blows. Damage on a miss with brass knuckles would be ... bizarre. But when a giant swings a greatclub at you, armour will not help you get out of the way. It also isn't some magical inertia-neutralising thing - that greatclub still has momentum, and the only thing preventing it breaking your ribs is your armour so you must take blows on your armour. And with that much momentum you're going to end up with a full-torso bruise at the very least. Of course if you hadn't been wearing armour you'd be much worse off. You'd have taken the full force of the blow to your unprotected body. Ouch.

That's damage on a miss.

No, it's not - that's damage on a hit.

The problem here isn't that we need to redefine what Armor Class means; AC's combination of blocking and dodging works just fine. The problem is that damage on a miss calls itself "damage on a miss" while then counterintuitively stating that you've been hit for damage. It's pushing a narration that's opposed to the mechanical results. If it changed its in-game narrative to "damage on a glancing blow" that would have solved the disparity.

The problem is that "damage on a miss" says its going left, while producing results that show it going right. It's trying to have its cake and eat it too. That's the problem here.

And without it, large high impact weapons that will rattle the enemy by sheer force and momentum and AD&D's armour paradigm make no sense at all. (DR doesn't work any better because of the vast difference in what it stops between bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing).

You seem to be saying that the narrative of "you're hit by a powerful blow and despite blocking it, you still take some damage" can't be included in D&D unless you have "damage on a miss" rules. That's not really a credible argument - if someone stops a powerful blow, and still takes damage from it, that can just as easily be called a successful attack roll that deals low damage. Alternatively, there's nothing particularly unbelievable about someone stopping a powerful blow enough to the point where they take no damage at all (which can be a failed attack roll without DoaM rules).

EDIT: ninja'd by delericho!

 

[ExploderWizard]

I disagree with this- one attack or many, it's clear that heavy armor's AC value has little to do with actually being struck by the enemy and much more to do with cushioning the blow. One attack or many, the effects are the same.

What about a miss against a goblin in a loincloth without a weapon? A miss is a miss and all that the abstraction cares about is that the attack wasn't good enough to do damage. Thats it.

Think about quicklings who have a good AC due to speed instead of armor. What about will-o-wisps? In AD&D they were among the most unhittable things to fight with their -8AC. A glancing blow on a wisp of light?

 

[Minigiant]

In an ideal edition

-Damage on a Miss
-Damage Reduction from Armor (natural or worn)
-Touch Armor Class
would all be core in D&D.

The issue is the extra calculations. Thus attacks vs AC should be at rolls to hurt not rolls to hit in order to remains simple in gameplay.
But terminology.

Make in a D&D video game. Or via an app of something.

 

[Umbran]

A miss is a miss ....

Or, you embrace the fact that there's some exceptions out there. A miss is usually, but not always or strictly, a miss.

The problem is that damage on a miss calls itself "damage on a miss" while then counterintuitively stating that you've been hit for damage. It's pushing a narration that's opposed to the mechanical results. If it changed its in-game narrative to "damage on a glancing blow" that would have solved the disparity.

You claim that is "the problem". We can just as easily turn it around and say that "the problem" is folks being a tad too strict in insisting that game mechanics language must hitch directly to narrative language always and without exception, and willing to make a huge stink and fuss over it.

If the biggest problem the game with dragons, elves, and fireballs has is an occasionally inconsistent definition of what a "hit" is, then I think we're doing pretty darned well.