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

[Umbran]

I just don't see the need to redefine a term. Why even suggest that a miss is not a miss?

I am sure it has been said time and time again in the thread, but I'll try stating it this way: they are not suggesting a miss is not a miss.

They are suggesting that there are ways to take away a target's hit points with a weapon without actually "hitting" with it. Yes, I can miss - the weapon never makes contact - but I can still take away hit points.

In an interpretation where hit points = meat, this is problematic. How do you take away meat without ever touching the meat? Step away from hit points = meat, and this becomes easier to interpret. Hitting the meat is one way to do damage. Hitting the meat may be the most common way to do damage. But it is not the *ONLY* way. Accept that, and the rest isn't terribly problematic.

 

[billd91]

I don't see how it could possibly be a narrowing of options.

You could have some attacks that deplete HP when the player misses the target number, and you could still have attacks that don't deplete HP when the player misses the target number.

I see that as a broadening of options - two options rather than one. Or am I missing some particular context to your post?

But with the damage on a miss issue that came up in the play test (and started the whole debate), the style didn't really offer no damage on a miss, as I recall (sources not handy right now). For a character with that style, there were reduced outcomes of significance - mainly, there was no way for the PC using that style to have a completely ineffective attack. And that's a narrowing of the options, not a broadening.

 

[aramis erak]

I am sure it has been said time and time again in the thread, but I'll try stating it this way: they are not suggesting a miss is not a miss.

They are suggesting that there are ways to take away a target's hit points with a weapon without actually "hitting" with it. Yes, I can miss - the weapon never makes contact - but I can still take away hit points.

In an interpretation where hit points = meat, this is problematic. How do you take away meat without ever touching the meat? Step away from hit points = meat, and this becomes easier to interpret. Hitting the meat is one way to do damage. Hitting the meat may be the most common way to do damage. But it is not the *ONLY* way. Accept that, and the rest isn't terribly problematic.

Just to play devil's advocate, but... cause them to twist an ankle, or bruise themselves, or pull a muscle... A severe groin pull is utterly disabling. Walking and nookie become nigh impossible without good drugs. Or, the most painful in the short term, armor bite to the crotch.

(Armor bite: when the motion of your armor pinches your flesh. I've seen them draw blood through a gambeson. I've seen one that literally too a chunk out of a guy's arm - several stitches. Which is why you're supposed to wear a gambeson under the armor.)

 

[Consona]

And yet, unless we are willing to say that armor and shields make one better at dodging blows, or supernaturally make all of one's enemies less accurate, misses that aren't misses have been built into the AC mechanic since virtually day one.

Yea, AC is part of this "problem" because it mixes dodging and armor's ability to absorb damage together. You can physically hit the target but it makes no damage.

They are suggesting that there are ways to take away a target's hit points with a weapon without actually "hitting" with it. Yes, I can miss - the weapon never makes contact - but I can still take away hit points.

In an interpretation where hit points = meat, this is problematic. How do you take away meat without ever touching the meat? Step away from hit points = meat, and this becomes easier to interpret. Hitting the meat is one way to do damage. Hitting the meat may be the most common way to do damage. But it is not the *ONLY* way. Accept that, and the rest isn't terribly problematic.

Yea, HP were never only meat points!

1e

A certain amount of these hit
points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained.
The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands
for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. (...) Thus, the majority of hit paints are symbolic of combat
skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.

3.5e

What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the
game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going,
and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For
some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner
power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to
convince bystanders that she doesn’t have the favor of some higher
power.

4e

Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand
up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing
blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit
points represent more than physical endurance. They
represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all
the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a
combat situation.

5e

Hit points represent a combination of physical and
mental durability. the will to live, and luck.

So, as I've said before, "Damage on a Miss" can just mean it was very fatiguing to dodge/block some attack.

 

[Hussar]

I really think that the primary issue here isn't necessarily that hits and misses become harder to define, but rather that 4e and 5e make it very clear that the way people defined things previously was very unexamined. It never mattered before because virtually all damage was healed by magic. So you never really had to examine hp too closely.

But 4e and now 5e have broken that paradigm. Hp are largely regained without magic. So, now we actually have to take a closer look at hp and combat and what it means in the game world.

When almost all damage is recovered magically then hp=meat is fine. However that doesn't really work with 5e healing.

 

[Umbran]

When almost all damage is recovered magically then hp=meat is fine. However that doesn't really work with 5e healing.

Though, as Consona above has noted for us - the game (the AD&D branch, at least) never fully did HP=meat.

I don't think, "the game now includes a mechanic that it not in line with a HP interpretation it never used!" is much of a complaint.

 

[Umbran]

But with the damage on a miss issue that came up in the play test (and started the whole debate), the style didn't really offer no damage on a miss, as I recall (sources not handy right now). For a character with that style, there were reduced outcomes of significance - mainly, there was no way for the PC using that style to have a completely ineffective attack. And that's a narrowing of the options, not a broadening.

That depends on the scope of consideration.

If you are thinking "within the particular style, the options are more narrow than within other styles", then I suppose one might consider it correct. As if "have no completely effective attack" is a narrowing of options any player is ever going to be worried about? "Oh, noes! Having taken this, I always can choose a way to do at least a little damage! Poor me!!!1!"

If you are thinking "within the game as a whole, the options are more narrow," then that is incorrect. Inclusion of a new style to the game is an increase in options, not a decrease.

 

[Jester David]

The problem isn't that hit points = meat. The problem is that any given number of hit points occasionally have to equal meat and occasionally have to equal energy. The blow that knocks you to 0 might be a blast of dragonfire, the Hail Mary swordblow from a bard, a fall from a cliff, or a poisoned arrow.

It's Schrödinger's Hit Points, being both injury and fatigue at the same time.

Damage in a miss gets funky because it mandates one or the other. It opens the box. And that causes problems when it comes to things like the killing blow.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The real root problem is that we ALL have been attacking this topic for LONG time and it has yet to drop!

The DoaM monster has infinite hit points so no matter who hits or misses- IT JUST WON'T DIE!!

 

[TwoSix]

The goal of the mechanic is to prevent an action from doing no damage. Why not just call it a partial hit? Why not just say that the mechanic allows you to always hit? Why refer to it as a miss that does damage? I don't see the point. Sure, you can still hit something and not do damage, but I think people understand that.

Because then the online conversation devolves into discussions as to how it makes no sense that a fighter can always make contact 100% of the time. The ruckus over terminology is at best a sidebar to the real disagreement about the visualization of combat.