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

[Uchawi]

Damage types - you can take the opposite approach with regeneration and damage types. or just vulnerability. So the very existance of regeneration indicates the creature can never die (age or otherwise), unless specific damage types come into play. That is equally absurd. Can the very nature of a "damage type" the creature knows they are not immune to incude extra stress, fatigue, etc?

In my mind automatic damage (damage on a miss) just means increased success and/or skill. Hit points still remain malleable and also contradicts itself at every turn. That is why I prefer the term automatic damage. With that context damage on a miss is no different, unless you make it a semantics argument based on terminology.

 

[Joe Liker]

There are a couple problems.

The first is damage types.

This is no more a problem for DoaM than for damage in general. My personal solution is to say that a near miss with the pertinent damage type is enough to cause extra pain if the creature is vulnerable, or require less energy/fortitude/luck to fend off if the creature is resistant.

The second problem is one of narration. A hit, if hp is energy, is a near miss that causes the target to tire themselves out deflecting or avoiding. A DoaM miss, if hp is energy, is a near miss that causes the target to tire themselves out deflecting or avoiding. They're the same thing in the world despite having opposite expected results.

Whose expectation are we talking about here? Certainly not mine.

DoaM isn't supposed to be the same as a full miss, from a narrative standpoint. It's obviously causing damage, only less than a "real" hit, so why is it such a problem to narrate it that way? It's a near miss that's not quite as "near" as most other near misses. It's a glancing blow that's even lighter than the ones the dice consider "hits." Think of DoaM as a mechanical miss that is narratively the same as a light hit, and you'll experience no more dissonance from those nasty old expectations.

And this is the primary problem. There's a disconnect between what the dice say and the result in play. The die ceases to matter and the results are a certainty. That should be discouraged.

Why? The only reason I can think of is personal preference. It doesn't harm the game mechanically in any way. (Spells with saving throws deal the equivalent of DoaM all the time.) It doesn't even harm the game's narrative if you are willing to work with the rules instead of struggling against them. If you think there's a problem in the narration, you can always adjust the way you narrate.

 

[Jester David]

DoaM isn't supposed to be the same as a full miss, from a narrative standpoint. It's obviously causing damage, only less than a "real" hit, so why is it such a problem to narrate it that way? It's a near miss that's not quite as "near" as most other near misses. It's a glancing blow that's even lighter than the ones the dice consider "hits." Think of DoaM as a mechanical miss that is narratively the same as a light hit, and you'll experience no more dissonance from those nasty old expectations.

Which can work IF DoaM mechanics have a "near miss" component, such as missing by 4 or less.
But even then it still doesn't take into consideration missing due to cover or the like.

It doesn't harm the game mechanically in any way.

Mechanics are half of the game. At best. Maybe a third.
The best mechanics can harm the game if they interact poorly with the narrative. For example, dissociative mechanics which might be sound mechanically but problematic in other ways.

Almost none of the problems I have with DoaM are mechanical. I do think it skews the risk:reward ratio because, unlike spells that deal automatic damage, there's no expenditure of resources. And as damage is assumed it devalues disadvantage and attack penalties.

But most of my problems are narrative. Both with how missing is described and how hit points are described.

(Spells with saving throws deal the equivalent of DoaM all the time.)

Not the same thing at all. Damage on a Miss is very different from Damage on a Failed Save.

It doesn't even harm the game's narrative if you are willing to work with the rules instead of struggling against them. If you think there's a problem in the narration, you can always adjust the way you narrate.

If I have to change the way I run the game to play the game, then there's a problem. The game should change for me and to suit my needs, not the other way around. Period.

I don't want to change my narrative just so a player can feel like they weren't completely effective.
Missing isn't that bad, it's not some horrible hardship that must be avoided at all cost. It's okay to miss.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I am not a fan of DoaM melee attacks, because IMO it dilutes flavor and adds complexity in a manner I do not find compelling. That said, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such a thing. A DoaM attack can be viewed as a novel kind of Area of Effect that targets a 5' square that has a different resolution mechanics.

It is no more problematic to be killed by the auto damage from a special sword attack than to make your save against a Fireball and still die.

 

[Joe Liker]

dissociative mechanics

Say no more. Now that I'm aware of your beliefs, it's clear we don't even mean the same thing when we use the word "game."

I'll not bother you any further.

 

[Minigiant]

Mechanics are half of the game. At best. Maybe a third.
The best mechanics can harm the game if they interact poorly with the narrative. For example, dissociative mechanics which might be sound mechanically but problematic in other ways.

Almost none of the problems I have with DoaM are mechanical. I do think it skews the risk:reward ratio because, unlike spells that deal automatic damage, there's no expenditure of resources. And as damage is assumed it devalues disadvantage and attack penalties.

Personally I always hoped 5th edition would give fighter's "stamina points" and fighters could spend point to deal more damage, stun enemies, or even cause a blow powerful enough to deal damage through armor (DOAM).

And I believe that is the crux of the problem. If DOAM spent resources, there would be less of a issue.

DOAM is not a bad mechanic for D&D. It does fit in D&D. It was just used wrong in the playtest. Strangely enough, 4th edition did DOAM sorta right. DOAM then costed a daily power, required a high level feat, or use of a very weak at will.

Maybe in a decade in 6th edition.

 

[Consona]

To use HP in narration means to use common sense. That's why I asked about falling into molten lava with 100 HP. 100 HP could even mean you cannot fall into it because it would not make any sense, it's like HP are plot armor. You can be hit with sword 10 times and still live. But you can narrate that as skill/luck/stamina. With molten lava you have to find way around so the situation is not nonsensical.

DoaM makes sense. I would certainly not make it something you have to pay for with special resource, because then it becomes problematic. And it would not make the same damage as full hit, it would make proficieny damage or something to reflect that it's fatigue from trying to dodge enemy's attack. Maybe use it just to reflect that someone is really good, like some trained duelist.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Oh I totally agree. But what 4e and now 5e have done is make that fact abundantly clear.

 

[D'karr]

Oh I totally agree. But what 4e and now 5e have done is make that fact abundantly clear.

I believe that one of the most relevant/enlightened design decisions of 4e was to finally match the hp recovery mechanics with the classic description of HP. This cracked the door for decoupling HP recovery from magic. Therefore opening an entire spectrum of additional gaming options, such as removing the need for a dedicated healer, second wind, variable rest periods, the leader role, etc.

 

[BryonD]

Oh I totally agree. But what 4e and now 5e have done is make that fact abundantly clear.

True, but there are still fundamental differences between the 4E and 5E.
While it is easy to point out places where default 5E shares the 4E style (it pretty much says that all damage prior to 0 HP is abstract), the assumption that groups can and should modify that assumption (amongst many others) is key.
Both systems start out with a common point.
But for one that point is high on the list why the game has very little appeal to me. For the other it is an attachment that can be removed and forgotten in seconds.