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

[Sailor Moon]

I dunno.
Ive met the "Missing suck" feeling since my very first game of D&D and a noob long ago. It also was compounded with simplistic action options of low level PCs.

When you roll bad in D&D, its really bad. It is very demoralizing to have a bad roll streak. Most of the cursing I've heard were from. Missing. That's why people call dices jinx. Gamers don't waste rolls between turns. And dice are placed in certain facings.

Because gamers hate miss streaks.

Missing does suck but it's a part of the game. Getting all the way to the championships and then missing that final goal sucks but it's a part of the game.

I still don't get exactly what you are trying to justify here. Missing has been a part of the game since it began. That's why we roll dice because the game tries to simulate a bit of reality when it comes to achieving tasks whether it's combat or a skill or whatever. If you don't like to miss then maybe you shouldn't be playing games that contain rules for being unsuccessful at tasks. I would actually recommend another type of game where that type of thing exists.

 

[Sailor Moon]

Made up numbers don't really support your case. They make you seem like you're willing to make stuff up to get your way, and the truth of it doesn't matter.



As has been noted - that goes both ways. You don't like damage on a miss? Don't play a character that uses it! Done.

Arguments of the form, "you cannot have the option in the game for you to use, because I don't like it" are not terribly reasonable, in my opinion.



So, if the class or concept is about someone that is well modeled by DoaM, what then?

If it isn't about the stats, you should have no problem with changes to the stats, because they are not what the game is about!



You should probably stop telling people things - what they want, what games are about, and so on. You should probably *listen* more. You might learn somewhat more than you teach.

I am pretty sure you are wrong here. He's not looking for a contingency for a bad night of rolling. He sees a character concept that seems to be a notable disadvantage, statistically speaking, such that his players avoid it. He'd like to see an option (just an option, not a mandatory feature) be available that would negate the disincentive to play the type.



If the game is not about the stats, then silly mechanics won't make it worse, either. Nobody's making you use the silly mechanic. So, I don't see why you stand against it.

A GM of my acquaintance saw a tendency in his gaming circles. It was in respect to plots centered around a character, but it holds for other aspects of RPGs as well. It goes like this: Your character has a pony. It is a good pony. You like it. Some other character is given a pony.... and you start feeling like somehow the other guy having a pony makes your pony worth not as much. You start arguing that other people shouldn't have ponies. You having a pony isn't good enough for you - other people need to *not* have ponies, for you to be happy.

This is, obviously, kind of silly. The existence of other ponies does not diminish your pony. The attitude is dysfunctional, and leads to you arguing for making the game less fun for others.

You sound like this - as if the game can only have the stuff you like, and not stuff that others might like, even if that other stuff really doesn't impact you.

Are we not familiar with hyperbole?

There is not an uproar with regards to "missing" that is widespread across the gaming community to the point where there should be mechanics that circumvent that. Now if you have some information on that then please share it with the rest of us.

There is no statistical disadvantage with regards to the two-handed fighter so that claim is rather invalid.

It's not about stuff I like, it's about stuff the majority of the playtesters like. You homebrew whatever you want, but we aren't talking about homebrew here, we are discussing the rules as is. The playtesters of this edition felt that DoaM was not wanted and was taken away from the great weapon fighter and the class given basically brutal instead which is a damn good ability, statistically speaking.

 

[Geordon]

Here's how I flavour combat based on Attack roll vs AC:

Your AC is 10 + Dex modifier. Let's say Dex is 15. AC is 12. So any Attack roll result that falls within that range of 1 - 12 is deftly avoided.

When incorporating armour, the game changes a bit.

AC is 11 (leather for example) + Dex modifier. Now, for the same character, their AC is 13. Attack rolls against them from 1 - 12 are avoided. A 13 means the leather armour took the blow. Anything 14+ gets through.

 

[Minigiant]

Missing does suck but it's a part of the game. Getting all the way to the championships and then missing that final goal sucks but it's a part of the game.

I still don't get exactly what you are trying to justify here. Missing has been a part of the game since it began. That's why we roll dice because the game tries to simulate a bit of reality when it comes to achieving tasks whether it's combat or a skill or whatever. If you don't like to miss then maybe you shouldn't be playing games that contain rules for being unsuccessful at tasks. I would actually recommend another type of game where that type of thing exists.

The point is not too remove missing. It is to make missing retain some fun.

That's why you still deal half damage when a orc makes his saving throw against your lightning bolt. It is just as easy to say it missed like a fire ray as it is to say it grazed the orc or made him drop hard trying to avoid it. The reason why we keep DOAM on lightning bolt are 1) Tradition and 2) it keeps the wizard player happy even when his precious resources fail.

There are many methods to do this.

1. Lesser damage on a miss
2. Lesser effect on a miss
3. Effect on a miss or hit. Only hit deals damage
4. Recharge on a miss
5. Special property of the attack
6. Higher accuracy
7. Multiple chances
8. Defensive bonuses

 

[Jester David]

I dunno.
Ive met the "Missing suck" feeling since my very first game of D&D and a noob long ago. It also was compounded with simplistic action options of low level PCs.

When you roll bad in D&D, its really bad. It is very demoralizing to have a bad roll streak. Most of the cursing I've heard were from. Missing. That's why people call dices jinx. Gamers don't waste rolls between turns. And dice are placed in certain facings.

Because gamers hate miss streaks.

Missing does suck. The "missing sucks" argument is really just a justification.

Because if it were the real issue the talk would be focused on designing a rule or option (or game) that removes missing. The discussion would have focused on that and related to all characters and not just the one sub-option of fighters.

 

[Sailor Moon]

The point is not too remove missing. It is to make missing retain some fun.

That's why you still deal half damage when a orc makes his saving throw against your lightning bolt. It is just as easy to say it missed like a fire ray as it is to say it grazed the orc or made him drop hard trying to avoid it. The reason why we keep DOAM on lightning bolt are 1) Tradition and 2) it keeps the wizard player happy even when his precious resources fail.

There are many methods to do this.

1. Lesser damage on a miss
2. Lesser effect on a miss
3. Effect on a miss or hit. Only hit deals damage
4. Recharge on a miss
5. Special property of the attack
6. Higher accuracy
7. Multiple chances
8. Defensive bonuses

Missing isn't supposed to be fun, it's supposed to suck.

 

[Ranes]

The point is not too remove missing. It is to make missing retain some fun.

In just about every game I've played missing has been part of the fun. Missing has added drama in fights that go to the wire. Missing has had us cracking up when it was almost impossible to miss a large, immobile target and the fighter has rolled a one (and then the DM has concocted a sublime interpretive narration to capture the moment). Missing has had people begging to borrow other players' dice to rid themselves of a jinx, with other players saying, "Hands off. You're not jinxing my dice too."

Missing only isn't fun when the player who misses suffers a sense of humour failure. Actually, even then it can be fun for everyone else. Personally, if I see someone becoming upset over unlucky dice rolls, I find it difficult not to find that funny.

 

[Jester David]

As has been noted - that goes both ways. You don't like damage on a miss? Don't play a character that uses it! Done.

Arguments of the form, "you cannot have the option in the game for you to use, because I don't like it" are not terribly reasonable, in my opinion.

This isn't a particularly good argument because DoaM is not a class feature, it's a mechanic. It's a mechanic that's typically found in a class feature, yes, but it's not limited to that one mechanic.
Back in the playtest when DoaM was part of the fighter it was also part of several monsters. Which makes it trickier to avoid because you can't just forgo that class.

Saying you can ignore DoaM by ignoring the fighter option that had it is like saying you can currently ignore "reroll 1s" by not taking the current version of the GWF. Which just does not work as rerolling 1s could appear anywhere in the game.

So, if the class or concept is about someone that is well modeled by DoaM, what then?

I'd love to hear an example.

I am pretty sure you are wrong here. He's not looking for a contingency for a bad night of rolling. He sees a character concept that seems to be a notable disadvantage, statistically speaking, such that his players avoid it. He'd like to see an option (just an option, not a mandatory feature) be available that would negate the disincentive to play the type.

If that were the only factor then it would have an easy fix to give the option any other mechanic with the same effective result: a boost to average damage. Which is what they did for the final book. GWF now have better average damage than other fighter options and their minimum damage on a hit is much higher. They're actually pretty solid.

And yet... the discussion continues. Because the discussion isn't about DoaM but the nature of hit points and an edition war based around a common 4e mechanic being sidelined. DoaM is just an excuse. It's a proxy edition war. The Vietnam of edition wars.

A GM of my acquaintance saw a tendency in his gaming circles. It was in respect to plots centered around a character, but it holds for other aspects of RPGs as well. It goes like this: Your character has a pony. It is a good pony. You like it. Some other character is given a pony.... and you start feeling like somehow the other guy having a pony makes your pony worth not as much. You start arguing that other people shouldn't have ponies. You having a pony isn't good enough for you - other people need to *not* have ponies, for you to be happy.

This is, obviously, kind of silly. The existence of other ponies does not diminish your pony. The attitude is dysfunctional, and leads to you arguing for making the game less fun for others.

You sound like this - as if the game can only have the stuff you like, and not stuff that others might like, even if that other stuff really doesn't impact you.

It's a little more complicated than that because...
Okay, I tried to write my reply following the metaphor and it's gibberish. So I'm abandoning that and trying again in plainer text.

I'm all for people having game elements they like, especially when they're options that can be added or removed. That's cool. I'll support variant rules and options that give people something else they like. (Heck, as I've demonstrated , I'll even spend an hour writing them.)
And I'm all for the base game not being entirely what I want provided I can also be given options that let me modify the game. That's fair.

However, this works best when the rules and options to be modified are the core rules and not class options. Mostly because it's a single change versus a variable number of changes. It's easy to change how rests work or hit dice recovery works as most of that is class independent. The more you need to read class features, monster powers, feats, and the like the harder it is to implement the change.

For example, critical hits. Let's say I don't like the base method of crits in 5e. I want something more like 4e with max damage, so rolling snake eyes doesn't result in a crit that's less than average damage. Seems easy enough: max damage on crits. However, a number of classes have features that modify critical hits. So now I need to go through those options and make a ruling for each. To say nothing of monsters.

This is the big difference between a regular RPG and an RPG designed to be modular.

As such, including a mechanic in the base rules that is divisive is... problematic at best. Especially one that would have ended up in the Basic Rules.

 

[Rejuvenator]

the game is not about the stats, then silly mechanics won't make it worse, either. Nobody's making you use the silly mechanic. So, I don't see why you stand against it.

Like THAC0? There is a precedent in D&D for disfavoring silly mechanics, even if some subgroup liked it. I admit that's not a direct comparison. So the real question is when does one's dislike of a silly mechanic trounce another's appreciation of it, and how relevant is this dilemma?

When 4e was the current edition, the Final Say was DoaM is officially in the game; so get over it.

Currently the Final Say is DoaM is officially absent from the game. So get over it...

...with the consolation that DoAM can be house ruled in, a philosophy that 5e frequently encourages. But that makes it a matter for minigiant's table. So, really, why does it matter what Sailormoon's stance is? He's not playing at minigiant's table. But if he was, what is the DM going to do -- spend a whole week listening to their arguments for and against? Pragmatically, assuming DoAM is that controversial at their table, whats unreasonable about politely requesting: Get over its absence (just like it conversely was with 4e)? The whole "you're pretending to be elves so get a grip" argument works both ways.

 

[Rygar]

The point is not too remove missing. It is to make missing retain some fun.

That's why you still deal half damage when a orc makes his saving throw against your lightning bolt. It is just as easy to say it missed like a fire ray as it is to say it grazed the orc or made him drop hard trying to avoid it. The reason why we keep DOAM on lightning bolt are 1) Tradition and 2) it keeps the wizard player happy even when his precious resources fail.

There are many methods to do this.

1. Lesser damage on a miss
2. Lesser effect on a miss
3. Effect on a miss or hit. Only hit deals damage
4. Recharge on a miss
5. Special property of the attack
6. Higher accuracy
7. Multiple chances
8. Defensive bonuses

No, an Orc takes half damage when he makes his saving throw against a Lightning Bolt because he just was in the area of a lightning strike. There is no damage on a miss with a lightning bolt because an attack roll is not made, so a miss cannot occur. This has been explained 1,000 times over the last 6 months, almost every example that people try to use for magic being DoaM is actually area of effect due to explosion or splashing.

And yet... the discussion continues. Because the discussion isn't about DoaM but the nature of hit points and an edition war based around a common 4e mechanic being sidelined. DoaM is just an excuse. It's a proxy edition war. The Vietnam of edition wars.

Pretty much.