D&D 5E Damage on a missed attack roll

[Ashrym]

Lightning arrow off the top of my head. DoaM is rare and restricted to magic, but I think extra attack can fit a similar role given the first attack missing still allows hits on subsequent attacks.

 

[Yardiff]

I wasn't going to ask him to drop the class, I was just thinking that automatically doing damage every attack wasn't balanced against the other melee characters who don't have that ability. I was going to ask that the auto damage require an expenditure of tempo points, turn a miss into a partial hit.

 

[Yardiff]

There's no mathematical difference between damage on a failed roll vs AC by an attacker and damage on a successful roll vs a save DC set by the attacker.

So plenty.

Arent most save for half damage spells AoE? To me that's a big difference.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Arent most save for half damage spells AoE? To me that's a big difference

Most, but not all, and there have always been save:neg AEs.

An AE that does autmatic damage is just that much more potent, anyway. You can erase a whole, otherwise dangerous (thanks to BA) encounter, that way.

I was just thinking that automatically doing damage every attack wasn't balanced against the other melee characters who don't have that ability.

At that point, on a mere melee atrack, it's just grinding DPR.
The minimum damage just fills in part of the calculation.
For instance, say you inflict 18 damage 70% of the time, that's 12.6 DPR. If you also do 9 the rest of the time, that's another 2.7, for 15.3 DPR. If the next guy does 22 damage 70% of the time, his DPR of 15.4 is pretty closely balanced with yours.

 

[Garthanos]

Weapon attacks cannot possibly be so good that an enemy is always threatened by them inconceivable. !!!!!!!

 

[Garthanos]

Only spells are so easy as to be reliable. With no chance of utter ridiculous failure.

 

[Yardiff]

Only spells are so easy as to be reliable. With no chance of utter ridiculous failure.

Is this sarcasm?

 

[Ashrym]

Is this sarcasm?

Probably, lol.

I think abstractly hitting an abstract pool of theoretical numbers leaves plenty of room for DoaM with weapon attacks and maneuvers. It's one of those things that seems to be unpopular, however.

EDIT: heck, in 1e fighters eventually had auto-hit and bonus damage.

 

[the Jester]

EDIT: heck, in 1e fighters eventually had auto-hit and bonus damage.

What are you referring to here? I don't recall this.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think abstractly hitting an abstract pool of theoretical numbers leaves plenty of room for DoaM with weapon attacks and maneuvers. It's one of those things that seems to be unpopular, however.

There's an extremely strident opposition to it, sure.

You see, still doing some damage when the dice don't fall your way would be a nice thing....