D&D General Eliminating the whiff factor

[Yora]

Swing sword. Miss. Do damage anyway?

Worlds Without Number actually does that. Even when your armor manages to deflect an attack, you still get bruised and scrapped, unless you're really heavily armored.
Still have to see how that works out in practice.

 

[Ancalagon]

This "wiff factor" is not an issue in 5e IMO because of bounded accuracy. You have, on average, what, a 50% or more chance to hit? Monsters resist mostly because of high HP, not AC.

Other editions of D&D, or other games? In some cases, yes, absolutely. But I don't see it as an issue in 5e.

 

[GMMichael]

One common way, I think the most common way, to eliminate the whiff factor is to make sure something happens every time the dice are rolled. The most obvious implementation in D&D would be combat. Every time an attack is made something happens. Every time a save is made something happens. . .
So other than speeding up combat, what knock-on effect would this change have? I'm most familiar with B/X, AD&D, 4E, and 5E. I skipped 2E and 3X . . .

5e is 3X with a slightly lighter rule-set. So you haven't missed much.

What is probably the easiest solution to your problem (?) is to ask the PC why he or she missed. What happened? Then award Advantage, Disadvantage, or Inspiration as necessary to meet that description. (I think that's even supported by the standard rules...)

Next up would be to treat AC like a saving throw: when you miss, you deal half damage instead of full damage.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Naw.

Look, I think people often mistake something which people like (hitting good!) from the overall scheme that makes it good.

There are many reasons D&D is successful. One reason, arguably, is the variable reward inherent in one of the most common activities- combat, and rolling dice to hit and to damage.

What makes it so engaging, so fun, is that you don't always succeed.

Like gambling and those money-stealing apps, D&D is designed to keep you coming back for more. Don't mess with a good thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, how would you justify an archer shooting at a bunch of bulettes taking damage on a miss?

I don’t think taking damage is the best “something” to happen on a miss when it comes to ranged combat. Instead, you could have some other sort of mishap like having to spend additional ammo, or maneuver into a dangerous spot to get your shot.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

No thank you. Missing an opponent in D&D is painful enough without provoking what amounts to an opportunity attack on each whiff.

That said, to spice things up, if that’s part of the issue, whiffs can be narrated creatively as enemies parrying or Matrix-ing or what have you. But… keep it moving.

 

[jayoungr]

Tenra Bansho Zero uses this idea, and I think it works great in that system. I don't think I would recommend it for D&D unless you're willing to rework a lot of aspects though.

Tenra Bansho Zero is the game that made it so inspiration never had a chance of me liking it. The whole game runs on making other people give you stuff so you can actually do things.

 

[Charlaquin]

Naw.

Look, I think people often mistake something which people like (hitting good!) from the overall scheme that makes it good.

There are many reasons D&D is successful. One reason, arguably, is the variable reward inherent in one of the most common activities- combat, and rolling dice to hit and to damage.

What makes it so engaging, so fun, is that you don't always succeed.

Like gambling and those money-stealing apps, D&D is designed to keep you coming back for more. Don't mess with a good thing.

Note that @overgeeked is not suggesting that missing be impossible. They’re suggesting that something should happen on a miss. That something could be a negative consequence (such as taking damage from a counter-attack, as they suggest in the OP) or a less positive but still positive outcome. The point is to eliminate the “nothing happens” moments, not to make it impossible to fail.

 

[Charlaquin]

Personally, I think rather than a house rule, the “nothing happens” problem is better resolved by changing your DMing procedure. If you only call for checks to resolve actions that have meaningful consequences for failure, there is never a roll on which nothing happens on a failure.

In combat, I don’t think it’s true that nothing happens on a failure by the default rules. What happens is a round passes without you having done damage. That might kind of look like nothing if you’re not thinking about time as a resource, but especially in combat, it is, and failure means the loss of that resource with no benefit.

 

[overgeeked]

It would make it inadvisable to attack a hard hitting enemy unless you're fairly confident you can hit. It makes multiple attacks worse (because more attacks equates to more misses). It makes it harder for fighters to hold targets (because if they're likely to get hit from missing the high AC fighter, they might as well just provoke an opportunity attack - which might even allow them to deal damage to the fighter).

Right. Which is why it’s minimal damage instead of a full attack or a spell. To prevent players from intentionally avoiding the big guy.

Also, how would you justify an archer shooting at a bunch of bulettes taking damage on a miss?

Rock spray? You could also decouple it from the source of the miss. Use that opening to inflict damage on someone else, someone in melee.

Tenra Bansho Zero uses this idea, and I think it works great in that system. I don't think I would recommend it for D&D unless you're willing to rework a lot of aspects though.

I don’t think there’s much this would force to be redesigned.