D&D General Eliminating the whiff factor

[overgeeked]

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.

Right. That’s the point. Real-world time at the table is the wasted resource. And it’s precious. I don’t want to waste it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

I know.

My point is that the "nothing happens" is a powerful reinforcement mechanism. Makes the "something happens" that much more sweet.

I would speak more about it, but there's a roulette table with my name on it, and my money isn't going to spend itself.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

Yeah, that's a reasonable direction to take it, although you risk getting a bit disassociated.

Missing in melee can realistically leave you open to a counter (a fair amount of training in martial arts goes into keeping your guard up at all times, even when striking). It's a bit less realistic that missing with a bow would cause me to trip over a log, and using more ammo should probably make me more likely to hit rather than less.

Don't read this the wrong way; I'm not saying that it's bad. It's a fine way to handle it. But not everyone likes dissociative mechanics, so that is something to keep in mind.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, that's a reasonable direction to take it, although you risk getting a bit disassociated.

Missing in melee can realistically leave you open to a counter (a fair amount of training in martial arts goes into keeping your guard up at all times, even when striking). It's a bit less realistic that missing with a bow would cause me to trip over a log, and using more ammo should probably make me more likely to hit rather than less.

Don't read this the wrong way; I'm not saying that it's bad. It's a fine way to handle it. But not everyone likes dissociative mechanics, so that is something to keep in mind.

Leaving the “dissociative” waffle aside, if someone doesn’t like this mechanic, I’d think the obvious solution would be to not use it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I know.

My point is that the "nothing happens" is a powerful reinforcement mechanism. Makes the "something happens" that much more sweet.

I would speak more about it, but there's a roulette table with my name on it, and my money isn't going to spend itself.

You know what happens when you “miss” in roulette? Something. Something negative, yes, but something.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

PCs typically have their damage spread over multiple attacks, but many monsters are heavy hitters.

If my fighter is swinging a longsword (1d8+8) vs a fire giant (6d6+7), that's not really a great tradeoff. Just a few low attack rolls could kill that fighter, even if the giant whiffs on its turn.

 

[jayoungr]

Missing in melee can realistically leave you open to a counter (a fair amount of training in martial arts goes into keeping your guard up at all times, even when striking).

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are class abilities that trigger on a miss. For example, I'm currently playing a Drunken Master Monk; if someone misses my character in combat, I can make them hit someone else within 5 feet, doing the classic "duck and make the bad guys hit each other" move.

 

[MarkB]

So, there are games that already do this. In the ones that come to mind, the GM rolls no dice. Ever.

A monster is attacking you. You roll to take some action to stop it (stabbing it with a pointy metal object, for example). If you succeed, you come closer to stopping it (like, it takes damage). If you fail, it gets closer to its goal (Perhaps the PC takes damage).

There is no whiff. Every roll moves one side or the other towards its goal.

And a lot of games will have a middle-ground "success with consequences", where both you and the opposition advance their goals.

There's also the approach of the FFG Star Wars games, though I haven't had any play experience of them - rolls can generate advantages or disadvantages in addition to the main outcome, leading to some mechanical or narrated side-effect.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, I understand the concept.

You aren't the only reader of the thread, and not everyone has your knowledge.

 

[overgeeked]

PCs typically have their damage spread over multiple attacks, but many monsters are heavy hitters.

If my fighter is swinging a longsword (1d8+8) vs a fire giant (6d6+7), that's not really a great tradeoff. Just a few low attack rolls could kill that fighter, even if the giant whiffs on its turn.

Right. Which is why the giant wouldn’t be doing that much damage when the fighter missed. It would be, as I said, minimal damage. Something like 1d6 or 1d8 or a fixed 5 damage. Something minimal.