D&D 5E Adjudicating Melee

[iserith]

"How to Play" (Basic Rules, page 3) states that the basic conversation of the game goes like this:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

With that in mind, consider the following interaction.

DM: The orc thumps his greataxe against his hide armor, roaring and shouting curses in the low tongue as he challenges you to fight. What do you do?
Fighter: "I'm going to kill you and take your pie!" I close the distance between the orc and myself, bringing my greatsword down on him!
DM: The orc raises up his greataxe to defend himself, a scowl on his porcine face. Make an attack roll.
Fighter: *rolls* 11.
DM (orc has AC 13): Your sword clashes with the orc's greataxe with a terrible clamor. The force of the blow nearly brings the orc to his knees. Roll just your weapon damage dice - then the orc is going to get a counterattack as a reaction before taking his turn.

What do you think of this DM's ruling? Do the rules support such a ruling? How would you take it if you were playing the fighter? Would you prefer to be given a choice of missing outright or doing damage but opening yourself up to a reaction attack? What if the fighter missed by more than two?

Feel free to make whatever other assumptions you want about the situation, just make a note of what assumptions you're making to avoid someone hitting you with a "Well, actually..." (Ugh.)

(Disclaimer: I posted this on the WotC forums as well so as to get responses from a broader group of players and DMs.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

Eh... I don't I'd have a problem with it necessarily. I just don't know what would be gained by it-- other than the Fighter now getting to be able to retreat without retribution (since the Reaction needed for the orc's OA is now gone.) If this is meant to speed up combat (by making more attacks hit by 10% with additional extra attacks added in retaliation), I think there's probably easier ways to do it. Reducing HP, increasing damage, etc.

If the miss-to-hit + reaction retaliation is meant just to be a cool added narrative device... I can kinda understand what you're going for and would be okay with it. I just don't know if it's really necessary over just narrating straight combat differently.

 

[Kikuras]

It's a legal move, if not a bit of a jerk-move. It seems to me that the orc readied an action (the character closing and attacking being the trigger), which would allow a reaction after the fighter's initial attack. What I would take issue with is that the DM did not describe that the orc was readied, which would encourage a different coarse of action by the fighter (who might also ready and wait for the orc to make the first move).

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

To operate a stepped scale of damage for a miss of 2 or less begs an equally stepped scale if the roll is over the target figure by 2 or less. I'm sure there are systems out there that accommodate this kind if granularity, but I'm not convinced that 5e is one of them.
That said, I always describe the result to my players. Sometimes it's a simple "he misses you by a whisker", other times it's "your weapons clash and you struggle for a moment before the Orc breaks free". I base it on the closeness of the roll, but it's very freeform and fluid. It's particularly satisfying watching their faces when I say "the orc's axe smashes into your arm...(serious face)...but bounces off your armour"...
But, if the combatant misses the AC roll, they miss. I operate a double damage on a natural 20/fumble on a 1*, but beyond that a miss is a miss is a miss.

* my fumble house rule is if you roll a natural 1, you miss badly. Roll again and another natural 1 results in friendly fire to yourself or your companions; anything else, again depending on how high the roll is, is described as some sort of mishap. Usually it's a tangle or a stumble or a weapon wedged in the scenery resulting in Disadvantage for next turn.
This week I had a player roll a fumble and then roll a natural 20. I ruled that they pulled the arrow from the quiver, it dropped, bounced and ended up back in the quiver! The accompanying "what the..." accounted for the Disadvantage.

 

[Paraxis]

D&D is not Dungeon World.

I don't agree or support such a ruling, unless said monster has a special ability in it's stat block that says if missed by a melee attack, the creature can opt to take just the weapon damage die as damage to use it's reaction to make an attack in retaliation. If the DM homebrewed up all his monsters to have such an ability or made this a general house rule, I would suggest he runs Dungeon World.

 

[Kikuras]

Haha I read that and missed the damage thing. Yeah, that's wonky. A miss is a miss as far as I know. Was this something that you knew about before hand, a modified combat system, or did you ask if it was a specific special ability? Does the fighter experience the same thing when attacked by the orc?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What do you think of this DM's ruling? Do the rules support such a ruling? How would you take it if you were playing the fighter? Would you prefer to be given a choice of missing outright or doing damage but opening yourself up to a reaction attack? What if the fighter missed by more than two?

I'm not a fan of this ruling. The "How to Play" supports that the DM can do this, but it is in conflict with the combat rules, which I take to serve as strong guidelines on how the DM should narrate the results of certain common actions (in this case, by calling for a specific sequence of checks against established DCs).

As a player, I look the rules as my baseline understanding of how the world works. Unless something changes to break my expectations, those are the assumptions I'm going to work by. I think I know that, whether or not I hit, I don't need to worry about retribution until the orc's turn (as long as I don't move away and provoke immediately). I think I know that I need to hit its AC, which I can guess with a certain probability, and that it has X amount of HP and my weapon does Y damage on a success (or 0 damage on a failure). I know that I have Z current HP, and it has A chance of hitting me for B damage on a success (or 0 damage on a failure). There could be an unknown factor here, if the orc is secretly an illusioned Balor or whatever, but that's something else I can imagine within some degree of confidence.

My knowledge of the rule structure, and how I expect the DM will call for checks in order to resolve the action I wish to perform, is extremely important to which actions I will want to perform. In the three-steps of How to Play, my understanding of 1 and my strong expectations of 3 are fundamental to my choice at 2.

If the DM is not going to follow the guidelines set forth in all of the rules, then I can deal with it as long as it's established ahead of time. It's a decent house rule - if you miss by 1 or 2, then you deal weapon damage (minus Strength mod) and they get a counter-attack. I have reasons why it would make more sense to deal Strength mod damage, and ignore the weapon die, but whatever. Even if it's established that you will have a choice, in that situation, then that's something I can take into consideration. (My choice would probably be to play an archer.)

If it's just an on-the-spot ruling, without some sort of mitigating circumstance where I might be able to see it coming - without some real reason why this situation is different enough from the normal expectations of combat that I would expect it to resolve differently - then I would be completely blindsided. I couldn't make that choice, in the moment. I would need at least ten minutes to ponder the ramifications of my uncertainty in the rules. I would have to question everything I thought I knew about how the world works. If I made it to the end of the session, I probably wouldn't return for the next one. It is entirely unreasonable to ask anyone to play a game where they have no confidence in what the rules are.

 

[Rune]

D&D is not Dungeon World.

I don't agree or support such a ruling, unless said monster has a special ability in it's stat block that says if missed by a melee attack, the creature can opt to take just the weapon damage die as damage to use it's reaction to make an attack in retaliation. If the DM homebrewed up all his monsters to have such an ability or made this a general house rule, I would suggest he runs Dungeon World.

The thing is, Dungeon World gives the player a role in deciding what happens. In the OP's example, I think the same should be granted to the player: "You didn't quite land the blow you wanted, but do you want to open yourself to an attack in order to push through and deal your damage, anyway?"

In this scenario, I would not use up the foe's reaction, nor even have the retaliation strike come out of a roll to hit; it would be automatic damage. Finally, it would be considered simultaneous with the player's damage, so killing the foe would not prevent the PC from receiving damage.

When presented this way, such a partial victory would not be a "screw you" to the player, but an option with a significant trade-off. Plus, it would potentially speed combat up. I don't see it working with anything other than melee combat, though.

 

[Psikerlord#]

D&D is not Dungeon World.

I don't agree or support such a ruling, unless said monster has a special ability in it's stat block that says if missed by a melee attack, the creature can opt to take just the weapon damage die as damage to use it's reaction to make an attack in retaliation. If the DM homebrewed up all his monsters to have such an ability or made this a general house rule, I would suggest he runs Dungeon World.

Yeah I would rather it just miss, and no reaction retaliation attack. It's could actually be worse for the PC than missing altogether (the PC causes what 2d6 dmg, or d8 if longsword, the orc might get a free retaliation for 2d6+3 or whatever).

For me such a ruling detracts from the enjoyment rather than adds to it. I would also have rolled initiative.

 

[iserith]

Who is good at math? (I'm not.)

Fighter: 1st-level. Defense or GWF Fighting Style. AC 16 (or 17 with Defense and chainmail). HP 12. Greatsword +5 to hit for 2d6+3 (rerolls 1-2 if GWF).

Orc: AC 13. HP 15. Greataxe +5 to hit for 1d12+3 (9 average damage).

Is the DM's adjudication (or offer, if it's a choice to make for the player) a good deal for the fighter? Please show your work.