D&D 5E Adjudicating Melee

[Sunseeker]

This situation? I don't think it's explicitly stated as allowed by the rules, but it's not expressly disallowed either. Since D&D is a game of exceptions, since it doesn't say that it CANT work this way the default assumption is that it CAN work this way.

I think it certainly puts a twist on the game to have a creature that gets a reaction any time a creature misses.

I dunno I think 5th is really flexible and this certainly could work.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"Failure can be tough, but the agony is compounded when a character fails by the barest margin. When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance."

"A character manages to get her sword past a hobgoblin's defenses and turn a near miss into a hit, but the hobgoblin twists its shield and disarms her."

I hadn't read the DMG that closely, so it seems really weird to me that it would say this. It's not something that I would have inferred, based on anything in the Basic Rules or the PHB. There is a line about failure on a check leading to success with a setback, but this takes it way beyond that.

But still, the DMG does say that. You can totally attack, and miss, but still deal damage and then lose your weapon. Not based on the circumstances of the situation, or anything you could have possibly foreseen, but just the DM deciding to mess with you. So you could totally attack, but miss by two points, and then the orc kills you instantly on your own turn. (Although, the syntax is somewhat vague, and "can allow" could be interpreted that such a failure would only allow the player to make the choice, rather than force such a result; this would be in direct defiance of 1-2-3, though, where the player is only allowed to describe intent and the DM is the only one allowed to narrate resolution.)

The DM does have broad discretion to do whatever he or she wants, of course. The DM could say that rocks fall, and everybody dies. I don't know why any DM would do that, though, or what player would choose to keep playing in such a game.

The basic rules are: The DM describes the situation, the player states an action to attempt, and the DM narrates the resolution. I guess the unspoken assumption is that the resolution should follow from the situation, and how the player describes the action, and possibly random chance, rather than pure whim of the DM.

 

[wedgeski]

I'd be happy with the ruling as long as the DM had made it clear he was playing that kind of game. At least then I would know that combat is likely to throw up all sort of unexpected complications, none of which I can possibly predict, and modify my choice of class and play-style accordingly. I guess it depends on how much of a "game" you want your combat to be. If you're looking for strategy and team thinking from your players, then the rules of combat have to be well understood by everyone.

 

[Uchawi]

It is opening Pandora's box, because if you have an effect based on a marginal miss, then the same would apply to a save or skill roll. Just watch the wizard blow a cork, when the big bad boss misses the save by only a few points, and the damage is reduced, or the effect is diminished. All I can say is look at the changes in regards to how they affect every player at the table, including what the DM wants to do with NPCs or monsters.

 

[iserith]

I hadn't read the DMG that closely, so it seems really weird to me that it would say this. It's not something that I would have inferred, based on anything in the Basic Rules or the PHB. There is a line about failure on a check leading to success with a setback, but this takes it way beyond that.

What I'm seeing is the DMG advocating that the DM can sometimes narrate damage on a miss.

But still, the DMG does say that. You can totally attack, and miss, but still deal damage and then lose your weapon. Not based on the circumstances of the situation, or anything you could have possibly foreseen, but just the DM deciding to mess with you. So you could totally attack, but miss by two points, and then the orc kills you instantly on your own turn. (Although, the syntax is somewhat vague, and "can allow" could be interpreted that such a failure would only allow the player to make the choice, rather than force such a result; this would be in direct defiance of 1-2-3, though, where the player is only allowed to describe intent and the DM is the only one allowed to narrate resolution.)

Arguably, the adjudication of the DM in the example didn't really "change the nature of the adventuring situation" in the spirit of the "Success at a Cost" resolution method. I would prefer some other tradeoff for the fighter's damage on a miss. I think it would be pretty cool if they lock up weapons and with a burst of strength the orc pushes back and knocks the fighter prone as a reaction.

 

[iserith]

It is opening Pandora's box, because if you have an effect based on a marginal miss, then the same would apply to a save or skill roll. Just watch the wizard blow a cork, when the big bad boss misses the save by only a few points, and the damage is reduced, or the effect is diminished. All I can say is look at the changes in regards to how they affect every player at the table, including what the DM wants to do with NPCs or monsters.

Notably, the "Success at a Cost" resolution method only refers to "characters," not "NPCs" or "monsters." One wonders if that is that is intentionally one-sided. It sure seems like it.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Assuming GWF fighting style, each 1d6 on the greatsword attack gets re-rolled if it's a 1 or 2, meaning that any roll of 1 or 2 changes to an expected value of 3.5. Thus, the average result of each 1d6 is (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6, which comes to 25/6. Two such dice is 50/6, or 8.333. Per the DM's ruling, the fighter does not get to add his or her Strength mod, so 8.333 is the expected damage.

The orc will deal, on average, 4.5 damage with a greataxe attack (9 average and a 50% chance to hit). However, the fighter has only 4/5 the hit points of the orc, so each point of damage dealt by the orc is worth more: 4.5 damage from the orc is equivalent to 5.625 damage from the fighter.

Since 8.333 is higher than 5.625, the fighter advances his or her position relative to the orc. This ruling is, indeed, a good deal for the fighter... assuming it's a one-on-one duel. If other PCs and orcs are involved, all bets are off.

 

[Dausuul]

The answer to the question depends on how risk averse your fighter is. Just looking at GWF (Defense makes too little difference with these criteria).

The GWF Fighter is given (or offered) 2d6 (re-roll 1's and 2's - or 8.3 avg dmg, max of 12), in exchange for letting the Orc attack him (50% chance to hit, d12+3 dmg, 9.5 avg, 15 max).
He has no chance to kill the Orc, but will greatly increase the chances of killing the Orc with his next attack (65% chance to hit, 11.3 avg dmg or 7.3 dmg/attack).

In exchange, the Orc does 4.75 dmg/attack. The kicker is, that each hit the Orc gets, has a 33% chance of taking the Fighter out of the fight (he needs to roll 9+ on 1d12). So, the Orc has a 16.5% chance of knocking the Fighter out of the fight with just that one free swing. if we assume that the Orc will also get the next attack, the Fighter's odds of surviving the fight drop to around 50%.

Does your Fighter feel lucky, punk?

Hmm, this is a good point. I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I'll have to run the numbers on that and see. I suspect it's still a winning deal for the fighter, but maybe not by much.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If everyone at your game is fine with things that way and still having a good time then go for it. In a game played for fun, everything is alright until it stops becoming fun. Tweaking the rules to suit individual tastes is exactly what the designers had in mind.

 

[neobolts]

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?

While the DM is within their rights to do this, it is not possibly the best fit for D&D. Often mentioned as part of the conventional wisdom in "how to DM" articles is "being arbitrary or inconsistent breeds discontent". If this was an isolated happening just to shake things up, its not too bad. If there's no rhyme or reason to when and where this is happening then it will get frustrating for players very quickly. If it the up-front house rule that things work this way (with or without the PC having a choice) then it could be fine.

tl;dr: Being arbitrary or inconsistent breeds discontent. Meh as a random ruling, workable as a house rule.