D&D 5E Damage on a Miss: Because otherwise Armour Class makes no sense

[RotGrub]

First off, in the name of keeping the discussion rational, let's be careful about our own language use. The term "asinine" is aiming at the emotions, not the rational part of the discussion. If you want this to degrade into, "ME NO LIKE! IT GO AWAY! *THUMPTHUMP!" then by all means, let's take the language there, and I can close the thread quickly.

I, however, will refer to an author highly regarded in many geek circles:

"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Language is a wonderful thing - but if you want the rulebooks to be absolutely and unambiguously clear, that is apt to make them unusable as reference works to play a casual hobby game. The length, detail, and style required for true lack of ambiguity would have our rulebooks looking more like books of law - difficult to read and absorb, and no fun to actually work with.

We are not talking about the rules to a game on which big money will change hands due to how it plays out. We should not take ourselves quite so seriously. The world will not end if you and another GM have a different interpretation of what a hit point is, or what a "hit" in game terms means in narrative terms.

You are playing with intelligent, creative, mature adults, yes? Then, any confusions can be worked through at the table, without needing to impose similar decisions on the world at large. You play it how you want, someone else will play it how they want, and it's all good.

Yes, the term was a bit emotional. Perhaps I should have used the term "pointless"

I just don't see the need to redefine a term. Why even suggest that a miss is not a miss? People just don't naturally think that way. I'm not suggesting that the game be rigid and absolutely unambiguous, I'm suggesting the game not be the complete opposite of that.

Suggesting that a miss isn't a miss is not intuitive. People don't think that way and we shouldn't need lengthy conversations at the table for such a simple mechanic.

 

[RotGrub]

This was answered by [MENTION=336]D'karr[/MENTION], and also by [MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] in this thread's first go around: the words "hit" and "miss" refer to hitting or missing a target number. They describe the events of gameplay, not the events in the fictional gameworld.

The goal of the mechanic is to prevent an action from doing no damage. Why not just call it a partial hit? Why not just say that the mechanic allows you to always hit? Why refer to it as a miss that does damage? I don't see the point. Sure, you can still hit something and not do damage, but I think people understand that.

 

[MechaPilot]

Suggesting that a miss isn't a miss is not intuitive. People don't think that way and we shouldn't need lengthy conversations at the table for such a simple mechanic.

And yet, unless we are willing to say that armor and shields make one better at dodging blows, or supernaturally make all of one's enemies less accurate, misses that aren't misses have been built into the AC mechanic since virtually day one.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Hit points also have their origins in wargaming terminology. They reflect, in some loose way, the capability of the play piece to suffer hits (ie successful attacks) and survive. Obviously in D&D there have always been many ways to ablate hit points other than via successful attacks, though (eg falling damage, traps, spells, etc).

I would suggest, looking back at the original wargaming context, that the meaning of a "hit" was just an effort that produced very noteworthy results. Since "1 unit" attacking might represent "100 soldiers, armed to the teeth, whacking away for 10 minutes" the idea that a "miss" resulted in zero bloodletting was not plausible.

When the battlemat was filled with mostly 1HD and 2HD units and only a few rare elite 3+HD units, "1 Hit Point" seemed to have a certain kind of abstract meaning. It so happens that when we scaled up the HD, the abstraction became even more abstract, not less. Since it was fun, people did not care.

 

[Hussar]

The problem here is that damage on a miss actually narrows the set of outcomes such as an attack that really has no significant effect - and surely, there's no reason for them not to exist, even in an abstract combat system.

The number remains the same. You still have two outcomes either way. With damage or no damage or damage or minor damage.

The total is still 2.

 

[D'karr]

The problem here is that damage on a miss actually narrows the set of outcomes such as an attack that really has no significant effect - and surely, there's no reason for them not to exist, even in an abstract combat system.

I don't see how it could possibly be a narrowing of options.

You could have some attacks that deplete HP when the player misses the target number, and you could still have attacks that don't deplete HP when the player misses the target number.

I see that as a broadening of options - two options rather than one. Or am I missing some particular context to your post?

 

[Hussar]

The goal of the mechanic is to prevent an action from doing no damage. Why not just call it a partial hit? Why not just say that the mechanic allows you to always hit? Why refer to it as a miss that does damage? I don't see the point. Sure, you can still hit something and not do damage, but I think people understand that.

Because a failed attack attemp being a miss hasn't actually been part of the rules for three editions now?

 

[Iosue]

The goal of the mechanic is to prevent an action from doing no damage. Why not just call it a partial hit? Why not just say that the mechanic allows you to always hit? Why refer to it as a miss that does damage? I don't see the point. Sure, you can still hit something and not do damage, but I think people understand that.

Look there's no rule or mechanic in the 4e or the 5e playtest that is called "Damage on a miss". In the playtest it was "Great Weapon Fighting", in 4e it was any number of daily powers fluffed in various ways. "Damage on a miss" is just a shorthand. And again, it does not describe physically missing the target in the game. It's missing the target number of the d20 roll. Just as a "hit" does not describe the result of one swing, but refers to hitting the target number of the d20 roll.

 

[Rygar]

In this respect, accuracy in 4e was just as bounded - because attack bonuses escalated at the same rate (per level) as defences. The function of "ridiculous" target numbers in 4e isn't to cause the expected rate of success to change (it is a fairly constant 60%) but to interact with the Monster Manuals, and thereby step up the opposition over the course of play (from goblins to demon lords).

As @Balesir indicated, perhaps you clocked it on the skull with your pommel.

Furthermore, I put this in the same category as "What happens if I roll my d6 and it lands perfectly balanced on its corner?" The outcome you describe is unlikely ever to come up in play, certainly not on a regular basis, and so can be narrated as seems appropriate at the time.


This was answered by @D'karr, and also by @Iosue in this thread's first go around: the words "hit" and "miss" refer to hitting or missing a target number. They describe the events of gameplay, not the events in the fictional gameworld.

I went ahead and dug through 4 out of the 5 editions of D&D. My findings are that none of those editions refer to hitting or missing meaning hitting or missing a target number, in fact none of those editions define "Hit" or "Miss". Unless you can cite specific page numbers that explicitly define "Hit" and "Miss" as referring to a target number instead of their true meanings I am going to have to put forth the belief that no average person could reasonably be expected to come to the same conclusion you are stating.

I very sincerely doubt the average person would interpret "If the attack roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's AC with then the attack hits" as referring to the attack hitting a target number and not hitting the opponent. This is 5th edition's definition. 1st - 3rd are generally even more explicit about hitting and missing the opponent.

 

[MechaPilot]

I went ahead and dug through 4 out of the 5 editions of D&D. My findings are that none of those editions refer to hitting or missing meaning hitting or missing a target number, in fact none of those editions define "Hit" or "Miss". Unless you can cite specific page numbers that explicitly define "Hit" and "Miss" as referring to a target number instead of their true meanings I am going to have to put forth the belief that no average person could reasonably be expected to come to the same conclusion you are stating.

I very sincerely doubt the average person would interpret "If the attack roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's AC with then the attack hits" as referring to the attack hitting a target number and not hitting the opponent. This is 5th edition's definition. 1st - 3rd are generally even more explicit about hitting and missing the opponent.

The inherent problem with that line of reasoning is the AC mechanic. Unless we assume that non-magical armor has the magical ability to make one better at dodging or to make enemies more prone to whiff when swinging then the AC mechanic is already turning misses into hits that bounce off of one's armor. When the common language results in a situation that makes no sense, i.e. the apparent magical properties of non-magical armors, then people either ignore it (as you apparently must) or conclude that hit and miss refers to non-narrative elements such as the mechanical construct of the attack roll.