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

[EnglishLanguage]

Or, you embrace the fact that there's some exceptions out there. A miss is usually, but not always or strictly, a miss.

+1

Otherwise you get into oddities like Plate Armor making it easier for you to dodge attacks.

 

[Alzrius]

You claim that is "the problem". We can just as easily turn it around and say that "the problem" is folks being a tad too strict in insisting that game mechanics language must hitch directly to narrative language always and without exception, and willing to make a huge stink and fuss over it.

Sure, or we could claim that "the problem" is that dictionaries keep defining the word "miss" as meaning a blow that doesn't land, rather than one that does land and causes only minimal damage. But neither that, nor trying to insist that it's easily-intuited that "damage on a miss" actually means "damage on a light hit" are, in my opinion, particularly plausible options for fixing "the problem."

To put it another way, I don't think that it's "too strict" in saying that there's a narrative disconnect in insisting that something called a miss is resulting in a hit, let alone suggesting that this problem can be easily fixed by changing that one word.

(That's leaving aside the snarky use of "always and without exception," and "huge stink and fuss." Please try and maintain a more respectful tone towards those who disagree with you.)

If the biggest problem the game with dragons, elves, and fireballs has is an occasionally inconsistent definition of what a "hit" is, then I think we're doing pretty darned well.

I'm not sure if anyone was claiming otherwise; certainly I wasn't.

 

[Umbran]

To put it another way, I don't think that it's "too strict" in saying that there's a narrative disconnect in insisting that something called a miss is resulting in a hit, let alone suggesting that this problem can be easily fixed by changing that one word.

Saying it once, maybe twice, no, that's not too strict. Noting it and moving on, sure, that's fine.

But 800 posts later? My opinion changes.

(That's leaving aside the snarky use of "always and without exception," and "huge stink and fuss." Please try and maintain a more respectful tone towards those who disagree with you.)

The "always and without exception" is not intended as snarky. Perhaps I was mistaken. You mean folks *don't* want it to be entirely consistent? You mean it'll be allowed to slide elsewhere? Interesting. Why, then, all the verbiage for this one single mechanic, when really, it isn't that big a deal when similar inconsistency appears elsewhere?

As for "huge stink and fuss", I claim that as an accurate description. There's over 800 posts in this sub-forum, representing hundreds of person-hours of writing - relative to other topics under discussion on the forums, this one is, in fact, really big. There have been more reports of rudeness, warnings given, bans and temp-bans handed out related to this topic than others in recent months, to the point where complaints had us shift it into it's own little sub-space. And that is only on EN World. Reportedly it is worse elsewhere. Thus "stink and fuss" also seems accurate.

I cannot help it if collective dogged determination on a topic has led to unattractive results.

 

[Shadowsoul]

Or, you embrace the fact that there's some exceptions out there. A miss is usually, but not always or strictly, a miss.



You claim that is "the problem". We can just as easily turn it around and say that "the problem" is folks being a tad too strict in insisting that game mechanics language must hitch directly to narrative language always and without exception, and willing to make a huge stink and fuss over it.

Hit: bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully.

Miss: fail to hit, reach, or come into contact with (something aimed at).

I have never seen Dungeons and Dragons, as a game, try and dispute that these words mean something different until damage on a miss was used with melee weapons.

Nobody is being fussy at all, people are just using these words like they have been intended for years. Only the addition of this mechanic has caused people to try and change the meaning of the two words above. Now I know there are exceptions when it comes to armour and dodging, but I would bet that most people see hit and miss as essentially what the two words mean.

 

[delericho]

Hit: bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully.

Miss: fail to hit, reach, or come into contact with (something aimed at).

I have never seen Dungeons and Dragons, as a game, try and dispute that these words mean something different until damage on a miss was used with melee weapons.

Certainly in 3e, and I'm sure also in 4e, they were actually quite careful to always talk about "attack rolls" rather than "rolls to hit". As I said up-thread, AC has generally not been defined as how difficult a character is to hit but rather how difficult he is to hurt - with the reasons he wasn't hurt being left abstract since it might be that he dodged, his armour absorbed the blow, or whatever.

 

[Shadowsoul]

From the 2nd edition PHB.

Damage is what happens to a character
when an opponent attacks him successfully.
Damage can also occur as a result of poison,
fire, falling, acid, and anything even remotely
dangerous in the real world. Damage
from most attacks is measured in hit
points. Each time a character is hit, he suffers
points of damage: It could be as little as
1 point to as many as 80 or more. These
points are subtracted from the character's
current hit point total. When this reaches 0,
the character is dead.

Armor provides protection by reducing
the chance that a character is attacked successfully
(and suffers damage). Armor does
not absorb damage, it prevents it. A fighter
in full plate mail may be a slow-moving target,
but penetrating his armor to cause any
damage is no small task.

 

[Minigiant]

That's the thing. Attack rolls are "rolls to hurt" or "rolls to bypass"

What editions eventually did is add "rolls to hit". #e did it via Touch AC. 4e did it via "Attacks vs Reflex". I'm sure earlier editions had theirs.

Next doesn't have this. It only has AC. So you literally go back to 0e where a giant hits you in the armor with a tree and you feel nothing.

 

[delericho]

From the 2nd edition PHB...

Indeed. Though the 2nd Ed PHB also makes sure to talk about "attack rolls" in its combat chapter. (That said, the terminology is certainly not consistent - what with THAC0 and all! )

The "roll to hurt" description does seem to give a pretty consistent paradigm, though, and one that Damage on a Miss pretty definitively breaks. Of course, it's not the only possible, or the only consistent, paradigm.

(And with that, I find I've expended way more effort on DoaM than I really wanted, given that I have at most a mild preference that it not be included. So if you'll excuse me...)

 

[Alzrius]

Saying it once, maybe twice, no, that's not too strict. Noting it and moving on, sure, that's fine.

But 800 posts later? My opinion changes.

Let's leave aside for a moment that those 800 posts include people on both sides of this particular issue, which shoots down your theory that only the anti-DoaM crowd are "too strict." Instead, I'll simply offer that if you think that it's "too strict" to want one single word to not be used to indicate something that's exactly the opposite of its standard definition, then I suspect you'll just have to agree to disagree with most everyone else.

The "always and without exception" is not intended as snarky. Perhaps I was mistaken. You mean folks *don't* want it to be entirely consistent? You mean it'll be allowed to slide elsewhere? Interesting. Why, then, all the verbiage for this one single mechanic, when really, it isn't that big a deal when similar inconsistency appears elsewhere?

You were definitely mistaken: there are a lot of people who don't want it to be entirely consistent - those are the folks who are pro-DoaM. The OP provides a long example of a giant striking a character, and then says that's damage on a miss. That's pretty much the soul of inconsistency (unless the pro-DoaM crowd thinks that there'll always be damage on every single miss ever).

Others prefer that a "miss" actually be a miss, but that doesn't seem to be your thing.

As for "huge stink and fuss", I claim that as an accurate description.

It's not a question of accuracy, it's a question of tone. EN World is known for (trying to) maintain a friendly conversation among its posters; referring to the people who disagree with you as causing "a huge stink and fuss" is a not particularly respectful way of dismissing the legitimacy of other people's viewpoints. That's when we have the mods step in, something I hope won't become necessary here.

There's over 800 posts in this sub-forum, representing hundreds of person-hours of writing - relative to other topics under discussion on the forums, this one is, in fact, really big. There have been more reports of rudeness, warnings given, bans and temp-bans handed out related to this topic than others in recent months, to the point where complaints had us shift it into it's own little sub-space. And that is only on EN World. Reportedly it is worse elsewhere. Thus "stink and fuss" also seems accurate.

You're moving the goalposts here by trying to say that your comment was in regards to the entirety of the debate. Your previous post was in regards to (emphasis mine) "folks being a tad too strict in insisting that game mechanics language must hitch directly to narrative language always and without exception, and willing to make a huge stink and fuss over it." In other words, you were talking just about the anti-DoaM crowd. You weren't denigrating the debate, you were denigrating the people in it who happen to disagree with you.

I cannot help it if collective dogged determination on a topic has led to unattractive results.

You can when you're a part of those results.

 

[Uchawi]

Just change damage on a miss, evade, saving throws and similar abilities that require a resolution of a dice roll, when warranted, with a clause that states automatic effect. D&D is full of exceptions. Otherwise remove all the abilities that negate a dice roll.