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

[Manbearcat]

The point that always seems forgotten is that "miss" doesn't refer to the character missing with their attack. It refers to the player missing their target number on the d20.

Yup. I made that same observation awhile back when these threads sprouted up. It didn't get much traction. I assume this goes back to how people read rules texts; the "natural language" versus "gamist jargon" issue. I've never read concepts such as Saving Throw, Hit, Miss, AC as something that characters in the fiction would ever reference: "Man...Bob, that was a great Saving Throw you did to stave off that petrification effect. Good work. Keep it up."

Thats because "an attack" is an overall effort to do effective damage during the round. DoaM makes the answer to that question YES 100% of the time. The hit roll is then merely
a glorified damage multiplier. Does this fighter do greater damage or lesser damage this round?

We already have variable damage rolls for that.

By my way of seeing it, if you're going for a deeper grade of process simulation then it makes much more sense than the current model. The percentage of martial exchanges where something is lost which makes it more likely that you'll fail on the next martial exchange is the overwhelming majority. Any outlier to that is miniscule. Even if its just aggregate fatigue, DoaM models martial exchanges well (especially frenzied martial exchanges). 13th Age does a good job with this as only 5 % of exchanges ablate nothing.

I wonder if DoaM didn't ocurr on a natural 1 if folks would move away from "full revolt" mode.

 

[ExploderWizard]

By my way of seeing it, if you're going for a deeper grade of process simulation then it makes much more sense than the current model. The percentage of martial exchanges where something is lost which makes it more likely that you'll fail on the next martial exchange is the overwhelming majority. Any outlier to that is miniscule. Even if its just aggregate fatigue, DoaM models martial exchanges well (especially frenzied martial exchanges). 13th Age does a good job with this as only 5 % of exchanges ablate nothing.

I wonder if DoaM didn't ocurr on a natural 1 if folks would move away from "full revolt" mode.

The problem with DoaM being attributed to fatigue is that it would apply to every martial exchange, not just ones involving a specialized great weapon fighter. Its the artificial restriction of the effect to a fighting style that some think needs a booby prize that makes it so jarring.

If we were to say that every melee combatant takes 1-2 damage per round across the board due to fatigue then the fatigue angle would make more sense.

My objections are not against the concept of wear & tear damage it is against the concept of " hey since the way you fight doesn't provide enough fringe benefits, you get a ribbon that lets you deal BS damage when you miss just because."

 

[tomBitonti]

A melee attack can easily be subject to concealment or cover. An attacker might attack an opponent, say, who is behind a low wall, or a latticework.

A melee attack which missed might very well go unnoticed. Of course, if damage is applied in the absence of an obvious source, the player will notice. I see that as a weakness of DOAM, hence, the "the player feels a sudden chill, as if someone just walked on their grave" statement, where a player loses hit points in the absence of an obvious source.

DOAM represents an opportunity cost of adding extra damage in a normal fashion (Weapon Specialization), but applied differently. Actually, when modeled as a feat (see below), the similarity with Weapon Specialization is striking.

---

Let's create a 3E weapon ability which is about the same as DOAM.

Implacable: Melee weapons only. When used to make a melee attack, this weapon does damage even on a miss. On a miss, the weapon does its enchantment bonus plus the wielder's strength damage bonus for the weapon.

Damage is not applied if the defender has concealment. Secondary effects, such as poison or sneak attack, are not applied as a part of implacable damage. DR is applied to implacable damage.

A feat seems to be fitting, too:

Feat: Implacable Weapon
Prerequisite: Weapon Focus, Fighter Level 5

Effect: When selecting this feat, select a melee weapon type which the fighter has previously selected for Weapon Focus. A melee weapon of the selected type is considered to have the Implacable weapon quality while wielded by the fighter.

Lots of room for adjustment to the prerequisites.

---

I'm still bothered by odd scaling: As a player ability, this would provide an incentive to fight defensively and simply wear down an opponent. I don't think we want to slow down combat.

At higher levels, the small amount of damage seems to make this a weak player option.

I can see an option like this for handling many weak enemies, but then, I don't need an explicit option: As a simplification, I'd just have the weak enemy do a fixed amount of damage. But, if they are weak, should they do damage on a miss? As an option for weak opponents, the whole "on a miss part" doesn't seem to be the core of what is wanted, which is a simplified way of applying damage.

For cases where a player is willing to trade damage for a bonus to hit, an inverted Power Attack type feat seems to work better.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Manbearcat]

The problem with DoaM being attributed to fatigue is that it would apply to every martial exchange, not just ones involving a specialized great weapon fighter. Its the artificial restriction of the effect to a fighting style that some think needs a booby prize that makes it so jarring.

If we were to say that every melee combatant takes 1-2 damage per round across the board due to fatigue then the fatigue angle would make more sense.

My objections are not against the concept of wear & tear damage it is against the concept of " hey since the way you fight doesn't provide enough fringe benefits, you get a ribbon that lets you deal BS damage when you miss just because."

So let us say, 5e's last playtest packet had the following:

1) All weapon attacks due 1 damage on a miss. This damage improves by 1 at levels 5, 10, 15, 20.

2) Great Weapon Fighter spec improves the damage on a miss of weapon attacks with a great weapon by Strength modifier.

Sounds like you would be good with something like that, yes? Interesting. I think it would be pretty great and would improve the overall tactical overhead of gameplay without making things too fiddly.

I would have loved to have seen the overall response of the community if 1 and 2 above would have been introduced in the last packet. Rioting in the streets? Cats and dogs living together? Mass hysteria?

 

[ExploderWizard]

So let us say, 5e's last playtest packet had the following:

1) All weapon attacks due 1 damage on a miss. This damage improves by 1 at levels 5, 10, 15, 20.

2) Great Weapon Fighter spec improves the damage on a miss of weapon attacks with a great weapon by Strength modifier.

Sounds like you would be good with something like that, yes? Interesting. I think it would be pretty great and would improve the overall tactical overhead of gameplay without making things too fiddly.

I would have loved to have seen the overall response of the community if 1 and 2 above would have been introduced in the last packet. Rioting in the streets? Cats and dogs living together? Mass hysteria?

While I still wouldn't be a fan of the overall mechanic, it would at least be applied in a more uniform and consistent structure.

But........

I love the gambling chances of the die roll and the inclusion of all possible outcomes from a huge success to crapping out. Not knowing whats going to come up is big part of the joys of gaming. Knowing that events would unfold to an inevitable predictable grinding conclusion in the absence of dice is depressing. Being down to your last hit point and holding your breath as an attack comes your way would die as a feature of D&D and I wouldn't ever want to see that happen.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

The problem with DoaM being attributed to fatigue is that it would apply to every martial exchange, not just ones involving a specialized great weapon fighter. Its the artificial restriction of the effect to a fighting style that some think needs a booby prize that makes it so jarring.

The same thing can be said about why only the Rogue knows how to backstab people/hit weak points and why only the Barbarian can get angry in combat. The other classes either don't have or didn't take that option, so they don't get the mechanic.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The same thing can be said about why only the Rogue knows how to backstab people/hit weak points and why only the Barbarian can get angry in combat. The other classes either don't have or didn't take that option, so they don't get the mechanic.

Don't get me started on the BS of rogues!

 

[pemerton]

"an attack" is an overall effort to do effective damage during the round. DoaM makes the answer to that question YES 100% of the time. The hit roll is then merely a glorified damage multiplier. Does this fighter do greater damage or lesser damage this round?

Correct.

I love the gambling chances of the die roll and the inclusion of all possible outcomes from a huge success to crapping out. Not knowing whats going to come up is big part of the joys of gaming.

OK, then don't take DoaM for your PC. (And if you're playing a mage, avoid wands of fireball and wands of magic missile!)

 

[pemerton]

A melee attack can easily be subject to concealment or cover. An attacker might attack an opponent, say, who is behind a low wall, or a latticework.

A melee attack which missed might very well go unnoticed.

I'm a little puzzled by this. If an opponent is behind a low wall and doesn't know I'm there, how am I going to physically miss him/her in such a way as to not give away my presence? I'm having trouble envisaging what is happening in the scenario you are describing.

DOAM represents an opportunity cost of adding extra damage in a normal fashion (Weapon Specialization), but applied differently.

Yes. As [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] has repeatedly pointed out, the fact that it smooths the damage curve rather than making it more spikey is a deliberate feature.

For cases where a player is willing to trade damage for a bonus to hit, an inverted Power Attack type feat seems to work better.

How/why?

 

[Balesir]

Don't get me started on the BS of rogues!

Is there any part of this system you are espousing that you actually don't disagree with??

If you are looking for a system without the conceit of "character classes" then why are you still using D&D?