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

[Balesir]

I'm thinking 3E did the game (or at least the view of rogues) damage in this regard. In 3E, flanking is sufficient for a rogue to deal sneak attack damage. In 1E (I thought) a rogue needed to be hidden to use sneak attack (then called backstab).

Also, 3E took away a lot of the flavor / style difference between combat styles by factoring these into BAB (which is strictly comparable between classes: a +5BAB rogue fights equally as well as a +5BAB fighter, and equally as well as a +5BAB wizard) plus feats and class features, with the style differences shifted entirely to the feats and class features.

I'm far less "tuned in" to 3.x than I am to 4E, these days, but IIRC rogues still had lower HPs and lighter armour, plus fewer feats and so on to boost defences; the degree may have been different, but the essential story remained the same, in my view (as, indeed, it does in 4E, with fighters having even more good stuff in a face-to-face fight).

On the second point: A "hit" with brass knuckles might make no contact, but do hit point damage. A part of what hit points represent is "ablative luck". That is, if on average, three good attacks are necessary before obtaining a solid, debilitating hit with brass knuckles, that might be modeled with brass knuckles doing an average of 1/3 of the targets hit points on a successful hit. Whether one, all three, or just the last hit actually connects is not known, that being obscured by the combat model.

Yeah, I was really speaking about how it might be envisioned, rather than suggesting changing the system. The main point is that maybe a majority of "successful attacks" with brass knuckles or similar on heavily armoured guys will not really be "hits" with the ineffectual weapon itself.

Going against a well armed and armoured guy with a cestus is pretty tough in the systems already - as it should be - if all else is equal. But the fact that it would be hard does not mean that someone desperate enough to do it couldn't win out with luck and good training.

 

[tomBitonti]

Going against a well armed and armoured guy with a cestus is pretty tough in the systems already - as it should be - if all else is equal. But the fact that it would be hard does not mean that someone desperate enough to do it couldn't win out with luck and good training.

Definitely, a higher level rogue should hold his own against a lower level fighter in a straight up fight. The rogue should have fewer purely martial type abilities (say, weapon specialization), but ought to have other abilities to compensate. And, given the opportunity to use the confusion of the battlefield, mobility, and stealth, the higher level rogue should clearly win out.

One question, relative to DOAM, would be whether the skill level of the higher level rogue should allow them to have a DOAM type ability, or, if only the fighter has the skills necessary to have DOAM, because of their extra emphasis on fighting.

The other main question being whether to have DOAM at all, even for fighters or other purely martial classes.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Consona]

IMO, Damage on a miss makes perfect sense because HP = a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. A lot of HP is not actual wounds but fatigue from dodging and blocking, etc. And when Dexterity is part of AC it makes sense that there could be some damage on a miss.

It would make the whole HP system more consistent. I think I'm gonna houserule some DoaM into the game.

 

[guachi]

If you caused damage on a miss then you didn't miss, did you?

To quote, "Hit points are hit points. They simulate hit points and they represent hit points."

Hit points and to hit rolls are abstractions borne out of the minds of wargamers who had no problem realizing they were abstractions meant to streamline play.

HP answers the question - Am I dead or not?
AC answers the question - Do I cause damage or not?

 

[Uchawi]

I believe the key to success for automatic damage (damage on a miss) is the frequency of use in any game. If a character has an ability that does automatic damage all the time without very specific circumstances (coupe de grace) then is teeters on the edge of believability. With that stated, if care is taken to limit it to area effects or very high skill/level in any specific attack or spell, then it fits well with an exception based game like D&D.

 

[BigVanVader]

True. But trying to go for hold against a guy in full plate & mace/sword/hammer is suicide IRL.

Well, going up against a guy in full place if you don't have full plate on, that's a bad situation no matter what. But grappling him so that he doesn't get the benefit of his weapon, that's probably your best bet.

Actually, your best bet is to apologize for whatever you did and lick his boots clean, but you know what I mean.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

My 2¢ here...

I think if someone was to use a DoaM thing in D&D, the damage should have NOTHING to do with the actual weapon/attack and only involve the level/HD of the person attacking. If we are to take the assumed HP = "more than just meat", then the more powerful people (re: higher level with more HP's) should be able to last longer in a fight. But at the same time, we can't really use weapon damage (or claw, bite, spell, etc) as the base because it generally doesn't 'keep up' with HP's...and we did assume HP = "more than just meat".

Anyway, what I'd do is give a small die type, scaling up as a creature increases in level/HD, as a per-round "damageing aura". So a mid-level Fighter or an Ogre might have a d6, whilst a massive stone giant may have 2d8. If someone is in combat with such a being, and within its attack range ("reach"), if it doesn't score an actual "hit", then it does it's "aura damage"; so, if you are in combat with a stone giant, you will be taking 2d8 every round, regardless...but at the same time, the stone giant is taking that d6 damage from the mid-level fighter as well. It would make combats a lot shorter, that's for sure!

Personally...I'm fine with the abstract "it's a game, so just go with it" side of D&D combat. It's fast, furious and open to infinite interpretation...something no rule set could ever hope to codify.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Emerikol]

I thought this subject was dead. Holy resurrection thread Batman.

 

[Geeknamese]

Hmmm...I see HPs as an abstract reflection of stamina, damage, morale/fighting spirit. It's a combination of near hits, hits and just wear and tear physically and mentally. It's the only way to explain things like the Bard's Song of Rest lifting spirits to "heal", the feat that provides inspiration and temp HPs and temp HPs themselves. That's why I liked the bloody mechanic of 4e which signifies that you are now taking significant mortal damage. This is how I explain hit points to new players who want to understand how realistic is taking that much "damage".

With this, I'm ok with the concept of damage on a miss. I'd say its nearly missing potentially fatal attacks with brutal weapons mentally sapping away at the players/enemies fighting spirit which will cause them to second guess themselves and make poorer decisions in combat which can ultimately lead to death at 0 HPs.

 

[BigVanVader]

Yeah, hitpoints inherently bother me, just like many other aspects of the game bother me, but it helps if you think of them as more abstract. Otherwise, you're stabbing the level 15 Halfling with a dagger nine hundred and twelve times, because he has so much HP. And that's just silly.