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

[the Jester]

If Armor Class makes you harder to hurt, not to hit, then why do we refer to a low roll as a miss ​in the first place?

In all fairness, this has always been a thing in D&D. AC has always been a mix of "avoid the hit" and "absorb the blow".

 

[pemerton]

It requires wholly new mental gymnastics to explain.

<snip>

It creates a new narrative niche which begs for an explanation.

<snip>

It breaks the abstraction model by adding a new mechanic which is defined in terms of the abstraction, not in terms of an underlying imagined world.

As far as I can tell these are all the same complaint.

Combat in D&Dnext (as in 3E and 4e) is broken up into 6-second chunks. Those chunks don't, in themselves, correspond to any event or process in the gameworld. Some physical processes in the gameworld - say, the swing of certain pendulums - have periods of 6 seconds, but combat is not one of those processes. The 6 second round is simply a metagame device for regulating the action economy.

As part of that action economy, the combat output of the typical character is determined by making 1 attack roll per 6 second round. That roll does not, in itself, correspond to any event or process in the gameworld. The combatants in the gameworld are (presumably) fighting much as real people do in the real world (or, perhaps, like fantasy people do in fantasy movies). They are not tocking at one another in a stop-motion fashion.

For the typical character, a successful to hit roll (" a hit") means that, in that 6 seconds of combat, the foe was worn down. In the fiction that could correspond to one mighty blow, multiple lesser blows, a flurry of skilled swordplay that left the foe somewhat exhausted, off-balance etc. The extent to which you want to treat this as some form of meat-ablation is up to you, although by default in D&Dnext, it's not meat until the foe has lost half their hp.

For the typical character, a failed to hit roll ("a miss") means that, in that 6 seconds of combat, the foe was not worn down. In the fiction that could correspond to blows successfully parried, or deflected off armour or a shield, or dodged, etc. Admittedly my grasp of the details of melee combat is limited, but it seems to me only in certain corner cases (eg a normal person dodges a giant's club or a dragon's bite) is the game mechanical "miss" likely to correspond in a literal sense to a series of swings which never connect in any physical way with a foe or his/her equipment. (Extra oddities arise in that, in the mechanics, it is possible to dodge a giant's club without yielding any ground, whereas at least in all the movie depictions of that sort of dodging I'm familiar with the dodging involves running about, to take advantage of the small target's manoeuvrability advantage over the giant, dragon etc.)

So far, none of the above considerations have factored in DoaM. They are just extrapolating from the mechanical logic of D&D combat plus my own common-sense (?) understanding of the physical realities of melee combat.

What difference does DoaM make? It means that, in 6 seconds of melee combat, the GWF cannot but wear down his/her foe to some extent. The function of the to-hit roll, for that character, is not to decide "whether or not", but rather to decided "how much?" (The two alternatives being STR or W+STR.) This does not "break the abstraction". The only "explanation" or "mental gymnastics" required is to imagine a fighter so implacable that, in 6 seconds of combat, s/he cannot but wear down his/her foe to some extent. That doesn't strike me as very hard.

Now for those who are not treating the action economy, the 6 second round and the attack roll as abstractions, but are treating them literally - as in, each combatant literally moves his/her weapon once per 6 seconds, and a weapon makes debilitating physical contact with an opponent at most once per 6 seconds (corresponding to a literal "hit"), and a "miss" on an attack roll is literally that, ie a blow which failed to make any sort of physical contact with an opponent but rather found only empty air - I can see how DoaM might be a problem.

But that is not because it breaks the abstraction. That is because it relies upon treating the combat mechanics as abstractions, rather than literal representations of physical movements by the characters within the gameworld.

(I regard all of the above as just spelling out, in a bit more detail, [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]'s analysis in the OP.)

It interacts with other rules in strange ways. For example, often, an attack must deal damage for a poison effect to occur. Would poison apply on a miss?

I took this to be what Mearls had in mind when he said on Twitter that DoaM causes some head-scratching at the table. If you are going to use it, you need to differentiate, in your statements of mechanics, between events/effects that trigger on a "hit" (ie a successful attack roll) and events/effects that trigger on the infliction of damage (which, for a GWF with DoaM, is any validly declared attack). This requires suitable drafting of rules text combined with a good sense of the desirable probability distribution for various effects.

To take your poison example: if it is a necessary condition of inflicting a poison effect that damage be dealt (that is not the case in 4e, nor I believe in B/X or AD&D, but might be in 3E for all I know), I think it would be a mistake to make that a sufficient condition. For balance reasons, a DoaM fighter who has poisoned his/her weapon should still have to roll a successful attack roll to deliver the poison.

No one who likes DoaM would have missed it if another equally evocative but inoffensive option had been offered.

Obviously by "no one" you don't literally mean "no one" - so the fact that I'm a counterexample to what you say isn't refutation on its own. But what is the evidence that I am a solitary, unrepresentative prospective customer?

 

[EnglishLanguage]

The poison part isn't confusing at all IMO.

If the poison only applies on a hit, then Damage on a Miss wouldn't apply it. Maybe it's because you didn't get quite a good enough hit to break the skin, maybe your attack smacked against his armor, maybe he blocked it with his shield, etc.

 

[tomBitonti]

*) What should the DOAM damage amount be?

In 3E terms, at first level, we can easily have a barbarian with:

Attack Bonus: +6: +1 (BAB) +1 (Weapon Focus) +3 (16 Str) +2 (+4 Str; Rage) -1 (Power Attack 1)

Damage: 15.5: 1d12 + 9: 1d12 (Great Axe) +7 (Str) +2 (Power Attack 1)

On the other hand, a sword and board fighter:

Attack Bonus: +5: +1 (BAB) +1 (Focus) +3 (16 Str)
Damage: 7.5: 1d8 + 3: 1d8 (Longsword) + 3 (16 Str)

Or, a fighter in a pinch, with just a dagger:

Attach Bonus: +4: +1 (BAB) +3 (16 Str)
Damage: 5.5: 1d4 + 3: 1d4 (Dagger) +3 (16 Str)

What's an appropriate DOAM damage amount if it is to be applied in all three cases?

*) Why only fighters? That is, why is a fighters ability of a different quality than a ranger's ability, or, a rogues? Why wouldn't BAB be a good universal measure of fighting ability? If DOAM represents effort (or luck) expended to avoid a miss, what makes a fighters miss more troublesome than a rogues miss, if both attack with the same attack bonus?

*) How do you narrate a miss from an attack of which the target is unaware? "The player felt a chill, as if someone had walked over their grave, or as if the fates had placed a dark doom upon them." ??

*) Where in the attack resolution to handle miss changes, say, due to cover or concealment?

*) What happens for, say, mirror image, or poison? Or for attacks which include additional effects, say, a blade that adds 1d6 fire damage?

---

The more I think about it, DOAM seems to be changing a fundamental point of how damage is applied (in D&D). One could replace weapon damage rolls with averages: 4 (or 5) instead of a 1d8. 6 (or 7) for a 1d12; 7 for 2d6, and so on. Or, one could scale damage based on the attack roll. That would probably only work with computer assistance. To create a contrived example, for a 1d8 + 3 damage result with a +7 attack bonus against AC 20, then a 13 roll yields 4 points, a 17 roll yields 8 points, and a 20 roll yields 11 points. Or, the attack roll could be omitted altogether, or radically simplified. Again, requiring computer assistance, the attack could be converted to expected damage, then linearized against an attack roll of a 1d4, with 12.5%, 37.5%, 62.%%, and 87.5% of damage on 1, 2, 3, or 4.

The end numbers would end up about the same, but hardly anyone suggests to do this. Pretty boring, and not easy to do without a computer (although trivial with one).

Doesn't Numenera do this? With modification to enable exceptional results (and put back in the excitement)? In the end, workable, but also, in the end, a rather different game system.

I'm still wondering what new excitement / game possibilities we achieve with DOAM type abilities.

Thx!

TomB

 

[pemerton]

What's an appropriate DOAM damage amount if it is to be applied in all three cases?

I don't know. To date, D&Dnext grants DoaM only as a benefit for GWF, and so does not pose the question.

Assuming a STR of 16 and a 12 in 20 chance to hit (eg +4 bonus vs AC 13, which seems fairly typical for 1st level in the playtest at least), that makes the same contribution to expected damage per attack roll as a +2 bonus to damage, although in practice it may be slightly better than a +2 bonus over the long term due to less damage being wasted on low-hp targets.

Why only fighters? That is, why is a fighters ability of a different quality than a ranger's ability, or, a rogues? Why wouldn't BAB be a good universal measure of fighting ability? If DOAM represents effort (or luck) expended to avoid a miss, what makes a fighters miss more troublesome than a rogues miss, if both attack with the same attack bonus?

To me, this is like asking why a 3E barbarian gets both high HD and damage reduction - what does each of these correspond to in the fiction? Or why is it that DEX adds to AC but CON to hp, given that hp are often regarded as encapsulating the ability to avoid serious blows that would otherwise be fatal? Or why a 3E character can have maximum possible Reflex save yet a rather mediocre ability as an Acrobat (no ranks meaning DEX bonus only)?

D&D has never taken the approach of assigning mechanics to ingame properties and events on a one-to-one basis.

A GWF's ability, for me at least, represents implacability. In 6 seconds of confrontation with this fighter you will be worn down, whatever else happens. A ranger or paladin, at least in the last playtest, can also have this ability. A rogue cannot. Why not? Well, whatever story you tell that explains why a rogue, but not a weaponmaster fighter, can stab more accurately and forcefully from out of the shadow, tell an appropriate variation on that story to explain why the rogue is not implacable.

Personally I see these as trope reinforcements: the reason the rogue but not the fighter can sneak attack is because the rogue PC exemplifies the trope of the "stabby sneak"; the reason the fighter but not the rogue gets GWF with DoaM is because the fighter but not the rogue exemplifies the trope of "relentless dreadnought fighter".

How do you narrate a miss from an attack of which the target is unaware?

I don't see the problem: once someone takes N hp of damage from an attack from a greataxe, they're not going to be unaware of the greataxe anymore!

We've been narrating auto-damage from invisible MUs shooting magic missiles for a long time now.

Where in the attack resolution to handle miss changes, say, due to cover or concealment?

Miss chances aren't features of 4e, 13th Age or D&Dnext. 3E/PF has both damage on a miss (I gather from others) and miss chances, but I don't know how they interact.

What happens for, say, mirror image, or poison? Or for attacks which include additional effects, say, a blade that adds 1d6 fire damage?

Poison and bonus damage were addressed by me and [MENTION=6774827]EnglishLanguage[/MENTION] upthread: you draft your rules to make clear when these effects apply and when they don't. In most cases you probably want special effects to apply only on a successful attack roll.

Mirror Image in 4e provides a bonus to AC and is run down only on a miss. In D&Dnext Mirror Image takes effect when a target is declared but before an attack roll is made. So its mechanical interaction with DoaM is quite clear.

The more I think about it, DOAM seems to be changing a fundamental point of how damage is applied (in D&D).

I don't think so. D&D has long had auto-damage (eg magic missile, various AoE effects, etc). DoaM just extends the domain of auto-damage into melee combat, thereby supporting the narrative of the implacable fighter.

I'm still wondering what new excitement / game possibilities we achieve with DOAM type abilities.

For me, they are a marker of a readiness to explore the design space that exists within D&D's abstract combat mechanics. 4e did this on a fairly large scale, and I am unlikely to be interested in a D&Dnext that resolutely refuses to do so at all.

More prosaically within the context of D&Dnext, and as [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] has pointed out on at least some of these threads, it makes low-level GWF mechanically viable. Otherwise they have a tendency to die off before they actually get to do their thing (due to lower AC, having no shield, but not having the compensating 2nd attack of the 2WF).

 

[Balesir]

First, a note: I think there are many and various answers to [MENTION=13107]tomBitonti[/MENTION]'s questions, all of which are valid. I'm just going to give ones that occur immediately to me, by way of illustration.

*) What should the DOAM damage amount be?

*snippage*

What's an appropriate DOAM damage amount if it is to be applied in all three cases?

STR bonus seems to me a good basis. Reason? One of several would be that there is absolutely no reason for a melee attack to culminate in either a hit with the weapon originally used to strike or a clear miss. Fechbuchs and illustrations clearly show that pommel/butt strikes, punches, arm locks, leg hooks, axe-like blows with the quillions, kicks, knees and headbutts could all be the outcome of an attack with a longsword (bastard sword, in D&D parlance). To restrict the possible outcomes to "cut with blade or miss" is just bizarre.

*) Why only fighters? That is, why is a fighters ability of a different quality than a ranger's ability, or, a rogues?

Because only fighters train in the full, martial arts techniques that use medieval weapons to their fullest potential, maybe? This could actually form a fine basis for fighters having the ability to do damage if their opponent misses, too, actually. There are several techniques that can convert a response to an attack directly into an arm lock (read "break") or a strike with the attacker's own weapon against a poorly trained target.

*) How do you narrate a miss from an attack of which the target is unaware? "The player felt a chill, as if someone had walked over their grave, or as if the fates had placed a dark doom upon them." ??

If we are talking about a melee attack - which is what is suggested for DDN - then the target will be aware of the attack after it happens, whether they were aware of it beforehand or not! The only way an attack on an unaware target will fail is through luck - they turn or move at just the crucial moment, or a piece of armour deflects the incoming weapon - and there will be a "clash of bodies" regardless.

*) Where in the attack resolution to handle miss changes, say, due to cover or concealment?

Cover and concealment don't work the same way in close combat as they do for missiles. No-one stabs into a brick wall instead of an enemy by accident. What they do is restrict the combatants' options - but they also add new options to a skilled fighter, such as crushing/bashing the enemy against the wall, or flicking a branch into the enemy's face.

What you need to account for is that a trained fighter is not just trying to strike their enemy with their weapon - they are trying to disable the enemy with anything, and by any means, that they can do so. An important concept in close combat is to control your opponent's weapon. If that weapon is only their sword, this is a lot easier than if their weapon is their whole body and aspects of the fighting environment, so fighting with your whole body has clear advantages.

*) What happens for, say, mirror image, or poison? Or for attacks which include additional effects, say, a blade that adds 1d6 fire damage?

Well, in the examples I gave, easy - you are not striking with the blade, so poison or flame don't figure into the situation. The mirror image likely doesn't, either, since the "miss damage" will not be coming from the initial movement in the exchange, so it will be guided as much by touch as by sight. If you watch swordsmen fight, you will see that they often keep their blades (or shields) "bound" (touching). This is because you get a much better feedback of what your opponent intends to do next that way. Of course, this is mutual - but if you are a better fighter it's a net advantage.

 

[Minigiant]

The real issue is that a lot can happen in 6 seconds.

So my imagination of what happened in 6 seconds of a fight is different from your. And his. And hers. And that guy. And that dude.

Because my imagination is fueled by Brooklynstreet fights as a youth and heavy Street Fighter play. Why a another guy is an amateur fender. While that woman is a boxing geek. While that guy is a fan of medieval fighting illustrations and reenactments.

But D&D had 6 seconds of fighting as one roll versus one number with a result one for rolling igher
​So the base mechanic didn't always match everyone's imagination because attack rolls in D&D is so simple.

 

[Balesir]

But D&D had 6 seconds of fighting as one roll versus one number with a result one for rolling igher
​So the base mechanic didn't always match everyone's imagination because attack rolls in D&D is so simple.

Yeah, but I would say that the general outcome of the base mechanic can fit OK with most players' imaginations - it's when you start trying to dictate "facts" about what happens inside that mechanic, within those 6 seconds, that problems start to arise.

 

[Iosue]

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.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

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.