D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[billd91]

Isn't the point of simulation to answer basic questions of "How did this happen"? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but, that's why we have sim rules, isn't it?

Nothing is actually being simulated in a D&D combat attack. The mechanics don't simulate anything. A hit could be contact, or it might not be - after HP aren't just meat, unless you think that my 10th level fighter with 100 HP can somehow withstand more physical punishment than a polar bear and that somehow, gaining levels, makes my character physically more resistant to damage, IOW, gaining a level actually has significant physical changes - like being 10 TIMES tougher.

The combat rules are, and always have been, 100% gamist. Nothing is simulated. You make an "attack", which can mean virtually anything, against a nebulous ball of hit points, which don't represent anything in the game world - it's completely unmeasurable in any meaningful way since it includes things like luck and whatnot and then narrate the results in a fashion that has nothing to do with anything really, it's pretty much entirely free-form, so long as the table agrees to it.

In what way are the rules for D&D combat a simulation of anything? You cannot use these mechanics to answer basic questions, that any simulationist rules must be able to answer - "How did I miss?" is a basic sim question that, if it isn't answered, means that these rules are a complete failure for simulation.

That's a very narrow conception of simulation and, in this case, it is poorly used. A simulation isn't necessarily about analyzing how something happened. It may also be using a constructed model to imitate a process - in this case, a process of fantasy combat. And in that sense, D&D's combat really is a simulator. It's not very exact. It's pretty abstract. Yet it takes salient factors in the process - combat skills, weapon qualities, armor qualities, personal qualities, and others - and uses them to generate a result that favors better combat skills, better weapons, better armor, better personal qualities and a number of other factors.
The abstractness of the model, which is a function of gamism because without a gamist eye directing the level of the abstraction the simulation becomes unplayable, doesn't keep it from also being a simulation of fantasy combat.

 

[Wicht]

Consider a 7 hp wound to an uninjured kobold that starts with 2 hp, and that hit with a roll of (say) 4 vs an AC of 13. And now consider a 17 hp wound to an uninjured dragon that starts with 200 hp, and that hit with a roll of (say) 9 vs an AC of 18.

I think that most of the players (and GMs) with whom I have played would narrate the first attack as a rather more vicious a blow than the second, even though it involves a lower attack roll and a lower damage roll.

Of course they would. Or at least they would narrate the results differently, even though the second blow is obviously mightier. But, if I swat a fly with a flyswatter, doing, say 1d2 points of non-lethal damage, its a blow that splatters the poor little fly all across the room. If I swat Big Jim Walker with the same fly swatter twice as hard, I'm going to really annoy him. Its all relative.

Now consider a 7 hp wound to the same dragon (now at 183 hp), that hit with a roll of (say) 17 vs its AC of 18. I think most of those with whom I've played would narrate the second attack as more feeble than the first, even though it involves a higher attack roll, and actually takes the dragon closer to death. But suppose the dragon had only 1 hp left, and the same attack were rolled, I think it would be narrated as a vicous killing attack. And it might be narrated in much the same way even had the attack roll been (say) 10 rather than 17, or even had the damaeg roll been (say) 17 rather than 7 hp lost.

Actually, the first, I would say, was a skillfully placed blow, but lacked the strength to do the damage you had hoped. The final blow, if weak, I would say, "Your cut pierces the dragon, its not much, but so wounded is the beast from the many previous blows, that its enough to fell him and with a great groan, he topples."

Out of interest, does this reduce the dragon's AC or other stats?

Only if its a critical and the cards say it does. But scales being rent asunder is pretty typical talk for dragon warfare, and it is possible that future narrations, might go back to it, so that perhaps the killing blow is weak, but it found the right soft spot from the previous attack.

 

[sheadunne]

Out of curiosity, how does this fit into things? I came across it while looking for a multiclass for my archaeologist bard.

Paizo - Pathfinder - Ultimate Combat - Gunslinger - Archetype (Pistolero)

Up Close and Deadly (Ex)
At 1st level, when the pistolero hits a target with a one-handed firearm that is not making a scatter shot, she can spend 1 grit point to deal 1d6 points of extra damage on a hit. If she misses with the attack, she grazes the target, dealing half the extra damage anyway. She must choose to spend the grit point before she makes the attack roll. This is precision damage and is not multiplied if the attack is a critical hit. This precision damage increases to 2d6 at 5th level, to 3d6 at 10th level, to 4d6 at 15th level, and to 5d6 at 20th level. This precision damage stacks with sneak attack and other forms of precision damage.

Is this an example of DoaM?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Out of curiosity, how does this fit into things? I came across it while looking for a multiclass for my archaeologist bard.

Paizo - Pathfinder - Ultimate Combat - Gunslinger - Archetype (Pistolero)

Up Close and Deadly (Ex)
At 1st level, when the pistolero hits a target with a one-handed firearm that is not making a scatter shot, she can spend 1 grit point to deal 1d6 points of extra damage on a hit. If she misses with the attack, she grazes the target, dealing half the extra damage anyway. She must choose to spend the grit point before she makes the attack roll. This is precision damage and is not multiplied if the attack is a critical hit. This precision damage increases to 2d6 at 5th level, to 3d6 at 10th level, to 4d6 at 15th level, and to 5d6 at 20th level. This precision damage stacks with sneak attack and other forms of precision damage.

Is this an example of DoaM?

Yes it would and I don't care for those kinds of mechanics.

Now in all fairness, it requires you to spend Grit, which is a limited resource.

 

[billd91]

Out of curiosity, how does this fit into things? I came across it while looking for a multiclass for my archaeologist bard.

Paizo - Pathfinder - Ultimate Combat - Gunslinger - Archetype (Pistolero)

Up Close and Deadly (Ex)
At 1st level, when the pistolero hits a target with a one-handed firearm that is not making a scatter shot, she can spend 1 grit point to deal 1d6 points of extra damage on a hit. If she misses with the attack, she grazes the target, dealing half the extra damage anyway. She must choose to spend the grit point before she makes the attack roll. This is precision damage and is not multiplied if the attack is a critical hit. This precision damage increases to 2d6 at 5th level, to 3d6 at 10th level, to 4d6 at 15th level, and to 5d6 at 20th level. This precision damage stacks with sneak attack and other forms of precision damage.

Is this an example of DoaM?

Yes, but notice that it comes with a cost. It's not a unlimited resource but runs off the gunslinger's grit pool. Out of grit, out of Up Close and Deadly's extra damage and damage on a miss.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Yes, but notice that it comes with a cost. It's not a unlimited resource but runs off the gunslinger's grit pool. Out of grit, out of Up Close and Deadly's extra damage and damage on a miss.

Let's not forget that it uses up bullets as well so that's two resources expended.

 

[Wicht]

I would prefer the gunslinger ability to still miss on a roll of a 1.

But as noted, it burns off resources and is limited. If the GWF's ability was something he could do once in a while I would think it a bit gamist but would not argue with it so stringently. Its the idea that he never, ever, ever, ever, even on a bad day with a foot tied behind his back, wearing a blindfold and upside down, ever can miss. The gunslinger ability at least semi-mirrors the idea of putting forth a little bit extra into the shot through the use of grit.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Out of curiosity, how does this fit into things? I came across it while looking for a multiclass for my archaeologist bard.

Paizo - Pathfinder - Ultimate Combat - Gunslinger - Archetype (Pistolero)

Up Close and Deadly (Ex)
At 1st level, when the pistolero hits a target with a one-handed firearm that is not making a scatter shot, she can spend 1 grit point to deal 1d6 points of extra damage on a hit. If she misses with the attack, she grazes the target, dealing half the extra damage anyway. She must choose to spend the grit point before she makes the attack roll. This is precision damage and is not multiplied if the attack is a critical hit. This precision damage increases to 2d6 at 5th level, to 3d6 at 10th level, to 4d6 at 15th level, and to 5d6 at 20th level. This precision damage stacks with sneak attack and other forms of precision damage.

Is this an example of DoaM?

The other thing about it is, beyond what others have noted, that it works on a hit as well as a miss. So there's some kind of explanation there.

It's noted as precision-based damage, so we can conclude that the gunslinger takes some extra effort to aim, expends a limited resource in doing so, and is so good that even if he misses, he grazes the target.

This is quite a bit different than the GWF ability we've been talking about. The GWF fighter clearly is not swinging harder or more accurately or more resolutely or in any other way better, otherwise his conventional parameters (attack bonus or damage) would get better.

***

It is still problematic in some of the same ways; it does invalidate the target's defenses to some extent, and it does invalidate the automiss on a 1.

Of course, this raises the whole issue of what "grit" is and why the gunslinger can't do this when he's out of grit, as with any nonmagical use-limited resource, so I wouldn't allow it in my game, albeit for different reasons.

 

[sheadunne]

But as noted, it burns off resources and is limited. If the GWF's ability was something he could do once in a while I would think it a bit gamist but would not argue with it so stringently. Its the idea that he never, ever, ever, ever, even on a bad day with a foot tied behind his back, wearing a blindfold and upside down, ever can miss. The gunslinger ability at least semi-mirrors the idea of putting forth a little bit extra into the shot through the use of grit.

I'm not sure how limited it is in practice. Someone building a gunslinger will probably shoot for an 18 Wis, giving her 4 grit points a day, with extra grit (which can be taken multiple times) she adds another 2, which is 6 points a day. She regains grit points with a critical hit or killing blow, so it's not like spells that one can run out of and have to wait until the next day. As long as she's adventuring and shooting stuff, she's going to be regaining 1 or 2 grit points a combat, at least that I've seen, especially if she just waits until the target is near dead or if she's shooting a lot of fodder.

Bullets are more of a resource expenditure but one that isn't really that much. 1gp/bullet. But if she makes friends with the party wizard, cleric, bard, or ranger, they'll be casting abundant ammunition for her (or she can multiclass for a level if she really wants, I'd suggest cleric since she can benefit from the high Wis she already has for bonus spells).

I just hadn't scene it in a 3x/PF martial class before so I thought I'd bring it up as an example of a DoaM type ability that's been around for a little while (not very long comparatively). I figure people might have some experience with it. My own is that 1d3 (at low levels, 1/2 extra damage of 1d6) on a miss isn't even on the radar of things to care about in the game. In much the same way that Ray of Frost doesn't really impact the game in a meaningful way, which is why it's unlimited use.

What I also find interesting is that by introducing the ability into the game, they have codified Misses = Grazes (at least some of the time), which has been talked about with regards to HP, and that Grazes can deal actual damage, at least when using Precision abilities. Should sneak attack also deal 1/2 the extra damage on a miss? It's not resource managed but it is conditional.

 

[sheadunne]

It's noted as precision-based damage, so we can conclude that the gunslinger takes some extra effort to aim, expends a limited resource in doing so, and is so good that even if he misses, he grazes the target.

Although it appears that you don't even have to be aiming or anywhere near the target (although I would guess that you need to be within the range limits of the weapon). You could just fire the gun into the air, roll the die, and deal 1d3 damage to whoever you named as a target.

Adding the fluff doesn't really change anything about how it works mechanically. However, making it precision damage does raise some interesting possibilities of other precision attacks also dealing 1/2 damage on a miss (although I haven't seen anything else that does it). Is it logical that a rogue who also aims and misses with his sneak attack rapier thrust (precision damage), should also deal 1/2 damage on a miss? It's not resource management but it is conditional and therefore limited in its use.

Beats me. It's just interesting to see an actual ability out there that is currently being played in a 3x/pf game. I wonder what the Paizo boards say about it.