D&D 5E Damage on a missed attack roll

[Ashrym]

There was a hunter maneuver in 4e ... that allowed one to kick out a snapshot volley... which attacked multiple enemies in a 15x15 area. up to 9, i thought it needed an option to focus fire those where one of the damn things was bound to hit (they are all weak attacks and it may be that multiple hit on a good roll and only 1 on poor roll. Damage on a miss might represent such a volley focus fired.

I find trip attack, disarming attack, and pushing attack are already good with a bow because they cannot normally be done with a ranged weapon. That's why I wouldn't include the decisive attack option with ranged.

Lightning arrow is already similar in functionality if not effect given it's damage on a miss plus additional targets who need to save.

A 11 level fighter with crossbow expertise can already make 7 attacks via action surge and bonus attack before maneuvers so if I'm understanding correctly it might be a bit redundant. Action surge and extra attacks is already same target or multi-target and gets up to 8 (9 with a hand crossbow) that method.

It competes with the ranger's volley ability too.

I think the ranged idea might take more thought. Unless I'm misunderstanding. I get enough brain farts my head can get right down flatulent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There was a hunter maneuver in 4e ... that allowed one to kick out a snapshot volley... which attacked multiple enemies in a 15x15 area. up to 9, i thought it needed an option to focus fire those where one of the damn things was bound to hit (they are all weak attacks and it may be that multiple hit on a good roll and only 1 on poor roll. Damage on a miss might represent such a volley focus fired.

Yeah that was Essentials, and a baroque design that managed to turn a basic attack into a small AE while giving it basically none of the qualities of an AE.
Impressive, in a way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(although Precision Strike is also good in the same circumstance).

And it can be thrown in after the roll.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It just seems to me that adding in 1/2 level damage on a miss isn't going to change the game that much and it might make some players happier to at least be doing something every round.

Y'know, considering that, and the point made earlier about half damage being quite common on limited attacks that mainly do damage (exclusively magical ones, in 5e, of course), a more general rule might make sense.

 

[Garthanos]

It competes with the ranger's volley ability too.

I think it makes sense only if you have a volley style attack in tandem. but the idea is you have a volley and you can do a variant where the volley focus fires on one target and so at least one is pretty much certain to hit (I do not like making bunches of attack rolls when the random damage already could cover that element).

I am actually thinking of making a feat to enable a damage on a miss focused barrage for the 4e hunter. I think the 5e ranger could have a level 5 volley which was weaker short draw snapshots (could just be half damage attacks if you liked) the full volley is very paragon class at level 10 * nice.

The style of attack described for a melee barrage called reaping strike applies similarly for ranged attacks if you focus fire them even though it would be by the hunter subclass in 4e and the ranger in 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

I find trip attack, disarming attack, and pushing attack are already good with a bow because they cannot normally be done with a ranged weapon. That's why I wouldn't include the decisive attack option with ranged.

Those represent very interesting trick shots but they do not really argue against something else being available too. The lack of something like the rangers volley I would say is however a reason to leave off the ranged effect (a focused barrage) from a fighters decisive/unerring attack.

 

[Garthanos]

Y'know, considering that, and the point made earlier about half damage being quite common on limited attacks that mainly do damage (exclusively magical ones, in 5e, of course), a more general rule might make sense.

while that may be mechanically sound it reminds me of the 13A solution and I actually disagree I prefer tying the effect to the style of the attack and I think one can postulate individual attack styles which carry it delivered by way of weaponry.

Although if you figure it represents progressively more certainty and difficulty of evading your attacks it can make sense as a generalized effect, which I guess is exactly where they went with 13A

 

[Bacon Bits]

"Here," where? In the rules?

Here as in ENWorld's forums, though as far as I'm aware it was an issue mirrored in the entire playtest. You must not have been very active in 2013 through early 2014 when damage on a miss was floated during the 5e playtest.

I also was not very active on EN World at that point (we were mostly playing Savage Worlds and board games) but as I recall, the threads discussing the topic got so bad that Morrus: (a) created a damage on a miss subforum, (b) locked or moved all damage-on-a-miss threads to that subforum, and (c) banned discussion of damage on a miss anywhere else. You can still find threads if you search, however. That may not have happened until after WotC released an update that dropped damage on a miss from the playtest, however.

What I can say for certain is that the discussion raged out of control, and our group specifically avoided playtesting 5e after two people in our group looked into it and were later laughing about how unreasonable and toxic all the online discussions they found were. We simply couldn't believe that an improved game would come out of that. My guess is that a lot of people complaining weren't actually playing.

The people who didn't like it would simply not shut up about it. I'm certain WotC removed it because of how some people reacted to it rather than any mechanical or play objections. There is a very clear, very vocal minority of players who act like damage on a miss personally insulted their mother's honor.

I do distinctly recall a tweet from Mike Mearls circa 2014 where he trolled people that he was going to remove "damage on a hit".

 

[Garthanos]

There is a very clear, very vocal minority of players who act like damage on a miss personally insulted their mother's honor.

But one can succeed on saving throw against a fire ball and die horribly in flames because that is utterly fine its so fine its perfect to never be changed as that is "T R A D I T I O N" gotta love it

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*