D&D 5E Damage on a missed attack roll

[Tony Vargas]

I would give all PCs a little bit of miss damage with melee attacks.

Y'don't say?

 

[Garthanos]

I would give all PCs a little bit of miss damage with melee attacks.

Whiffing and not progressing the fight in any way from one round to the next is sometimes frustrating

 

[Ashrym]

Well, the fighter attack matrix isn't in the PH in 1e, it's in the DMG, and the quote you posted doesn't appear in either my PH or my DMG as far as I can tell. Can you give me a book and page number at least? If this is actually a thing, it's something that I missed the entire time I played 1e.

I'm using a 1e clone when people want to get nostalgic. It lists DMG, PHB, and UA rules. I remember using the rule way back when but no longer the source.

It's likely in an innocuous place in one of those books, a coversion rule between systems that was adopted, a popular supplement, or possibly Dragon. I don't doubt it was somewhere because I played it and clones cloned it. I went crosseyed looking and haven't found it yet.

Oddly enough, I tracked down a jester class with 8th level spells from 1976 with a list that included shaming someone to instant death. Side note but given the name I thought you might find it interesting. It looked terrible but interesting.

 

[Garthanos]

Oddly enough, I tracked down a jester class with 8th level spells from 1976 with a list that included shaming someone to instant death. Side note but given the name I thought you might find it interesting. It looked terrible but interesting.

Vicious Mockery 1e or is that 0e style

 

[Philip Benz]

PF2 has a feat that allows fighters to do half damage on a missed attack roll (but not a critical failure). DD5, not so much.

 

[Ashrym]

Vicious Mockery 1e or is that 0e style

I would call it 1e style. The first thing I thought was "vicious mockery is older than I thought".

 

[Garthanos]

PF2 has a feat that allows fighters to do half damage on a missed attack roll (but not a critical failure). DD5, not so much.

PF2 has some very elaborate stuff under the skill category too.

 

[Ashrym]

PF2 has some very elaborate stuff under the skill category too.

I look at that stuff and think "why?" because it's stuff I might allow with just a check and decide a DC. That's what I don't like about skill feats. They seem to take away options from everyone just to restrict them to a few.

 

[Garthanos]

I look at that stuff and think "why?" because it's stuff I might allow with just a check and decide a DC.

They seem too complex to me but I also do not take a listed function as preventing someone from using the skill in different ways either however I like it as this is something pre-planned that my player can just select to do. I do not want to be constantly deciding what someone can do with a skill. At the moment in 5e makes the DMs job harder by forcing that. A player cannot have any expectation whatsoever what his character might be able to accomplish and in 4e or Pathfinder they very much can at more than one level the numbers actually advance so they arent trivially better than they were when they began... oh my 20 percentiles more yippee... I am unimpressed with 5e skill implementation its almost 1e all over again where my DM damn near drowned my character because the dm doesn't know how to swim and had me making a skill checks every round to swim somewhere or end up taking damage. I particularly like how in 4e I could pretty much figure skill use would keep up with most magic use and I am pretty certain that in 5e land that will almost never happen.

 

[Garthanos]

to me 5 abandoned the DM to his own devices about what might be accomplished via skill and failed to create shared expectations for the players and DM both. A complete bollux. Even functions like how far you can jump is so unheroic scaled your average football player can do as well as a 20 strength character does unless you provide system intervention. (then who knows)