Do You Like "Consolation Prize" Mechanics?

[FireLance]

It doesn't exactly do away with the attack roll, but there are a number of abilities that allow the user to have some effect on his turn even if he misses with an attack roll, e.g. reaping strike, powers (mostly daily) that have an "effect" line or deal half damage on a miss, feats like Hammer Rhythm and Scimitar Dance, etc.

Do you like such abilities?
Do you think there should be more of such abilities?
To the extent that every character should always be able to select a power that has an effect or otherwise give him some benefit even if he misses?

 

[ggroy]

This would be too easy and ripe for abuse if something like "half damage" was incorporated into an at-will power.

 

[Leatherhead]

If I had my way:

Conditions would be reorganized into a tier system. Each condition "tree" would have various degrees of severity, such as Daze being similar but less severe than Stun.

Encounter powers would inflict a lesser condition, but deal no damage on a miss. Pure damage encounter powers would deal (less) damage on a miss. Daily powers would remain much the same, but with more reliable powers for everyone to provide And At-wills wouldn't do anything on a miss.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm kind of a fan, though I admit I'm a little weirded out sometimes by the fact that the attack just seems kind of tacked on.

I'd probably rather hit on the attack and not have the secondary consolation prize.

But that does significantly help the feeling of super-lameness when you whiff, especially on a daily.

I'm of the philosophy that a character should always do SOMETHING on their turn, however. It's less lame to hurl a ball of fire that does 3 points of damage because the critter is resistant than it is to hurl a ball of fire and miss. Less lame by a billion. "Oh, I did nothing, now I can sit around for 10 minutes until my turn winds up again...oh, look at that, another miss, I've now just sat here and watched other people do things for 20 minutes..." That can happen on at-wills or encounters as easily as dailies.

 

[Bumbles]

They work for me. I'm cool with them in general.

In specific I may or may not agree.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I like them, I think it is important that a person doesn't feel like they just wasted their turn (or in 4e especially wasted a Power). It also makes sense to me that something would happen even if not a fully successful attack. I can't see a well trained fighter for instance missing in such a way that the enemy can just stand there yawning.

 

[Lanefan]

Allow me to be the lone voice in the wilderness here who is not really a fan of consolation-prize mechanics at all, at least where they remove all chance of a complete failure or worse.

There have to be times when not only do you fail (completely miss to no effect at all) but actually hurt your own cause (fumble) - it's just simple reality rearing its ugly head.

That said, I don't at all mind the idea of a sliding scale of success beyond just hit-miss. Crits and fumbles are a tiny step here. But something more would be nice *except* I can't think of a way to implement it in any edition without adding vast amounts of complexity to the rules and-or to the math the DM has to do. Ideally, something like the following would be nice (the + or - value represents over-under the exact score required to hit or succeed):

Roll Result
20* Critical hit or success, or possibility of such
+5 Hit or success with extras if at all applicable (extra damage, maybe)
0 Hit or success as normal
-5 Partial success or partial effect (miss but target's AC reduced for turn?)
<-5 Miss or failure, nothing happens
1* Fumble or critical failure, or possibility of such

* = natural roll on d20 before modifiers.

Without the chance of failure, however, there is no point. And it works both ways. If you as PC can't fail to do something then neither can your opponent, and sometimes the opponent failing completely at a key moment is the best thing to happen all night!

Lanefan

 

[wedgeski]

One of my players had such attrocious luck during his first few runs of 4E that powers with on-miss effects are now an in-character running-joke. I approve of them in general, especially since the effect is usually limted.

They suggest to me an element of combat fatigue which hasn't been in D&D before... that the simple act of successfully dodging an attack, or shrugging it off, can still affect you. I wouldn't be surprised to find Wizards expanding on that angle at some point in 4E's run.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, I think I like them, especially for attack forms that are limited (3.x spells, 4E encounter or daily powers).

On a "bigger" scale, it could even be a general design element of a game. Instead of having "to-hit" rolls, you have "how-well-do-you-hit" rolls. As someone else noted - engaging in combat with someone is exhausting, even if he never directly hits or touches you.
Since hit points are already abstract, it might make a lot of sense to forget the entire concept of "hit vs miss" anyway. As it is now, "hit" doesn't really mean any physical contact anyway.

 

[Lanefan]

On a "bigger" scale, it could even be a general design element of a game. Instead of having "to-hit" rolls, you have "how-well-do-you-hit" rolls. As someone else noted - engaging in combat with someone is exhausting, even if he never directly hits or touches you.
Since hit points are already abstract, it might make a lot of sense to forget the entire concept of "hit vs miss" anyway. As it is now, "hit" doesn't really mean any physical contact anyway.

It should, but that's a whole different design-level argument.

Lan-"if I'm not careful this Orc will fatigue me to death"-efan