D&D General Eliminating the whiff factor

[overgeeked]

I've seen a few people mention something like this in various place but haven't seen it talked about much here. It's also a bog-standard part of a lot of games so it's surprising this isn't a standard part of D&D.

One common way, I think the most common way, to eliminate the whiff factor is to make sure something happens every time the dice are rolled. The most obvious implementation in D&D would be combat. Every time an attack is made something happens. Every time a save is made something happens. Which would mean if the PC or monsters miss their attack, the enemy deals damage. Or if a PC makes their save they get to retaliate. To prevent it from becoming a cheese fest it would need to be basic attacks, weapon attacks, cantrips, at-wills or the equivalent. So something like improvised damage from 4th or 5th Edition.

So other than speeding up combat, what knock-on effect would this change have? I'm most familiar with B/X, AD&D, 4E, and 5E. I skipped 2E and 3X, so if there's a glaring problem with this in those editions I'm completely unaware of it.

 

[commandercrud]

Swing sword. Miss. Do damage anyway?

 

[Charlaquin]

Swing sword. Miss. Do damage anyway?

I believe @overgeeked is proposing swing sword, miss, take damage (from your target’s counterattack).

 

[commandercrud]

I believe @overgeeked is proposing swing sword, miss, take damage (from your target’s counterattack).

That's not D&D.

 

[Umbran]

I believe @overgeeked is proposing swing sword, miss, take damage (from your target’s counterattack).

So, there are games that already do this. In the ones that come to mind, the GM rolls no dice. Ever.

A monster is attacking you. You roll to take some action to stop it (stabbing it with a pointy metal object, for example). If you succeed, you come closer to stopping it (like, it takes damage). If you fail, it gets closer to its goal (Perhaps the PC takes damage).

There is no whiff. Every roll moves one side or the other towards its goal.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not D&D.

It’s a house rule @overgeeked is proposing for D&D. If you don’t like it that’s fine, but you don’t add anything of value to the conversation by saying so.

 

[payn]

I like this idea when it comes to skills and spells, but for some reason not for combat.

 

[Umbran]

That's not D&D.

Traditionally, no. But, he's talking about stepping away from the traditions of D&D, so...

 

[Charlaquin]

So, there are games that already do this. In the ones that come to mind, the GM rolls no dice. Ever.

A monster is attacking you. You roll to take some action to stop it (stabbing it with a pointy metal object, for example). If you succeed, you come closer to stopping it (like, it takes damage). If you fail, it gets closer to its goal (Perhaps the PC takes damage).

There is no whiff. Every roll moves one side or the other towards its goal.

Yes, I understand the concept.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It would make it inadvisable to attack a hard hitting enemy unless you're fairly confident you can hit. It makes multiple attacks worse (because more attacks equates to more misses). It makes it harder for fighters to hold targets (because if they're likely to get hit from missing the high AC fighter, they might as well just provoke an opportunity attack - which might even allow them to deal damage to the fighter).

Also, how would you justify an archer shooting at a bunch of bulettes taking damage on a miss?

Tenra Bansho Zero uses this idea, and I think it works great in that system. I don't think I would recommend it for D&D unless you're willing to rework a lot of aspects though.