Forked Thread: Eliminating the "Miss"

[Crothian]

It seems to me to work against the design philosophy of the game

What design philosophy is that?

 

[Ariosto]

Prolonged stretches of action not changing the situation may be common in some games, but old D&D is in my experience not among them even without the interesting misses mentioned above. There might be only a 20% chance of scoring a hit against a knight in plate and mail with a shield, giving almost a 33% chance of five misses in a row. However, a round with nothing but a single one-on-one duel happening would pose the other players the more serious problem not of missing but of doing nothing.

That's normally about as ineffectual as it gets, and knights in full panoply ought to be tough nuts (although day-long jousts as in Mallory would be pushing it). By the time one gets to facing the likes of demons and ki-rin, one ought to have a much better chance of hitting them than one had of hitting the knight (or equivalent) at low levels.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

As I said in the other thread, missing isn't boring all the time as some kind of divine mandate. When you're up against this big bad monster, all your allies are unconcious, and it's about to swing at you...is this going to be a TPK...?...AND IT MISSES! The whole group stands up and cheers. Or the opposite. You're all against a different big bad monster who does a LOT of damage to ALL of you, and is threatening nearby peasants. YOu have to kill it, and you have to kill it fast. Your fighter runs up, two handed sword a'swinging, ready to put the beast down with one big attack...AND HE MISSES! Everyone at the table stands up and groans, with one or two paper wads being thrown at the dice.

Natural ones can be just as - if not more - exciting then natural 20's. Combat doesn't get boring because people miss, combat gets boring when you already know how it's going to end. Games aren't memorable when everything is done on the average. You don't leave a table going "Hey, remember that time we slowly ground the enemy down and nothing exciting happened?"

 

[kitsune9]

Forked from: blogger on 5e: no-roll-to-hit-rationale

Okay, so the original thread was closed because it tangentially mentioned 5e, which is apparently flame-bait because it doesn't actually exist. Whatever. The topic itself is still a worthwhile discussion: what if D&D eliminated the concept of the missed attack roll?

I got my girlfriend hooked on D&D a while back, but she likes to play fighters, and I still see the disappointment on her face every time her turn comes up in the initiative but nothing happens because of a missed attack roll. It's annoying enough in OD&D or AD&D combats; it's killer in d20 combats, which take so much more time to completely cycle through all the combatants' initiatives. To have to wait all that time, only have your turn do nothing at all to change the state of the battlefield, is a real disappointment that I'm certainly not immune to when I play a fighter either.

It's nothing new to see an RPG where the attack roll and the damage roll are unified, but this would be very difficult to do in any early editions of D&D, where the weapon damage is balanced against hit dice, and chance to hit against AC. But perhaps, what if, instead of unifying the mechanic, we keep everything the same and then just say that a "miss" is actually a hit with reduced effectiveness, causing half or quarter damage?

I thought to myself, how would a game of OD&D play out if we instituted the house rule, a "missed" attack roll still causes half damage, and only a "natural 1" misses entirely? Attack rolls, ACs, and damage rolls stay the same. It might be necessary to increase hit points across the board to mitigate the lethality of this rule (such as raising all the hit dice by one die type), but first I thought I'd play out a few simple test combats to see how it goes.

Imagine four orcs (HD 1; hp 6, 5, 4, 3; AC 7; THAC0 19; dmg 1d8) squaring off against four average PCs, a fighter, a mage, a cleric, and a thief, with stats as follows:

Fighter Lv1 (HP 8; melee THAC0 18; AC 2; dmg 1d8+1)
Cleric Lv1 (HP 6; melee THAC0 19; AC 3; dmg 1d6)
Thief Lv1 (HP 4; missile THAC0 18; AC 6; dmg 1d6)
Mage Lv1 (HP 4; missile THAC0 19; AC 9; dmg 1d4; spell: magic missile)

To make this a typical OD&D encounter without surprise, put them in a 10' wide corridor, 70' apart.

Initative is rolled: orcs 6, party 6. Simulatneous action. The orcs are going to charge forward and attack; the fighter and the cleric in front move to engage the orcs; the thief shoots his bow and the mage fires off his magic missile. (In OD&D, for those who don't remember, the combat sequence is move, missile, magic, melee.) The thief gets the first shot (18 hits, 2 damage to the orc in front). Then the mage fires off his spell (4 damage to the same orc, slaying it). On the melee phase, the fighter and the cleric each square off against one of the three remaining orcs. The fighter misses (attack roll 5), causing half damage (2 points) to the orc he's in melee with, leaving it with 3 hp. The cleric hits (17) for 1 damage, leaving that orc with 3 hp as well. The orcs return their attacks, missing the well-armored fighter (12) and cleric (13). This still causes half damage, 2 points to the fighter and 3 points to the cleric, leaving them with 6 hp and 3 hp, respectively.

Round two, initiative is orcs 3, party 4. The thief fires again (attack roll 12 + orc AC 7 = 19, squarely beating his missile THAC0 of 18), 2 damage to orc in the back of the fight, leaving it with 1 hp. The mage has had two rounds to close for throwing distance, so he throws his knife from medium range at the same orc the theif attacked, but misses (8), causing half damage with the dagger, 2 points, dropping that orc. (The rationale for this isn't hard to imagine. The orc dodges the dagger, trips, cracks his head on the stone dungeon wall.) The fighter and the cleric continue the melee, and the fighter hits (attack roll 16, damage 7), slaying that orc. Finally, the cleric attacks, rolling a 3 for a miss, but still causing 1 point of damage, leaving that orc with 1 hp. The orc has the initative now and checks morale (3, passing the check), deciding to fight to the death. It swings at the cleric, attack 18, a hit, for 3 damage, dropping the cleric.

Round three, orc initiative 1, party 2. The thief shoots, rolling a 9 (miss), causing half damage, 1 hit point, killing the orc and ending the fight.

***

I would say that's fairly lethal, even for an OD&D battle, but nothing that couldn't be mitigated with a few other house rules less drastic than, say, damage-soaking armor. A simple increase in hit points, or more generous healing rules that some groups already use anway (naturally recover hit points by the hour rather than by the day, hovering at death's door, etc.) could actually balance all this out. At any rate, it seems like a fun alternative to the usual dance of swing-and-hit, swing-and-miss, with the PCs bound to quickly become aware of how deadly combat can be.

I'll try playtesting this for a whole adventure and see how it turns out.

I can understand the frustration of having missed rolls, particularly in nasty d20 fights where it gets down to a some d20's needing to connect. However, I wouldn't go for a miss offering at least something. A miss should be a miss. Now if I had to offer something to make combats speedier or more worthwhile, then we could do something like changing the factors that contribute to AC and either reduce them or eliminate them so that your d20 roll has a greater chance of connecting. I think two easy rules to come up with would be eliminating armor and natural armor as a bonus to AC and make it toward damage reduction. I think this recommendation has been talked about dozens of times, so I'll leave it here and let the stat guys take over to discuss the feasibility.

 

[Stalker0]

I just found this quote by Wulf Ratbane that sums up my point about iterative attacks much more eloquently than I did earlier:

The game feels "sweetest" when combat is a series of infrequent failures, combined with successes of varying degrees, all contributing to the slow but inevitable ablation of resources.

As opposed to a boolean system where each roll is either hit and kill, or miss and suck; where each roll is either save and nothing happens, or you fail and die.

Victory should come like the dawn, not like a light switch.