D&D 5E I Don't Like Damage On A Miss

[Fifth Element]

That would make sense if HP actually represented skill, luck, etc.

But, the playtest document clearly states that below 50% HP, loss represents actual injury.

Is that true? That's quite a departure from previous definitions of hit points.

That causes some verisimilitude problems when comparing a 1st-level figher with a 20th-level fighter (Aha! That sword through my liver causes me but a bit of discomfort!). Which is why the portion that is physical damage is generally better left abstract.

 

[Fifth Element]

A "massive strike" is a hit. If it's not a hit, it's hardly a massive strike.

Indeed! The fighter in question does at least 9 points of damage on a hit, average of 14. His miss deals 3 points of damage. That's not a massive strike.

But try not to confuse descriptive in-game terms with the results of mechanical action resolution. You can narrate something as a "massive strike" and not necessarily mean "deal a large amount of hit-point damage."

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Im not sure how this would have been better for your player. Without auto damage it would have been either kill a kobold or miss. I dont see how that is worse than always kill a kobold.

Another of my hobbies is baseball. If I struck out, and yet still got to trot down to first base, I'd stop playing. Always hitting - even when I miss - is no fun.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

But if a miss means you actually miss, then what are armor and shields doing, making it more difficult to hit you? It would seem those would, by necessity, need to be hit - as in contacted, minimally - if they are causing attacks to "miss"


I think this is a double standard - a post-hoc justification just because this is the way the rules have been. I find no difficulties imagining someone dodging a fireball - happens with explosions in Michael Bay movies all the darn time.

Again - my point is that it's arbitrary. You're comfortable with Miss = Miss and Save = 1/2 because that's the way it's been done and you've come up with post-hoc justifications for it.

-O

It is a double standard, in that I don't see a saving throw being the same thing as an attack. A saving throw is an attempt to resist something. You can resist all or some of it. An attack is an attempt to harm someone. You either harm them or your don't. Variability is handled by the damage roll. A miss doesn't mean you don't make contact. I've already mentioned that a hit means you make meaningful contact. It means you harmed them. If a hit means you do harm, and a miss means you don't do harm, then doing harm on a miss is antithetical to the very definition.

4E changed things by turning what used to be handled by the save mechanic into a to hit mechanic. Mechanically, it merely changed who rolled the dice. But clearly it had the added effects of loosening people's interpretation of what a hit means and causing people to misunderstand, or at least reinterpret, the difference between an attack and a save.

I see the appeal of a unified abstract mechanic. It has an elegant symmetry to it. But it's also a step too abstract for my taste. Yes, I'm influenced by what older editions did. I like them better, though not as much as I like other games which tend to be even less abstract.

Now, I do have one other, more gameplay related problem with damage on a miss for attacks. Attacks are infinite, which means this ability gives the player unlimited damage over time without checks. I don't think this is going to be satisfying overall, and it will cause strange results on occasion. This holds true for magic missile at will. If it's going to automatically hit, then it shouldn't be at will.

 

[slobo777]

But, the playtest document clearly states that below 50% HP, loss represents actual injury.

Is that true?

No, it's not true. Or rather it's an over-simplifcation.

Really it's not much different to 4E's bloodied condition - there is expected to be some visible effect, obvious impediment or injury to a creature when it is down to 50% or less of its maximum hit point total.

There appear to be no mechanics associated with it, it is just a descriptive element.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Reaping is basically modeled as, "you rock against lesser combatants" as far as I can see it. Why not give Reapers automatic Advantage against things below a certain HP threshhold? It would keep lesser foes super-squishy against them without being dull. (That is, if you don't find advantage dull to begin with. I am playtesting tomorrow night; I'm skeptical about such a one-size-fits-all modifier.)

-O

I like that mechanic, or something like it. An HP threshold would mean you automatically finish off any creature that drops to that point, which might be anti-climatic, but it might also be awesome.

 

[herrozerro]

Another of my hobbies is baseball. If I struck out, and yet still got to trot down to first base, I'd stop playing. Always hitting - even when I miss - is no fun.

actually to use the baseball metaphor, this damage on a miss is more like 4 balls. You still can get on base without swinging

 

[Fifth Element]

Another of my hobbies is baseball. If I struck out, and yet still got to trot down to first base, I'd stop playing. Always hitting - even when I miss - is no fun.

As you probably know, you can reach base in baseball when you strike out, if the third strike gets away from the catcher and you beat the throw to first. You can also reach with a walk, being hit by a pitch, on an error or a fielder's choice.

Now, if you were always only fighting things as weak as standard kobolds, you might have a problem because your opponents were always making errors. But you won't, unless your DM is very unimaginative.

 

[Fifth Element]

No, it's not true. Or rather it's an over-simplifcation.

Yeah, I just checked. That's not what it says.

 

[eamon]

In a random thought, Fifth element is also a pretty damn cool movie .