Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I Don't Like Damage On A Miss
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 5931522" data-attributes="member: 50987"><p>Of course they are arbitrary; we are talking about a role-playing game here. Nobody is <em>actually</em> throwing fireballs. Or at least I hope not. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> It is the style of arbitration that we are discussing here. And we can discuss it all day long, but nobody is going to change anyone's mind.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: This post is just too freaking long. I've SBLOCKed it into easy-to-ignore portions. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>[Spoiler="That Same Old Attack vs. Save Throw Argument"]Attack rolls have a chance to hit or miss, but save throws have a chance to pass or fail. Attacks cause harm (i.e., deal damage) on a "hit," but not on a "miss," while save throws can avoid or reduce the effect of a variety of different attacks (including but not necessarily limited to damage.) We can argue about what is and is not a "miss," or what is and is not "damage," but these are the default assumptions that many gamers have when playing Dungeons & Dragons.</p><p></p><p>You might have a different set of default assumptions, however. You might imagine "damage" as a variety of physical or psychological effects, and that is fine. I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. If that's how you roll, then roll on, brother.[/Spoiler]</p><p>[Spoiler="Repeating Myself on the Subject of Narrative Play"]Like I said in a previous post, damage can be narrated in a variety of ways: some of us visualize the fighter hitting someone so hard that they get the breath knocked out of them, or some other non-damage equivalent. Others see it as a glancing blow that cuts the target, still inflicting damage but not nearly as much as it would have if it had connected properly. Some people see this as an uncanny superpower that prevents the fighter from ever missing his target.</p><p></p><p>But they all have this one thing in common: the DM is going to cross off a number and write a smaller number in its place.</p><p></p><p>So what difference does it make, from a game mechanics point of view? Either way, the number of hit points get reduced. Call them what you want, describe them in two or two hundred words, but you are still going to come back to this. When that number gets reduced, some people default to "this creature is hurt," others default to "this creature might be wounded, or really tired, or perhaps it is winded, or slightly nauseous, or it doesn't feel as lucky as it did a few minutes earlier, it just depends on the situation." Trying to prove that one argument is better than the other is futile...people are going to play the game the way they want to play it (or they won't play it at all.)[/Spoiler]</p><p>[Spoiler="My Plea to the Game Designers"]This is why the game designers need to avoid polarizing points of view, and strive for universal appeal instead. Unless "Damage on a miss" is absolutely necessary for game balance purposes, they should keep it optional. Why bother trying to change the way gamers describe and interpret damage? It's just a number on a sheet of paper.[/Spoiler]</p><p>[Spoiler="My Playtest Experience Regarding Auto-Damage"]Some of us don't care for automatic damage. At my playtest, the player felt like her choices didn't matter in combat. She wondered why she was even making attack rolls, if she was always going to hit the creature anyway. During the battle scenes, she was sitting with her chin propped up on her elbow, rolling dice without looking at them, announcing "I kill another kobold," in a deadpan tone of voice when I asked her to call her action. She wasn't enjoying the game. She really enjoyed the rogue, however, and she absolutely loved playing the Cleric of Moradin in other playtests.[/Spoiler]</p><p>But enough about the problem; let's talk solutions.</p><p></p><p>[Spoiler="Alternatives to Auto-Damage"]So I think a good alternative to automatic damage would be to use the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. Instead of just handing out damage anyway regardless of the attack roll result, they could change it to "on a miss, your opponent gains Disadvantage until the end of your next turn." This does a much better job of describing your opponent being winded or dazed or knocked off balance...and it gives your party all sorts of tactical options (the rogue, especially).</p><p></p><p>Or they could change it to "on a miss, you automatically gain Advantage on your next attack against the same opponent." This does a better job of describing a near-hit, but doesn't give as many options for the rest of the party.[/Spoiler]</p><p>But just handing out free damage no matter what you roll? Zzzzz.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CleverNickName, post: 5931522, member: 50987"] Of course they are arbitrary; we are talking about a role-playing game here. Nobody is [I]actually[/I] throwing fireballs. Or at least I hope not. ;) It is the style of arbitration that we are discussing here. And we can discuss it all day long, but nobody is going to change anyone's mind. EDIT: This post is just too freaking long. I've SBLOCKed it into easy-to-ignore portions. ;) [Spoiler="That Same Old Attack vs. Save Throw Argument"]Attack rolls have a chance to hit or miss, but save throws have a chance to pass or fail. Attacks cause harm (i.e., deal damage) on a "hit," but not on a "miss," while save throws can avoid or reduce the effect of a variety of different attacks (including but not necessarily limited to damage.) We can argue about what is and is not a "miss," or what is and is not "damage," but these are the default assumptions that many gamers have when playing Dungeons & Dragons. You might have a different set of default assumptions, however. You might imagine "damage" as a variety of physical or psychological effects, and that is fine. I am not going to try to convince you otherwise. If that's how you roll, then roll on, brother.[/Spoiler] [Spoiler="Repeating Myself on the Subject of Narrative Play"]Like I said in a previous post, damage can be narrated in a variety of ways: some of us visualize the fighter hitting someone so hard that they get the breath knocked out of them, or some other non-damage equivalent. Others see it as a glancing blow that cuts the target, still inflicting damage but not nearly as much as it would have if it had connected properly. Some people see this as an uncanny superpower that prevents the fighter from ever missing his target. But they all have this one thing in common: the DM is going to cross off a number and write a smaller number in its place. So what difference does it make, from a game mechanics point of view? Either way, the number of hit points get reduced. Call them what you want, describe them in two or two hundred words, but you are still going to come back to this. When that number gets reduced, some people default to "this creature is hurt," others default to "this creature might be wounded, or really tired, or perhaps it is winded, or slightly nauseous, or it doesn't feel as lucky as it did a few minutes earlier, it just depends on the situation." Trying to prove that one argument is better than the other is futile...people are going to play the game the way they want to play it (or they won't play it at all.)[/Spoiler] [Spoiler="My Plea to the Game Designers"]This is why the game designers need to avoid polarizing points of view, and strive for universal appeal instead. Unless "Damage on a miss" is absolutely necessary for game balance purposes, they should keep it optional. Why bother trying to change the way gamers describe and interpret damage? It's just a number on a sheet of paper.[/Spoiler] [Spoiler="My Playtest Experience Regarding Auto-Damage"]Some of us don't care for automatic damage. At my playtest, the player felt like her choices didn't matter in combat. She wondered why she was even making attack rolls, if she was always going to hit the creature anyway. During the battle scenes, she was sitting with her chin propped up on her elbow, rolling dice without looking at them, announcing "I kill another kobold," in a deadpan tone of voice when I asked her to call her action. She wasn't enjoying the game. She really enjoyed the rogue, however, and she absolutely loved playing the Cleric of Moradin in other playtests.[/Spoiler] But enough about the problem; let's talk solutions. [Spoiler="Alternatives to Auto-Damage"]So I think a good alternative to automatic damage would be to use the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. Instead of just handing out damage anyway regardless of the attack roll result, they could change it to "on a miss, your opponent gains Disadvantage until the end of your next turn." This does a much better job of describing your opponent being winded or dazed or knocked off balance...and it gives your party all sorts of tactical options (the rogue, especially). Or they could change it to "on a miss, you automatically gain Advantage on your next attack against the same opponent." This does a better job of describing a near-hit, but doesn't give as many options for the rest of the party.[/Spoiler] But just handing out free damage no matter what you roll? Zzzzz. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
I Don't Like Damage On A Miss
Top