D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[Ahnehnois]

But no realistic character is going to do that. Aren't you an advocate for playing your character like you're really there?

I don't know about that. It's similar to the falling damage issue. Even though it's blatantly unrealistic, a high-level fighter might jump off a cliff just for the fun of it, knowing that even 20d6 damage won't meaningfully harm him. Similarly, a high-level rogue might taunt a dragon to unleash its breath weapon on him because he knows it won't really hurt. So, if you mean a character who is grounded in reality won't do these things, you're right, but if you mean a real player won't do them, I disagree.

 

[Gadget]

Imaro, you are correct. I spoke in haste before I came into full possession of my morning faculties. I would edit the post, but I do not want to been seen as pretending it never happened. Apologies to all...

 

[MJS]

I don't see anyone denying consistency. The question is over how different sorts of rolls can be interpreted.

Can you show me any rules text that supports this?

If you are right, that means that an ordinary orc with AC 7 or so (AD&D) or AC 14 or so (3E) - whom no PC can ever miss on a 19 - can never parry a blow. It also means that no one ever parries better or worse, because their defence is always static.

Here is the definition of "attack roll" from AD&D where Gygax, at least, disagrees with you (DMG p 61):

During a a one-minute mele round many attacks are made, but some are mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the "to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it to was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever.​

Nothing there entails, or even suggests, that a roll of 1 to 3 may not be the best-placed blow ever which is nevertheless parried by a skilled or lucky opponent.

So, there is no precedent anywhere of a 1 being a fumble? Please. Your case is weak, the rule in question is dumb, case ing closed.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

I think the OP sums it up pretty well.

People generally are willing to accept any kind of mechanical shenanigans when it comes to spells because "it's magic".

Many of those same people though have very hard limits on what a "normal human" can do because they are normal humans and assume that personal knowledge of real world limitations should be just as valid in a fantasy game world. Right or wrong, it's a hard line for them and this kind of mechanic, along with things like fighter daily powers from 4E, just doesn't work. It's cinematic, not simulationist. Including these kinds of mechanics will be a negative for them, even if it's a positive for others.

Personally as I get older I care less about the simulationist part as for me it ends as soon as someone says "I cast (anything)". This kind of mechanic is fine with me as hit points, armor class, and attacks are already so abstract that I'm pretty flexible on what each one "looks like".

I can see where the other crowd is coming from though. This is pretty much an on-board-with-it-or-not approach though. I don't see a middle ground for the designers.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I like damage on miss. These are heroes; when they try to kill a target, that target suffers.

Maybe it's a bruise. Maybe the target is shoved into an obstacle or forced off balance. Maybe the ferocity of the attack lowers morale. Consider it melee "suppressive fire." Whatever. Doesn't matter. Point is, the target's ability to fight (represented in D&D by HP) is degraded by the attack. I dig it.

For an example of how this works in an actual published game, check out 13th Age. "Damage on Miss" is one of many clever features to speed combat and make players feel cool and effective. As a player, you're assured that when you roll dice, the result is never "nothing happens." A turn is never wasted. Damage on miss is empowering and rewarding, and evokes heroic fantasy.

For those who prefer a more simulationy aspect: ask a boxing fan about "misses." Blows don't have to land in order to be effective and contribute to a win.

 

[Jester David]

An interesting problem with the power that has been missed by all the focus on damage on a miss is the potential for untyped or variant typed damage.

The wording does say "it takes damage from the weapon" but does not specify the type. So, it could be considered untyped damage. You just deal 3-5 points of damagy damage.

If the damage shares the same type as the weapon this is a little odd. If you don't actually hit how can you deal slashing or piercing damage? (Not that there should be a difference if the damage is based on exhaustion, but that's a whole other kettle of fish). Should it be bludgeoning? But that might make missing advantageous if a creature is resistant to your normal type of damage.

 

[pemerton]

So, there is no precedent anywhere of a 1 being a fumble?

In classic D&D it is an auto-miss, but nothing says it is a fumble. Likewise in 4e. I don't remember any fumble rules in the 3E core rulebooks - were they introduced in a supplement? And when I played AD&D 2nd ed a 1 was an auto-miss but I don't remember any fumble rules.

I have played a lot of Rolemaster, which does have fumbles. It is a very different game from D&D.

 

[pemerton]

An interesting problem with the power that has been missed by all the focus on damage on a miss is the potential for untyped or variant typed damage.

<snip>

If the damage shares the same type as the weapon this is a little odd.

<snip>

Should it be bludgeoning? But that might make missing advantageous if a creature is resistant to your normal type of damage.

Personally I think this is an argument against weapon damage types! - if they make this sort of mechanic impossible, get rid of them - but I'm sure it will be addressd in an early FAQ.

 

[Jester David]

Personally I think this is an argument against weapon damage types! - if they make this sort of mechanic impossible, get rid of them - but I'm sure it will be addressd in an early FAQ.

I know the designers had a LOT of problems in 4e with the lack or a "weapon" damage type. So that's not a great solution.
And having all weapons deal "weapon damage" is... kludge.

 

[n00bdragon]

And having all weapons deal "weapon damage" is... kludge.

Only in the same way that using the "Fire" descriptor is a kludge for all heat related damage. I think a "weapon" damage type sounds like a fantastic idea.