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

[ForeverSlayer]

Damage on a miss is an excellent mechanic for a game. Damage on a miss is a terrible mechanic for a simulation.

You *can* justify it. But it's so much easier to say a miss is a miss. Everyone understands that.

What I find interesting is that we've accepted damage on a miss for spells. Fireball for 5d6, save for half. Is the fact that the other party is the roller what makes this acceptable and uncontroversial?

What if damage on a miss was re-written as "You cannot miss with this attack. You still make an attack roll, but if you would have missed, you instead strike a glancing blow for half damage."? Would that be more acceptable?

Fireball in previous editions never required an attack roll. Also, you are trying to compare AC to saves which is a false thing to do. Most AoE spells were always like an explosion. While you may not have been hit dead on with a fireball, you still had to get away from the concussion or the flame which makes sense. Comparing melee combat and AoE does not make sense. It's like comparing a toaster to a banana.

 

[Derren]

just enough for the weapon to skitter off into a gap in the opponent's armor.

Thats a hit, not a miss. You do not cut through armor but target the gaps unless you have an armor piercing weapon.

 

[herrozerro]

Fireball in previous editions never required an attack roll. Also, you are trying to compare AC to saves which is a false thing to do. Most AoE spells were always like an explosion. While you may not have been hit dead on with a fireball, you still had to get away from the concussion or the flame which makes sense. Comparing melee combat and AoE does not make sense. It's like comparing a toaster to a banana.

Even with that said, there are plenty of single target spells with damage on a miss as well. Including for instance acid arrow. Which includes an actual attack roll and half damage on a miss.

 

[herrozerro]

Thats a hit, not a miss. You do not cut through armor but target the gaps unless you have an armor piercing weapon.

Can I get a quote from you then that a miss means no contact? If that is what you are saying then AC makes no sense when the heavier the armor that harder you are to hit.

 

[Derren]

Can I get a quote from you then that a miss means no contact? If that is what you are saying then AC makes no sense when the heavier the armor that harder you are to hit.

1. I was talking of a weapon finding a gap in the armor. That would be a hit as that is the way you fight armored enemies.
2. Imagine the fighter fighting a completely naked guy and rolls a 2 and thus misses. As the enemy had no armor the only conceivable way of him missing is no contact with the enemy. Or do you want to suggest that a miss is only represented by the armor absorbing the blow? In that case Dex would not add to AC.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I wonder what the poll results would be if we asked "are you OK with this rule" AND "are you pro- or anti-4th ed?"

 

[Wicht]

Even with that said, there are plenty of single target spells with damage on a miss as well. Including for instance acid arrow. Which includes an actual attack roll and half damage on a miss.

Not in my game

If 4e or 5e acid arrows do half damage on a miss, that's a change from previous editions. Which does lend a little credence to "fearful of the direction of design."

Damage on a miss for anything thats not an area attack or splash damage seems a little strange to me, but then I don't grok 4e so maybe thats the disconnect; those used to such things are used to them and will more readily accept them in 5e.

 

[herrozerro]

Not in my game

If 4e or 5e acid arrows do half damage on a miss, that's a change from previous editions. Which does lend a little credence to "fearful of the direction of design."

Damage on a miss for anything thats not an area attack or splash damage seems a little strange to me, but then I don't grok 4e so maybe thats the disconnect; those used to such things are used to them and will more readily accept them in 5e.

Depends on how you want to look at it. Personally I like to imagine the Great Weapon fighter is making mini AOEs with his huge swings. but YMMV.

 

[herrozerro]

1. I was talking of a weapon finding a gap in the armor. That would be a hit as that is the way you fight armored enemies.
2. Imagine the fighter fighting a completely naked guy and rolls a 2 and thus misses. As the enemy had no armor the only conceivable way of him missing is no contact with the enemy. Or do you want to suggest that a miss is only represented by the armor absorbing the blow? In that case Dex would not add to AC.

Nope, in that case I would narrate it as a dodge but it was either incredibly taxing on the luck or body, or that it was a nick.

Thats the Issue I don't have. I am not bound by only one explanation for an action.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Damage on a miss is an excellent mechanic for a game. Damage on a miss is a terrible mechanic for a simulation.

This kind of false dichotomy drives me nuts. It's not a good mechanic on any level. Actions that have no chance of failure are boring and raise significant balance issues in certain cases. They're also counterintuitive and make the game harder to learn and understand.

It's much the same as with nonmagical healing or daily limited abilities. Sure, they suck from a simulation standpoint. That's a given. But they also are problematic in many ways even if you completely ignore that aspect (which, by the way, you shouldn't).

And, in all the above cases, what's the upside? A min/max fighter player takes the ability that reliably increases his effectiveness. A butt-kicker type takes the less optimal ability that does extra damage on a crit or something. An offbeat player takes the one that makes him a crafter or something. Who takes the damage on a miss ability? What does it add to the character? What does it add to the game? Nothing, as far as I can tell. It seems like something that someone made up just by putting some elements of rules language together as an experiment. Frankly, the experiment failed. They often do. Forget about it and move on, I say.