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

[dmgorgon]

First, why am I now exerting myself to dodge his blows? Why am I graceful and quick yet continuously messing up my positioning (and remeber I am also a skilled warrior/rogue/whatever). Why isn't he exerting himself more to actually land those blows on someone as graceful and quick as me? This is what I mean by one narrative being subsumed by the other.

Mechanically I am being whittled away towards the conclusion of me either being hit by his weapon and being taken out or me being missed by his weapon and still being taken out... mechanically I am not dodging anything. In other words even though I am (clumsily, which again messes with my narrative) dodging his blows in the fiction... the fact that I am always taking damage doesn't mechanically support that fiction... especially since at least part of hit points are meat, blood, etc.

You are correct, narratively the opponent defending against a rapier should have to move a lot quicker and dodge far more often than against a slow brute with a great maul.

Mechanically, the game does not care if you take cover behind a portcullis or hinder your foe, there is nothing you can do to avoid being "taxed".

 

[Bluenose]

First, why am I now exerting myself to dodge his blows? Why am I graceful and quick yet continuously messing up my positioning (and remeber I am also a skilled warrior/rogue/whatever). Why isn't he exerting himself more to actually land those blows on someone as graceful and quick as me? This is what I mean by one narrative being subsumed by the other.

I'd assume that he/she is exerting less effort in the attack than you are in the defence, particularly if you're emphasising whole body movement to avoid blows. It's a well known fact in martial arts circles that defence is usually a lot more tiring than offence. There are exceptions, of course, for example in boxing where some fighters will take a defensive stance and wait while their opponent exhausts themselves attacking, but that's practical mostly because of the restricted target areas and low lethality that the rules of boxing prescribe.

 

[TwoSix]

You are correct, narratively the opponent defending against a rapier should have to move a lot quicker and dodge far more often than against a slow brute with a great maul.

Mechanically, the game does not care if you take cover behind a portcullis or hinder your foe, there is nothing you can do to avoid being "taxed".

Last time I checked, aren't line of sight and line of effect required to make a melee attack? I would think hiding behind a portcullis would break line of effect.

 

[Cybit]

I think my suggestion to Mearls and co will be a choice of benefits, with the second being the "default" and the first being the optional one

a) damage on a miss
b) nonstackable -1 or -2 penalty to AC for a miss (till EONT).
Narratively speaking, dodging a weapon that big leaves you off balance, absorbing a hit that big reduces the effectiveness of the armor.

 

[Weather Report]

Last time I checked, aren't line of sight and line of effect required to make a melee attack?

Sounds like different areas of the rules to me.

 

[dmgorgon]

Last time I checked, aren't line of sight and line of effect required to make a melee attack? I would think hiding behind a portcullis would break line of effect.

I think a portcullis only provides cover. Otherwise, the rules would defeat the very purpose of a portcullis. Regardless, you can sub in any other form of cover for the example I provided.

 

[dmgorgon]

I think my suggestion to Mearls and co will be a choice of benefits, with the second being the "default" and the first being the optional one

a) damage on a miss
b) nonstackable -1 or -2 penalty to AC for a miss (till EONT).
Narratively speaking, dodging a weapon that big leaves you off balance, absorbing a hit that big reduces the effectiveness of the armor.

IMO, that narrative is broken because the rules are inconsistent.

Dodging an attack from charging war horse and lance doesn't leave you off balance and tax your hit points. On the other hand a miss from a pike or a lance used two handed does. Apparently, some stabs are bigger than others, go figure...

 

[Cybit]

IMO, that narrative is broken because the rules are inconsistent.

Dodging an attack from charging war horse and lance doesn't leave you off balance and tax your hit points. On the other hand a miss from a pike or a lance used two handed does. Apparently, some stabs are bigger than others, go figure...

Well yes, if I stab you with two hands wielding a giant spear, it is probably a wider arc / bigger swing than if I jab at you with a single handed lance while quickly moving by. The latter is far more about finesse than the former...

 

[Umbran]

I guess my issue with this is why does the game design decide which narrative takes precedence? Isn't this exactly what rolling dice is for, when an outcome is in doubt?

Well, that *an* attack does damage on a miss does not say that the overall outcome of the encounter is determined.

But, beyond that, in practice I expect the only way for design to have no influence on outcomes is to have only one way of doing things, have all characters be mechanically identical. As soon as you have style choices that have mechanical impact, you are looking at having each have strengths and weaknesses. Without that variation, you don't have much basis for tactical combat choices.

 

[Imaro]

Well, that *an* attack does damage on a miss does not say that the overall outcome of the encounter is determined.

But, beyond that, in practice I expect the only way for design to have no influence on outcomes is to have only one way of doing things, have all characters be mechanically identical. As soon as you have style choices that have mechanical impact, you are looking at having each have strengths and weaknesses. Without that variation, you don't have much basis for tactical combat choices.

I still think you're missing my point, let me try explaining it differently. In empowering a "relentless GWF" by making it impossible for him to not do damage to a graceful dodger... you are making it so that a graceful dodger will never have the narrative control, appear as cool, etc. as the GWF does in the same scene because I can never not take damage from him and well the same way his shtick is expressed through always dealing damage mine would be expressed in avoiding it... only I can't ever against him. This is where I tend to dislike the absolute nature of damage on a miss and feel randomness and dice should play a certain role in the resolution of the outcome between these two.