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
Q&A 10/17/13 - Crits, Damage on Miss, Wildshape
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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6204527" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I dislike damage on a miss because I do think it muddies the waters further and makes it harder for me to narrate to the players consistently.</p><p></p><p>I'm willing to accept that a 'hit' is a blow that damages the tissues of the target to some degree. For the purposes of the game, heroes possess the uncanny ability to evade or absorb blows, so that swings that might have gutted a lesser man only scratch and bruise them but every 'hit' is palpable and damaging. Eventually a hero is a mass of minor wounds, and worn out from the cumulative effects of this is struck for more serious damage. </p><p></p><p>Within this frame work, AC and hit points can be rationalized. Armor causes a 'miss' because it converts blows into undamaging hits. If a character is hit by a poisoned blade, he must risk its effects because every hit damages the tissues. If we accept that some 'hits' cinematically correspond to good misses, this point becomes bizarre. </p><p></p><p>The problem I have with 'damage on a miss' in this framework is that not all AC's are made alike. AC is an abstraction that represents multiple possible causes of failure of the attack. I recognized this even in my 1e house rules, separating the computation of a characters defenses into AC (armor class) and AB (armor bonus) - the forerunners of dodge bonuses and touch AC from 3e era. It is possible to strike a creature in plate mail, and 'miss' through failure to penetrate. But if I swing at a pixie, my expectation is that all blows that actually strike the evasive little target are damaging blows, because all of the AC is owed to the ability to evade the attack. Thus, I reject the notion of 'damage on a miss' as an absolute concept because it only makes sense in some situations. (I equally reject anything else absolute like 'Immunities', since I want to be able to resolve what happens when the unbreakable sword meets the god of breaking things without a mechanic like, "Morgul can break anything, even things that are unbreakable.") </p><p></p><p>It might make sense to say something like, "If you attack the target and miss, but your roll was sufficient to hit the targets touch AC, you still do damage equal to your strength bonus." But saying, "Regardless of how hard it is to connect with the target, you still manage to do tissue damage.", is not something I can accept.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6204527, member: 4937"] I dislike damage on a miss because I do think it muddies the waters further and makes it harder for me to narrate to the players consistently. I'm willing to accept that a 'hit' is a blow that damages the tissues of the target to some degree. For the purposes of the game, heroes possess the uncanny ability to evade or absorb blows, so that swings that might have gutted a lesser man only scratch and bruise them but every 'hit' is palpable and damaging. Eventually a hero is a mass of minor wounds, and worn out from the cumulative effects of this is struck for more serious damage. Within this frame work, AC and hit points can be rationalized. Armor causes a 'miss' because it converts blows into undamaging hits. If a character is hit by a poisoned blade, he must risk its effects because every hit damages the tissues. If we accept that some 'hits' cinematically correspond to good misses, this point becomes bizarre. The problem I have with 'damage on a miss' in this framework is that not all AC's are made alike. AC is an abstraction that represents multiple possible causes of failure of the attack. I recognized this even in my 1e house rules, separating the computation of a characters defenses into AC (armor class) and AB (armor bonus) - the forerunners of dodge bonuses and touch AC from 3e era. It is possible to strike a creature in plate mail, and 'miss' through failure to penetrate. But if I swing at a pixie, my expectation is that all blows that actually strike the evasive little target are damaging blows, because all of the AC is owed to the ability to evade the attack. Thus, I reject the notion of 'damage on a miss' as an absolute concept because it only makes sense in some situations. (I equally reject anything else absolute like 'Immunities', since I want to be able to resolve what happens when the unbreakable sword meets the god of breaking things without a mechanic like, "Morgul can break anything, even things that are unbreakable.") It might make sense to say something like, "If you attack the target and miss, but your roll was sufficient to hit the targets touch AC, you still do damage equal to your strength bonus." But saying, "Regardless of how hard it is to connect with the target, you still manage to do tissue damage.", is not something I can accept. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Q&A 10/17/13 - Crits, Damage on Miss, Wildshape
Top