D&D 5E Replacing Damage-On-A-Miss

[Sadras]

This is quite a positive and constructive thread. Good to have a change from all the negativity of late. Some great ideas pulling through.

 

[Uchawi]

You will need a similar mechanic to replace damage on a miss for saves in reference to any ability or spell that allows it.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm guessing that "1d6 plus your Strength modifier" was meant.

Yes, Strength score.

It is the easiest change to have the same effect.

When you miss, you still get to deal damage but you have to hit this time. The tradeoff is that you deal more damage.

 

[Mistwell]

You will need a similar mechanic to replace damage on a miss for saves in reference to any ability or spell that allows it.

Or you can just say spell attacks and splash weapon attacks are different than slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning weapon attacks.

 

[Tovec]

Or you can just say spell attacks and splash weapon attacks are different than slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning weapon attacks.

*eye twitches* That's what I/we have been saying for months! It is you/your side that seems to forget this when talking about things like evasion and how saves work.

My problem with even the most liked variant here (aura of damage) is that melee attacks are not and should not be splash weapons. I don't like rewarding the failure. If the mechanic (as I said how long ago?) was something like beating touch AC then it would at least resemble the description. But it isn't it resembles a splash attack and while aura of damage also resembles a splash attack it goes back to my root issue that melee weapons (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning) are simply not the same as the fluid physics of a bucket of acid/water/fire/anything.

I'm sure there is a compromise to be held, but I don't like the current solutions I've seen in this thread. I also don't have any that seem to be agreed upon from the other side. Part of my problem at this point is how both sides seem to be still missing what the other side is saying. I don't want to have to figure out a way to get melee attacks to model a splash attack, I think that part of moot to start with, and so I don't see any value of the "splash attack" aura nor rewarding the failure to hit.

Bah. *leaves again*

 

[Lanefan]

There of course needs to be (and may or may not already be, for all I know) a clear definition of what represents a "great weapon", and whether or not said definition is based on the size of the wielder as opposed to the size of the weapon. A longsword to a Human is a 2-hander to a Hobbit while a Giant sees it as little more than a dagger. In contrast, a 2-handed weapon for a Giant would be something most kindred-race types couldn't even lift.

I'm cool with the idea of what we call "follow-through" damage, with one huge caveat: the target has to be somewhat random. Your mighty swing expected more resistance than it got when it chopped right through the enemy and you've followed through into (the wall ((and maybe broken your weapon))? another foe? the guy beside you? nothing?) We've used a variant of this for ages.

Lan-"if 100 Kobolds attack me using 2-handed broomsticks as weapons and they all miss, do I still die?"-efan

 

[Mistwell]

*eye twitches* That's what I/we have been saying for months! It is you/your side that seems to forget this when talking about things like evasion and how saves work.

The evasion ability makes no sense, with or without the melee issue. It's nonsense that a 2nd level rogue can dodge a spell fully even under horrible conditions, but the more dexterious 20th level PC who happens to not be a rogue cannot dodge the same attack even under far superior circumstances. Unless the ability is magic, it's not modelling any physics I know of - it's just a hand-waive type ability. And so if people are able to wrap their mind around that kind of "mundane" ability in the game, I was not sure why they had trouble with the melee damage-on-a-miss issue, since it's to me the same sort of hand-waive type issue as evasion.

As for the main argument of whether we'd need to change spells if we change the melee type, I don't think we do. Changing the melee type is not my personal preference, but I certainly understand the position that it should be changed, and feel it makes some sense (most of my players don't like it either). I just think damage on a miss with a melee weapon also makes sense (to me). For me, it's just a matter of preference - and a mild preference at that.

But I don't think you'd need to go changing half-damage spells if you change the melee version. The game doesn't require them to behave the same way.

 

[n00bdragon]

Damage on a Miss is just a dull compensation for doing nothing interesting in the first place. Just replace the fighter class entirely with a soul/ki/ninjitsu/awesome powered warrior who can shoot waves of energy with his sword and short range teleport and stuff like that.

 

[Tovec]

The evasion ability makes no sense, with or without the melee issue. It's nonsense that a 2nd level rogue can dodge a spell fully even under horrible conditions, but the more dexterious 20th level PC who happens to not be a rogue cannot dodge the same attack even under far superior circumstances. Unless the ability is magic, it's not modelling any physics I know of - it's just a hand-waive type ability. And so if people are able to wrap their mind around that kind of "mundane" ability in the game, I was not sure why they had trouble with the melee damage-on-a-miss issue, since it's to me the same sort of hand-waive type issue as evasion.

If the argument is that Evasion is also a bad ability, then we agree. There should be better ways of adjudicating it. But having one bad ability does not justify having a worse one. Especially since THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. That's my only point.

Damage on a Miss is just a dull compensation for doing nothing interesting in the first place. Just replace the fighter class entirely with a soul/ki/ninjitsu/awesome powered warrior who can shoot waves of energy with his sword and short range teleport and stuff like that.

This I would be fine with, since in 3.5 era it was called a psi warrior and was NOT using mundane means. But DOAM doesn't work this way and isn't labeled this thing and so I have a problem. "It is so brutal that.." fails for me and others because the fighter isn't a psychic warrior, he is a mundane one.

 

[Manbearcat]

This I would be fine with, since in 3.5 era it was called a psi warrior and was NOT using mundane means. But DOAM doesn't work this way and isn't labeled this thing and so I have a problem. "It is so brutal that.." fails for me and others because the fighter isn't a psychic warrior, he is a mundane one.

Sort of like when a running back "misses" a block on the blitzing outside linebacker but an incidental (mundane) legwhip, due to his frenzied effort, leaves the linebacker prone as he sprawls to avoid the contact.