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

[Mistwell]

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.

And my point is that if you can accept that sort of mundane hand-waive type ability, then why freak out, to this degree, over a different mundane hand-waive ability likely to appear in fewer games than evasion did?

For what, 15 years now we've had evasion? And I don't recall anyone freaking out about it, I don't recall a single person saying they wouldn't play the game if that ability was in the game, nobody being furious over it, nobody claiming it broke immersion so much it made everything else pale in comparison, no weekly polls for two years straight on it, no reams of people being banned for ranting over it, no massive pressure on the designers to remove or alter it, none of the over the top reaction and hyperbole that this other mundane hand-waive ability generates.

And evasion came up more than this ability is likely to come up. What party had nobody with evasion? And yet, as only one of five different choices for three fighter-type classes, it's quite possible to have many parties with nobody that has this ability.

 

[Hussar]

Although, to be fair Mistwell, in a game where a fighter has this, it will come up every combat encounter which is far more than evasion ever will.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

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.

For the record, the evasion ability doesn't always work so it's not as crazy as people make it out to be.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't get why Attack on a Miss is not a suitable replacement for Damage on a miss.

It is just as boring. Instead of automatic damage for STR, it is a bonus attack for 1d6+STR.

The only issue is the extra time. But that was an issue, there would be a lot more "shortcuts for fun"'

 

[ExploderWizard]

The only issue is the extra time. But that was an issue, there would be a lot more "shortcuts for fun"'

The actual reason this is even an issue is because people cannot accept failure as part of the fun of playing a game. If a game is only fun when there is success to a greater or lesser degree then we have the issue of good old fashioned poor sportsmanship that no one seems to be willing to look in the eye.

Its pretty simple. First, either accept that gameplay offers the chance to fail and play because you like the game rather than the outcome, or dispense with the illusion of gameplay and just straight up enjoy an exercise in wish fulfillment and storytelling and be done with it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For the record, the evasion ability doesn't always work so it's not as crazy as people make it out to be.

Improved Evasion does though.

I wouldn't defend Evasion/Improved as being a well-written ability, but it's not the equivalent of damage on a miss in terms of in-world implications or in terms of how it affects gameplay.

 

[Hussar]

The actual reason this is even an issue is because people cannot accept failure as part of the fun of playing a game. If a game is only fun when there is success to a greater or lesser degree then we have the issue of good old fashioned poor sportsmanship that no one seems to be willing to look in the eye.

Its pretty simple. First, either accept that gameplay offers the chance to fail and play because you like the game rather than the outcome, or dispense with the illusion of gameplay and just straight up enjoy an exercise in wish fulfillment and storytelling and be done with it.

But, "extra attack on a miss" doesn't do that. You can still miss with the second attack. What it does is mitigate the number of times you are completely ineffective in a round.

I mean, in earlier D&D, it generally wasn't so much of an issue because your chances of missing were generally so low. Even at low levels, baddies were running around with an AC of 6 or so. Given a decent strength bonus, and later Weapon Specs and possibly even magic weapons by 2nd level (after all, 1st level AD&D modules weren't shy about tossing magic weapons in), you were only missing 40% or so and possibly less. By higher levels, say 9th or higher, you were basically missing on a one most of the time. Baddies AC generally taps out (except for some exceptions) at around 0 to 2. You have a base THAC0 of 10, minus strength and magic weapon bonuses. And multiple attacks per round. The odds that you'd miss all your attacks for three rounds in a row were pretty darn low.

In 5e, your chance per attack is a bit worse. For a great weapon fighter, the only advantage he gets is when he hits. If he goes three rounds without a hit, he's pretty much useless and with the math in 5e, that's a real possibility. It really doesn't make sense to take great weapon fighting before you get multiple attacks. And that's a balance issue. Attack on a miss (or damage on a miss) simply mitigates that.

I suppose another way of going is to simply give Great weapon fighters a bonus to hit. That would give the same effect. Sword and board means you are harder to hit, two weapon fighting gives you greater chances to hit plus the advantage of using two different weapons. Great weapon fighters just get a straight up plus to hit.

Boring as heck, but it does balance things out.

 

[Minigiant]

The actual reason this is even an issue is because people cannot accept failure as part of the fun of playing a game. If a game is only fun when there is success to a greater or lesser degree then we have the issue of good old fashioned poor sportsmanship that no one seems to be willing to look in the eye.

Its pretty simple. First, either accept that gameplay offers the chance to fail and play because you like the game rather than the outcome, or dispense with the illusion of gameplay and just straight up enjoy an exercise in wish fulfillment and storytelling and be done with it.

Failure is only accepted if it is not common. Because on Next's high ACs, low bonus to hit, and only one attack until level 5, it is VERY VERY common to miss with your great attack 3 times in a row if your don't have 18+ STR.

"Extra Attack on a miss" solves this and makes damage only on a hit. There is no arguments against it other than the extra time. And TWFers attack 2 times already.

No arguments then.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But, "extra attack on a miss" doesn't do that. You can still miss with the second attack. What it does is mitigate the number of times you are completely ineffective in a round.

I mean, in earlier D&D, it generally wasn't so much of an issue because your chances of missing were generally so low. Even at low levels, baddies were running around with an AC of 6 or so. Given a decent strength bonus, and later Weapon Specs and possibly even magic weapons by 2nd level (after all, 1st level AD&D modules weren't shy about tossing magic weapons in), you were only missing 40% or so and possibly less. By higher levels, say 9th or higher, you were basically missing on a one most of the time. Baddies AC generally taps out (except for some exceptions) at around 0 to 2. You have a base THAC0 of 10, minus strength and magic weapon bonuses. And multiple attacks per round. The odds that you'd miss all your attacks for three rounds in a row were pretty darn low.

In 5e, your chance per attack is a bit worse. For a great weapon fighter, the only advantage he gets is when he hits. If he goes three rounds without a hit, he's pretty much useless and with the math in 5e, that's a real possibility. It really doesn't make sense to take great weapon fighting before you get multiple attacks. And that's a balance issue. Attack on a miss (or damage on a miss) simply mitigates that.

I suppose another way of going is to simply give Great weapon fighters a bonus to hit. That would give the same effect. Sword and board means you are harder to hit, two weapon fighting gives you greater chances to hit plus the advantage of using two different weapons. Great weapon fighters just get a straight up plus to hit.

Boring as heck, but it does balance things out.

Assuming a sword & board fighter and a great weapon fighter have comparable chances to hit, which (everything else being equal) they should, the issue becomes one of the worth of greater damage on a hit vs giving up the AC bonus of a shield.

A key balance point is the valuation of that point of AC. If the relative miss chances are the same for both fighters the question becomes one of : how much more damage on a hit should a great weapon fighter get to compensate for losing that AC?

Personally, I don't think a 1d12 vs a 1d8 is enough of an edge to make giving up that AC a good choice, especially at low levels where that point of AC mitigating incoming damage is more vital.

What if base damage for a greatsword in the hands of a GWF was 2d8? Now we are getting into a damage range that makes the GWF an attractive option even with an equal hit rate to the SWF. Let the specialist get more damage from the weapon than anyone else.

Missing just as often as the SWF is more bearable when you really blow stuff up REAL good when you hit. I prefer a better benefit to success over a booby prize for failure any day.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Failure is only accepted if it is not common.

By whom? Seems to me that there are plenty of games where failure is the norm. I don't see why any particular failure rate that isn't right at 0% or 100% would present a problem.