Every character knows when his attack misses, save for extraordinary circumstances... But do they know how badly they miss?
e.g.: If a characters needs a 12 to hit his target, but rolls a 10 or 11, does she now her attack almost hit? Similarly, if she rolls a 2 when a 16 was needed, does she know it wasn't even close?
Personally, I'd say yes, characters do have a general idea of how close they came to hitting their targets.
This can be a huge factor in determining how opponents react to AC-focused builds. If they miss, but they don't think it was by that much, they might continue their attacks, if they miss and they have no idea of how far off the target their attacks were, then they might try again to confirm, and finally, if they miss and they notice they can't possibly penetrate their enemies defenses, then they'll most likely try different tactics, retreat or find another target.
So, fellow gamers... What do you think? How is it ruled by your GM?
|
I think that is largely GM discretion. The rules of the game indicate it as a binary condition. Either you hit or you miss. How you miss I think is part of what a good GM should do. Rather than just being an on off switch you can give them sensory queues so that they can deduce for themselves how well they are doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually use this caveat. If the attack would have hit if it was a touch attack the PC made contact with the target but didn't harm it. If they miss the touch AC they completely missed coming in contact with the target. I then let the PC think what they think.
It should be fairly apparent.
If you swing at where someone was and they dodge out of the way with apparently no effort that tells you something.
Same if you actually make contact but realize that you didn't even make it through their hide, much less cause them to even sneeze.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starting at Armor follow the AC out.
If the attack missed by the amount of armor bonus the attack hit the armor but was deflected.
If the attack missed by the amount of armor and shield then it was blocked by the shield.
If the attack missed by the amount of armor, shield, and deflection bonus it was deflected by an unseen force.
If the attack missed by the amount of armor, shield, deflection, and Dodge+Dex+5 the attack was dodged.
If the attack missed by the amount of armor, shield, deflection, Dodge+Dex+5, and the base 5 for hitting any square then the attack was simply misdirected and had no hope of hitting.
In the case of a high Dex or Monk type that adds Wis to AC. Apply all of the above but apply the rule of 5's to the Wis+Dex+Dodge.
EX: Unarmored monk has Natural(3), Bracers(4), Deflection(3), Wis+Dex+Dodge+10(21) = 31 AC. Against this AC setup, attack roll totals would be responded to as;
"Attacks:
30 to 28 = Get through the magical armor to impact hardened flesh doing no damage."
27 to 24 = Impact magical armor dealing no damage."
23 to 21 = Are deflected by an unseen force."
20 to 16 = Are dodged."
15 to 11 = Are evaded deftly by the target."
10 to 6 = Miss the target."
5 to 1 = look comical to a trained combatant."
Remember each AC setup will be a bit different and you can flavor your responses how you want. But with practice you can use flavor to let your players know how far off they are without number calling as they gain experience with your GM style.
While I like the flavor of basing the description of the miss on 'what' it missed (i.e., hit touch but missed full AC, missed full AC due to deflection bonus), the problem is that some effects rely only on successfully making physical contact with your opponent.
For example, if a Magus 'hits' touch AC but misses full AC while using Spellstrike, he technically would still discharge his touch spell.
This is all complicated considerably by the fact that hit points for any creatures with more than one hit die don't really equate to bodily damage at any level more than small cuts and bruises until the final blows that finally strike them down. A PC with 140 hit points who gets hit repeatedly over the course of a fight and is now down to 5 bears no resemblance to the Black Knight from Monty Python. She's just scuffed up. Even the biggest hits she has taken truly are just "flesh wounds".
A general rule of thumb is that if an attacker misses the AC but hits the defender's touch AC, then I'll say, "A weak strike that glances off his shield," or something like that.
If it misses the defender's touch AC, I'll say, "Your opponent nimbly dodges your blow," or somesuch.
I certianly believe PCs have an idea of how well they made their attack (the d20 roll) as well as having an idea of how close they came to actually damaging their enemy (how much below the AC their roll was). Expressing it in a way that doesn't simply involve tell the players the numbers is the hard part, but the players should actually have at least some vague idea of how the words you say relate to the actual numbers they're seeing.
I will say though that Demjing system fairly well thought out and good.
I tend to treat AC as an hierarchy of defences, and tailor the description to what "caused" the miss, depending on how poor the attack roll was.
1) Miss chance.
2) Luck and Insight bonuses.
3) Dodge bonuses
4) Dex bonus
5) Deflection bonuses and other bonuses provided by force effects.
6) Shield bonuses (not provided by force effects)
7 Armour bonuses (not provided by force effects)
8) Natural Armour bonuses
This is all complicated considerably by the fact that hit points for any creatures with more than one hit die don't really equate to bodily damage at any level more than small cuts and bruises until the final blows that finally strike them down. A PC with 140 hit points who gets hit repeatedly over the course of a fight and is now down to 5 bears no resemblance to the Black Knight from Monty Python. She's just scuffed up. Even the biggest hits she has taken truly are just "flesh wounds".
That's a good point. Personally I tend to describe every hit as if it caused some damage (even if it's just a flesh wound), because it makes things more clear for my players. Saying something like "Your attack glances off the orc's armor, not causing any physical damage but still slowing him down", it's a bit confusing whether the attack caused HP damage or if I'm simply giving a flavorful description for a miss.
I tend to treat AC as an hierarchy of defences, and tailor the description to what "caused" the miss, depending on how poor the attack roll was.
1) Miss chance.
2) Luck and Insight bonuses.
3) Dodge bonuses
4) Dex bonus
5) Deflection bonuses and other bonuses provided by force effects.
6) Shield bonuses (not provided by force effects)
7 Armour bonuses (not provided by force effects)
8) Natural Armour bonuses
I like this idea, but it seems to much work. I usually go by numbers... If the attack missed by, let's say, 4 or less, then the enemy manage to parry/evade at the last second. If the attack missed, by 5~11, the enemy evaded/parried successfully, but had to put some effort into it. If the attack missed by 12+, then the enemy easily avoided the attack without any effort...
That means I just have to check the target's AC instead of calculating what bonuses compose that AC.
When a NPC misses, however, I tend to give my players a more badass description. "Your TWFing Ranger manages to strike the Dragon's gums right before it locks its jaws around you. You don't deal any real damage, but the pain is enough to make the beast instinctively pull back instead of biting you" or "Your Barbarian with a +18 Str modifier manages to parry the giant's sword. You use your inhuman strength to push the gigantic blade back".
Though I admit I'll be lazy sometimes and simply say "he missed". Heh.
I try to describe as many of the hits as I can, unless its to the point of getting redundant. The player of course is free to interpret them, but I try to suggest something with they miss. An enemy "easily sidesteps" the attack could be very agile, or the attack could have been way off. An attack that "seems to land, but fails to penetrate the armor" probably has a low touch AC, but a great flat-footed AC. When I say that the enemy "deflects the blow" with a weapon or shield, it might mean the PC needed to roll 3-5 points higher. "Narrowly duck out of the way" probably means a miss by 1 or 2 points. The situations determine how I describe it, but I try to vary it. Also, when a combat starts getting long I describe the attacks less. I have a habit of getting particularly graphic with nasty crits, sneak attacks, etc. made by both PCs and monsters. Its probably more exciting for me than the players though. :)
I like how demjing thought everything out but I find it too complex for every day use. Which is why I use Touch AC. It always listed in a monster description and is has to be calculated when I make my own monsters and villains. It also still works for the case of a Magus using a touch spell through his weapon. The spell affects the target if the touch AC is hit but the weapon damage is only dealt if the total AC is met. If you miss the touch AC no effect from either.
This whole discussion really is mote. PCs will do the math in their heads and quickly realize what the AC is and figure out what their chances of hitting are.
I used to break down a monster's AC into its composite parts, then describe misses based on that, where Dodge and Dex bonuses came after size, then deflection, and finally shield, armor, natural armor. Luck bonuses came last of all. And I'd describe the misses based on what bonus caused the miss.
That's too much damn work.
Now, I provide some descriptions based on what the biggest part of the monster's AC is and how badly the PC misses. If it's just by a point or two, their attack will get stopped or deflected by their armor or natural armor.
I try to give descriptions when I DM, much as others have commented. Now that I'm playing a bard, I can appreciate descriptive comments about how close an attack was to dealing damage since it affects whether I may want to cast Timely Inspiration or Gallant Inspiration in order to turn that miss into a hit.
I don't get too complicated with it, though. Touch AC is a good rule of thumb, but I also wing it when I'm DMing based on what I know of the components of the enemies AC (armor, shield, natural armor, Dex, deflection, etc.). Good luck!
