I am not a fan of the widespread application of such an idea, but I have seen it written into games; such as D&D 4E, Worlds Without Number, etc.

Where did this idea, come from?

The first time I remember seeing it was D&D 4e.

Honest answer? Whichever edition of D&D introduced spells where even if you make your save (i.e. the attack has missed you) you still take damage.

Once you've established there are attacks too big or potent to fully avoid its just extrapolating it into other areas... no matter how great your armor is at deflecting orc swords, when the storm giant kicks you, you're going to feel it. Then it's just scaling down to wherever you put the threshold of armor reducing the effect to "that tickles" levels.

Further, once you throw in the concept of hit points = fatigue (and maybe only the last HD worth is meat) then it's pretty easy to imagine certain maneuvers being able to tire opponents out just from the effort it takes to be missed.

Quote from: Chris24601 on August 27, 2022, 06:51:29 PM
Honest answer? Whichever edition of D&D introduced spells where even if you make your save (i.e. the attack has missed you) you still take damage.

But those are all "area effect" spells, aren't they? You fill a 10'x10' block of space with fire or whatever and someone can take half damage with the save by (I assume) diving for cover in time. I don't think that most spells with an attack roll get saves.

Quote from: Chris24601 on August 27, 2022, 06:51:29 PM
Honest answer? Whichever edition of D&D introduced spells where even if you make your save (i.e. the attack has missed you) you still take damage.

Once you've established there are attacks too big or potent to fully avoid its just extrapolating it into other areas... no matter how great your armor is at deflecting orc swords, when the storm giant kicks you, you're going to feel it. Then it's just scaling down to wherever you put the threshold of armor reducing the effect to "that tickles" levels.

Further, once you throw in the concept of hit points = fatigue (and maybe only the last HD worth is meat) then it's pretty easy to imagine certain maneuvers being able to tire opponents out just from the effort it takes to be missed.

This exactly. Especially when I have interpreted hit points like that for years.

If by "origin" you mean "where did it first show up," I don't know.

If you mean "what is the point of it," I think it's designed to speed up play in an attrition-based system.

I think the concept was inspired by the hand-grenade.

Maybe Tunnels & Trolls?

This is a partial success, as applied to combat. New World of Darkness did this more broadly, where if you met the target number on a particular roll you didn't fully succeed. I doubt this was the origin, however.

I can remember several video games having "grazing blows". Since most video games were based heavily off of TTRPGs, and sometimes directly copied, I assume there were some TTRPGs that had mechanics for grazing blows. It's almost certainly pre-2000.

Per the AD&D 1E Assassination Table; a "hit" on that means insta-kill. A "miss" means doing normal damage for the weapon.

Worlds Without Number continued the idea which the author, Kevin Crawford, first introduced in the 2nd edition of Stars Without Number. When that was published I made a comment in some forum along the lines of "WTF is this new Shock Damage BS?" Crawford replied (far more politely) giving two reasons which I will relay as best my memory allows: (1) Many players found the d20 attack system in the first edition to be too "whiffy", causing consternation among players who felt they achieved nothing and would have to wait a long time for their next attack. (2) By giving shock damage to melee weapons only, it would make melee more viable in comparison to ranged weapons, which some players apparently wanted.

I felt like he was caving to requests from players who wanted to bring their knives to a gunfight and feel more heroic by never missing. I may have replied that shock damage is an inelegant solution to a non-existent problem. By now I'm sure many who play SWN (2nd ed) and WWN have more experience with this mechanic and maybe they can offer more perspective on it.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 27, 2022, 03:43:41 PM
I am not a fan of the widespread application of such an idea, but I have seen it written into games; such as D&D 4E, Worlds Without Number, etc.

Where did this idea, come from?

It is essentially the flip side of "Not Doing Damage on a Hit" which is at least as old as AD&D where a roll of 1 is always a fail on a save and a 20 was always a success. 2e had the 1=miss and 20=hit as a rule and think it was applied to some other rolls too? Aside from outliers like spells and the above mentioned Assassin the origin was likely outside D&D proper. Pretty sure that is a part of some Palladium systems where a 1 is a fail no matter and a 20 is a hit no matter.

First time I ever saw it was in BX D&D of 1=always a mis and 20=always a hit. page b25

And personally I prefer it that way. As something for specific cases rather than applied to everything.

What makes me scratch my head the most; is reading rules which say that a miss with a Melee Weapon, can still cause damage?

I understand area of effect spells.  A fireball spreads beyond the intended target, etc.  But why on earth, would a miss with a sword still cause a loss of hit points?  A miss is a miss.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 28, 2022, 10:00:18 PM
What makes me scratch my head the most; is reading rules which say that a miss with a Melee Weapon, can still cause damage?

I understand area of effect spells.  A fireball spreads beyond the intended target, etc.  But why on earth, would a miss with a sword still cause a loss of hit points?  A miss is a miss.

Except that with AC systems, a "miss" can still connect with the target's armor. If you ascribe to the idea that HP-damage represents an amalgam of conditions, including fatigue and mental distress, then simply getting whacked by weapon can be a harrowing experience. The sword doesn't need to draw blood to wear away at a combatant's will to keep fighting.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 28, 2022, 10:00:18 PM
What makes me scratch my head the most; is reading rules which say that a miss with a Melee Weapon, can still cause damage?

I understand area of effect spells.  A fireball spreads beyond the intended target, etc.  But why on earth, would a miss with a sword still cause a loss of hit points?  A miss is a miss.

Well, the context of the underlying game is important.

With 1E, I cited how the assassination table grants a hit even when the assassination dice indicates failure. There's nothing suggesting the assassination roll is actually a hit roll. And the thing is, it's not just some outlier for assassins. Non-assassins get to use the assassination table against helpless opponents, and that's up to the DM to decide exactly what that means. Other than it's opponents unlikely to be able to defend themselves, short of being magically slept or held.

Gary sometimes calls for something similar in his modules. and you even find it appearing in some of his later game systems. In those later game systems, where there is no separate assassination table mechanic, it's an ordinary hit roll, but they are skill-based games, so the hit roll is nothing but a skill check. It's often a situational thing when you catch an opponent thoroughly unprepared, like a case of extreme surprise. A sleeping guard, or something like that.

So that's the obvious answer. It wasn't a miss because it wasn't a hit roll to begin with. It was a skill check to see if the character can take full advantage of the situation. Failure to take full advantage does not mean not making any progress at all.

It can be awkward beginning as early as late 1E when proficiencies were first introduced, because hit probability is always kept as some special, separate, and sacred thing, not to be treated as just another skill. And so it's easy to lose sight of the hit roll being just a skill check of sorts. At least 5E uses the same proficiency bonus for combat as it does for skill, so I think that helps.