Quote from: Jason Coplen on August 28, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
Maybe Tunnels & Trolls?

Spite damage was adopted by a lot of players pretty early on, but I'm not sure it was adopted into any official rules until much later.  I could be wrong, but that's the way the timeline flows in my head.

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.

When its not a 'crit' yeah it doesnt make any sense unless its an outlier like using points to tip the roll.

On the other hand I do not mind systems were narrow margins of success/fail impact. Like "miss by 1 and do 1/2 damage, 2 and do 1/4th, round down to zero. My own book uses something like that where the more you succeed the more damage is done, and a fail within X will do 1/2 damage.

Damage on a miss makes perfect sense for area effecting things. Fireballs and so on.

Quote from: Omega on August 29, 2022, 11:24:36 AM

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.

When its not a 'crit' yeah it doesnt make any sense unless its an outlier like using points to tip the roll.

On the other hand I do not mind systems were narrow margins of success/fail impact. Like "miss by 1 and do 1/2 damage, 2 and do 1/4th, round down to zero. My own book uses something like that where the more you succeed the more damage is done, and a fail within X will do 1/2 damage.

Damage on a miss makes perfect sense for area effecting things. Fireballs and so on.

Well, in D&D an attack roll is not necessarily a single attack.  The combatants  are assume to be maneuvering and striking many blows in a specified time period, with the attack roll encompassing an actual telling blow (or blows) amidst the exchange.  In this sense doing damage on a "miss" just means a few of those blows that normally wouldn't have made it through were able to cause some damage to the opponent.

The main problem with it in D&D is not conceptual.  The D&D combat model is abstract that you can make almost anything fit if you want.  Besides, a weapon doing some damage on some misses would be parallel to a game that uses armor as damage reduction, where you can "hit" the target for "no damage".  Different model, different hole in it, then it's how much you want to close the gaps.  Though if a D&D-style game is going to go that route, calling them "hits" and "misses" is not the best choice.

The real issue is that such rules are unnecessarily fiddly in most cases.  Sure, AD&D assassination or spells for half damage--those are relatively uncommon things.  Weapon attacks are happening many times per combat. 

I like the explanation and application in Sine Nomine Thing Without Number books.

On one hand, going into melee is inherently dangerous and few people should escape unscathed.

On the other, some are simply so skilled and well equipped that they can suffer most of the chaos of melee unharmed and some weapons are more dangerous than others.

So Shock damage (melee damage applied on some misses) applies depending on the weapon, armor, and the various skills of the combatants.

The "save for half" is definitely not the origin of this.  The idea of a saving throw to mitigate or eliminate damage is definitely well past the idea of dealing damage in the first place, nor was the save always meant to eliminate damage.  That's not the same thing at all, because the saving throw was never meant to be just an auxiliary attack roll, and it  would avoid becoming such for decades.

The idea probably came around during the middle of the d20 era, because we saw it show up in 4ed.  It's possible that 4ed was the first, but I wouldn't bet too much on that- if someone obscure did it first, I'd have never heard of it, but 4ed doing it, I did see that.

Quote from: Venka on August 29, 2022, 03:06:55 PM
The "save for half" is definitely not the origin of this.  The idea of a saving throw to mitigate or eliminate damage is definitely well past the idea of dealing damage in the first place, nor was the save always meant to eliminate damage.  That's not the same thing at all, because the saving throw was never meant to be just an auxiliary attack roll, and it  would avoid becoming such for decades.

The idea probably came around during the middle of the d20 era, because we saw it show up in 4ed.  It's possible that 4ed was the first, but I wouldn't bet too much on that- if someone obscure did it first, I'd have never heard of it, but 4ed doing it, I did see that.

Looks like Spite damage in T&T was brought into the system in 2005 (the 5.5 edition), and 4e was released in 2008, so it looks like T&T was first.

Quote from: Venka on August 29, 2022, 03:06:55 PMThe idea probably came around during the middle of the d20 era, because we saw it show up in 4ed.  It's possible that 4ed was the first, but I wouldn't bet too much on that- if someone obscure did it first, I'd have never heard of it, but 4ed doing it, I did see that.

I never owned or read 4e but I remember talking about damage on a miss so it had to be some point in the 3e era. As I recall, there was a Feat that did this but I looked and couldn't find it.

EDIT:  I was confused about the conditions under which the assassination table is used.  I defend the original point, less vigorously, in a later post down the page.  What follows is my original post.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 28, 2022, 07:21:29 PM
Per the AD&D 1E Assassination Table; a "hit" on that means insta-kill. A "miss" means doing normal damage for the weapon.

It's on page 75, and at no point is it called a "hit" or a "miss".  Additionally this is meant to be more of a roll that determines what happens next- if you succeed at the roll, the story moves to the point where the assassin has killed the target.  Perhaps he must now roleplay his escape, from a room that is just now being described by the DM.  If it fails, the assassin rolls weapon damage, and now the narrative begins with the target alive (unless the weapon damage was enough to kill him).  This ironically means that no one is safe from an assassin's blade, oddly enough- one of the many strange quirks with the 1st edition assassin.

Here's the text, which nowhere uses "hit" or "miss":
The percentage shown is lhat for success (instant death) under near optimum conditions. You may ad|ust slightly upwards for perfect conditions (absolute trust, asleep and unguarded, very drunk and unguarded, etc.). Similarly, you must deduct points if (he intended victim is wary, rakes precautions, and/or is guarded, If the assassination is being attempted by or in behalf of a player character a complete plan of how the deed is to be done should be prepared by the player involved, and the precautions, if any, of the target character should be compared against the plan. Weapon damage always occurs and may kill the victim even though "assassination" foiled.

Note also that the assassination table is also meant to be rolled for attacks against helpless opponents- again, in this case it's still something that only happens once a hit is determined.

Quote from: Jason Coplen on August 28, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
Maybe Tunnels & Trolls?

Yes, "Spite Damage" was a thing.

Quote from: Venka on August 30, 2022, 12:39:30 PM
It's on page 75, and at no point is it called a "hit" or a "miss".

Yes. That's exactly what I said. 1E was more careful in its phraseology.

QuoteAdditionally this is meant to be more of a roll that determines what happens next-

Yes, Again, that's what I said. In Gary's later RPGs, hit rolls are skill checks, so you'd use the same mechanic as the to hit roll for this, but it's not really a "miss" per se because it's just a failed skill check. In 1E, there's no central skill system, so there's no reason to believe that a hit roll is anything other than a skill check. But as soon as NWPs are introduced and you start seeing skill systems in D&D, to hit tables are always held as separate and sacred. That this was corrected in 5E when they all work off the same proficiency bonus.

Quoteif you succeed at the roll, the story moves to the point where the assassin has killed the target.  Perhaps he must now roleplay his escape, from a room that is just now being described by the DM.  If it fails, the assassin rolls weapon damage, and now the narrative begins with the target alive (unless the weapon damage was enough to kill him).

This assumes way too much. The assassination check certainly can be used that way. It doesn't have to be. And in my experienced, I haven't seen it used that way very often in actual play. Although that is more or less how we'd handle assassinations initiated during downtime activity, especially when it's an NPC assassin.

QuoteThis ironically means that no one is safe from an assassin's blade, oddly enough- one of the many strange quirks with the 1st edition assassin.

Okay. I'm not sure what makes this ironic, strange, or a quirk.

QuoteHere's the text, which nowhere uses "hit" or "miss":

I can quote a lot of paragraphs that nowhere uses the words "hit" or "miss." That's not really indicative of anything.

QuoteNote also  that the assassination table is also meant to be rolled for attacks against helpless opponents

Yes. I did note exactly that as well.

Quote- again, in this case it's still something that only happens once a hit is determined.

Well, no. You've got the rule wrong, and this is where you completely missed the point of what I was saying.

PHB pg 29, "Assassins attack on the same combat tables as thieves do, including back stabbing. However, if they surprise (q.v.) a victim, they may attack on the ASSASSINATION TABLE. This gives a roughly 50% chance of immediately killing the victim; and if this fails, normal damage according to weapon type and strength ability modifiers still accrues to the victim."

First note the wording here, "they may attack on the ASSASSINATION TABLE." That percentile roll IS their attack roll. It's not the case that first you have to see IF you hit, and only THEN do you have a chance for auto slay. The assassination roll IS the attack roll. And even if you fail this attack roll, you still do damage.

Second, note how broadly applicable this is. For assassins, all you have to do is have surprise. This is contrary to what others have said about this being an outlier. Yeah. Assassins are that powerful. And how broadly this applies is going to be important when I circle back to the main point.

Next, on DMG pg 67 you will find a table of Special "To Hit" Bonuses. One of the enumerated circumstances is "Opponent magically asleep, held, paralyzed, or totally immobile" and the modifier for that is simply listed as "Automatic". There's also a footnote to reference a heading "Magically Sleeping or Held Opponents" under the "Melee" section. No, that is not what we're discussing. But how that is handled provides context for situations that are relevant here, and there's even a note on what is relevant in the named section. So that's where we go next.

DMG pg 70, Magically Sleeping or Held Opponents. When general melee is in progress, hits are automatic, damage is automatically maximum, and double the number of attacks or attack routines are allowed against such opponents. Otherwise (outside of melee), they may be automatically slain or bound within a melee round. The section ends with "Note that this does not include normally sleeping opponents (see ASSASSINS' TABLE FOR ASSASSINATIONS)."

This is the context for the quote you cited. At least normal damage is guaranteed while auto-slay is on the table.

There's more. DMG pg 62 under the heading Factors Contributing To Surprise: "When one side or another is surprised, this general term can represent a number of possible circumstances. In the first place it simply represents actual surprise--that is, the opponent was unprepared for the appearance/attack. The reason for this could be eating, sleeping, waste elimination, attention elsewhere, no weapon ready, etc."

Surprise can (but does not necessarily) indicate the opponent is sleeping. When it does indicate a sleeping opponent, non-assassins can use the assassination table the same way assassins do on any sort of surprise. When you realize this, it reduces the gap between assassins and non-assassins, So maybe assassins being able to auto-slay on surprise is not so over-powered after all.

But it also gets me to the main point here, which is that this is not really all that uncommon a thing. I believe the intent is for DMs to be very liberal in adjudicating situational adjustments, including to such an extreme that you're no longer making attack rolls to determine if you hit--you automatically do--but do you hit extra hard up to and including auto-slay. And there's no reason to think this is exclusive to combat or exclusive to surprise or sleeping opponents. It's hard to cite this directly. Gary assumed GMs would be capable in deciding this for themselves. And so I wouldn't expect him to write it.

However, off the top of my head, I actually can point to a published work where Gary explicitly spells out doing exactly this because it's an introductory module so he's not willing to take for granted that GMs will just know to do this. And what he's spelling out syncs up exactly to those passages I cited in the DMG. And are in the same spirit. That there is still some kind of attack roll, where failure indicates normal damage and success indicates extra damage and/or auto slay. And that can be found in Living the Legend, which was published in 2004.

But again, those passages I cite in the DMG show a trajectory that this is a very old idea. One that we were just expected to know this entire time. Which I really don't think it's at all unreasonable. If anything, it's a mystery to me why so many gamers can't figure out that when you already know you can't miss, you don't roll dice to determine if you hit or reference rules that suggested you might miss. If you roll for anything in that case, it's for critical the hit is.

I made a mistake about the condition for using assassination.  Surprise is listed in the PHB, but I was confusing it with my understanding (likely correct but who knows) of the ninja's table from dragon magazine.  This makes many of my points not particularly relevant.

Now, is the assassination roll a to-hit roll?  I still feel it is not, but as Lunamancer points out, it is used in lieu of one under a situation where the assassin could otherwise roll his full melee attack set or go a-backstabbin'.  You can definitely make the point, as this special attack is a guaranteed hit, and then rolls for the greater effect.  It is explicitly called out as an alternative to a melee attack roll however.

Quote from: Venka on August 31, 2022, 01:59:07 PMNow, is the assassination roll a to-hit roll?  I still feel it is not, but as Lunamancer points out, it is used in lieu of one under a situation where the assassin could otherwise roll his full melee attack set or go a-backstabbin'.  You can definitely make the point, as this special attack is a guaranteed hit, and then rolls for the greater effect.  It is explicitly called out as an alternative to a melee attack roll however.

Sure, the assassin has that choice. But non-assassins are not given the same choice. And that's really more the point. It's not about assassins. It's that this is something that can apply, potentially randomly, to situations in which there is total surprise that is best explained by opponents being asleep. It's more of a situational modifier. In fact, it's literally a situational modifier when you follow all the relevant citations. It actually is hashed out in a paragraph referenced by a footnote referring to a line item in a table of situational modifiers to melee attacks.

As a situational modifier, it's something the GM adjudicates, and it's not necessarily limited to any particular RPG system. Again, I pointed out that Gary did use this in later RPGs as well. Those later RPGs did not have a special assassination table. In those games, it's a regular skill check instead. Same skill check that's used for melee combat. And I can't help but think, if there had been no assassin class in 1E, there probably wouldn't have been an assassination table. And so then how would the auto-slay probability have been adjudicated? Regular hit roll has to be a prime candidate.

And that's the real idea here. It's a sit mod. It's GM adjudication. It can potentially apply in any RPG. Since almost no RPGs have an assassination table, it's probably going to look a lot like a hit roll. As long as the hit roll is simultaneously a skill check, the oddity of doing damage on a miss kind of goes away. Because as a skill check, all we can say for sure is it's a skill failure. If failure to hit is not on the table because that would be an unreasonable outcome given the situation, then skill failure means failure to slay, not failure to hit, and so still causing some damage is perfectly reasonable. And there's no confusion as to verbiage. It's not damage on a miss. It's damage on a missed skill check.

But when it comes to D&D specifically, once proficiencies were added, at that point to hit is definitely treated differently from regular skills. So a failed hit roll really is a miss. And in editions that don't have the assassins table, that's where it would be awkward linguistically for there to be damage on a miss. By 5E, this was fixed since weapon attack rolls uses the same proficiency bonus as ordinary skills. So as of 5E, the hit roll actually is a skill roll. So nothing linguistically awkward in 5E if you want to do something like this. It's the in-between editions. And they have been plenty influential in the hobby, those are the culprits for the weirdness of damage on a miss. If good, sound, and wise adjudication is applied for attacking non-magically sleeping opponents. That's the case I'm trying to lay out here.

Quote from: Jason Coplen on August 28, 2022, 09:45:39 AM
Maybe Tunnels & Trolls?

I believe so: "spite damage" which was introduced in 5.5e, I think in the late 90s. Can't think of any game which did it before then.
The reason was linked to mitigating the "death spiral" problem peculiar to T&T combat. It's quite effective and improved the game IMHO. The little goblins get their scratches in while you mow them down, so you need a better strategy than just wading through them indefinitely.