The Science of a "Miss"

When making an attack roll in most role playing games, the result is about as simple as it can be. The attack either hits the intended target or it doesn't. Some games - such as Aces & Eights and Dark Heresy -  incorporate mechanics to determine specifically where the target is hit. Even the Pathfinder RPG has an variant system that allows characters to determine precisely where their want to aim their blows (i.e. called shots). But this post isn't about what happens when or where a character hits its target - this is about what happens when they miss!

 

In the Pathfinder rule system, making an attack roll is about determining whether or not a character is able to land a damaging blow. I emphasis "damaging" because during the course of combat, blows will be struck. It's inevitable. However, many of these may be hits that harmlessly glance off of the enemy's armor or are absorbed by an intervening shield. In game terms, these impotent strikes are still categorized as "a miss".1 So, how can we determine if that "miss" was actually wildly off target, narrowly dodged at the last moment, or turned aside by a heavy shield?

A better question you might be asking yourself is, "why would I want to"? To be honest, there's no real reason to. The character in question fails to beat his opponent's AC, you describe the futile attempt to "bring the pain" in the manner of your choosing, and the game goes on. No harm, no foul. However, for those that want a little more detail to their combat or, like me, are just curious about such minutia, read on.

What follows is a detailed explanation of how I would determine why an attack failed to wound an opponent. It is can be rather cumbersome to implement at the game table, so I've created an Excel sheet that is designed to do all the heavy lifting for you. Just fill in the relevant fields (shaded in blue) before the game and when a fight breaks out, look for the first AC value from the top of the list that exceeds the attack roll. This is the reason the attack failed to generate a wound. The file has yet to be field tested, so if you chose to use it during your games, or simply want to poke at it a bit, please send me feedback with your thoughts and, of course, any errors or difficulties you might notice in using it.

There's a certain sequence of obstacles a character must overcome if they intend to strike a damaging blow against this opponent. Each of these obstacles is represented by different modifiers that gets applied to the target's Armor Class. Typically, these bonuses and penalties get lumped together and their sum is used to determine if an attack ultimately caused damage. If we break that final number down into its components, however, we can determine exactly why a failed attack was unsuccessful.

The game assumes that a target has base AC of 10, adjusted for size and other conditions affecting the target (such as being blind, cowering, or kneeling). If a character's attack result is less than 10 (plus the relevant adjustments), we can assume that the attack failed to even threaten the target. This could be an axe swing that passes over the head of a Small opponent or a bow shot that simply goes wide of its mark.

To continue on, I'm going to assume that the target in question is of Medium size (+0 size modifier) and is not affected by anything that would further alter his base armor class from AC 10.

Now what if the result is higher than an AC 10? That would indicate that the blow is going to land somewhere on the target that is going to hurt. But what if the target has cover? Well, if the attack roll doesn't equal at least 14 (+4 cover bonus), but is higher than 10, it's reasonable to assume that the attack hit whatever the target was using for cover. At this point, a GM might house rule that the attack causes damage to the cover instead. Since whatever was proving cover wasn't the intended target, I might further rule that the attack only deals half damage.

Assuming that our character manages to find his target and circumvent any intervening cover, the target is going to want to move out of the way if he can. This is where his Dexterity modifier and dodge bonuses get applied. Since you lose your dodge bonuses any time  you lose your Dexterity modifier, these get lumped into a single group. If the attack exceeds a 14, or 10 if there is no cover, but it doesn't exceed his AC after applying these modifiers, the target has managed to not be where the blow was going to land. Perhaps he ducked at the last moment, or spun out the blade's reach.

Finally, if the character's aim is true and his opponent isn't nimble enough to get out of the way, his last line of defense is going to be his armor. First he'll try to block the attack with his shield if he has one. If that fails, he has to hope his armor is durable enough to withstand the blow. As with the situation of an attack being foiled by intervening cover, it could be house ruled that an attack defeated by a shield or suit of armor deals some degree of damage to those items. A good warrior values his armor and this sort of house rule would contribute to the sense of one's armor undergoing constant wear and the need to keep it in good repair lest it gains the broken condition, or worse - is destroyed. Lastly, some creatures may be fortunate enough to have exceptionally tough skin or hide that might protect them when all else fails.

1 It seems to me that many players incorrectly assume that each individual attack roll represents a single strike that either connects with their opponent and therefore causes them damage, or misses the target entirely. Not only is this incorrect, but it doesn't make sense. Donning armor and/or a shield will raise a character's AC and makes it more likely an opponent will "miss" them. However, common sense will tell you that the purpose of armor and shields is to absorb the damage from a hit rather than to help avoid the strike altogether. For these people, Pathfinder offers the "Armor as Damage Reduction" variant rules.