Nothing happens when you miss
Briefly, we know this because:
- 5e has a precedent for explicit hit or miss effects.
- The alternative interpretation requires counterintuitive targeting mechanics.
- Grammatical ambiguity is common and is clarified by sentence content & context.
- The narrative effects of the alternative interpretation are unlikely.
To unpack each of these in more detail, we must first consider both readings of the spell's description.
Possible parsings of the spell description
Let's look at the two options:
A. Witch Bolt fails on a miss
In this reading, the conditional clause 'on a hit' applies to both the subsequent clauses. That is:
- On a hit the target takes 1d12 lightning damage
- and on a hit you can also use subsequent actions to deal automatic lightning damage to the target.
B. Hit or miss, you can inflict additional damage automatically
Under this parsing, the conditional clause only affects the first of the two subsequent clauses, i.e.:
- On a hit the target takes 1d12 lightning damage
- and you can use subsequent actions to deal automatic lightning damage to the target.
This option is grammatically valid, but A is the correct reading. I will detail the reasons for this below.
Reasons to accept A
1. There is a precedent in the rules for explicit 'hit or miss' effects
Ice Knife is a ranged attack spell which has an additional effect that occurs regardless of whether the spell hits or misses:
Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 piercing damage. Hit or miss, the shard then explodes. The target and each creature within 5 feet of it must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 2d6 cold damage.
The explicit mention of a 'hit or miss' effect sets a precedent which we would expect to be followed in the description of this spell were that the intent.
2. Option B requires counterintuitive rulings on targeting
Related to the above: The target of Witch Bolt is the target of a ranged spell attack. If that ranged spell attack misses, in what sense can they continue to be the spell's target? The targeting effect has ended.
3. Common parlance and context
The grammatical ambiguity in the spell description occurs often in everyday speech, and is usually only allowed when context makes the 'right' reading obvious. Consider the following sentences:
- If there's milk in the fridge you can make yourself some cereal and you're also welcome to drink any of the juice.
- When the engine overheats the car catches fire and it could explode
Each of those sentences calls for a different grammatical parsing: Permission to drink the juice does not depend on the presence of milk in the fridge, but the possibility of the car exploding is a direct consequence of its catching fire. The content of each sentence informs our judgement of how the conditional clause modifies the subsequent, connected clauses. We can therefore assume that:
- Any similarly ambiguous sentence will contain enough information for us to make a judgement of intent
- The sentence is given to us with the expectation that such a judgement can and should be made.
The sentence is not neutral - it does not present both readings as equally likely. This leads naturally to my final point:
4. Option A makes more narrative sense
When you cast Witch Bolt, a 'beam of crackling, blue energy lances out' towards the target. Under option B, a target who dodges the beam is still subject to subsequent lightning damage. If the caster can inflict automatic lighting damage without shooting their energy beam on target, then what's the purpose of the beam? The spell's flavour become counterintuitive.