D&D 5E I Don't Like Damage On A Miss

[CleverNickName]

In all seriousness - all the feat does is make it so you make more-meaningful contact on a miss.

Actually, it makes it so that you do damage-inflicting contact on every attack roll.

Some of us see this as a narrative element: we visualize the fighter hitting someone so hard that they get the breath knocked out of them, or some other non-damage equivalent. Others see it as a glancing blow that cuts the target, still inflicting damage but not nearly as much as it would have if it had connected properly. Some people see this as an uncanny superpower that prevents the fighter from ever missing his target.

But they all have this one thing in common: the DM crosses off a number and writes a smaller number in its place.

 

[Marclee]

I don't like very much the reaper feature, it leades to unnatural situations, a few examples:

-A slayer, at first level can autokill any commoner he dislike
-A slayer, at first level, can autokill a bird flying at a distance of 319 feet. Blindfolded.
-A slayer, at first level, can damage an ancient dragon. Or a God. Maybe only a bit. But he damages it.
-A slayer, at first level can autokill any commoner he dislike

You shouldn't kill on a miss.

This is it. And everyone has to try get behind that. It just doesn't make sense as it is. You would need to add further rules.
Full-miss on a natural 1 for example. Nobody is 100% effective, not even in fantasy.
But it's all been said already: damage reduction, minion rules, etc.

And maybe make the auto-hit non-lethal damage. Then, at least, it could be explained as creating some strain on the opponent even when he just dodges. Breaking a sweat whatever. Would be more believable.

 

[chriton227]

Your Disintegrate is worse. Disintegrate is a Ray that: Requires a Ranged Touch Attack, Has a Save, and can be negated by spell resistance. This, incidentally, it why it can do ridiculously huge amounts of damage.

If you dodge the disintegrate it does zero damage. If the disintegrate lands but FAILS TO DESTROY YOU OUTRIGHT... it still does some damage. And if you resist it, of course, it does none.

Disintegrate is also a daily wizard attack that requires a successful attack against Reflex, and does damage plus ongoing damage even on a miss, with a target getting a save to end the ongoing damage.

Game mechanics reason: Because there is no attack roll. You aren't rolling to determine whether or not the attack was successful; you are rolling to determine damage potential.

Some fireballs do require an attack roll against reflex and do damage on a miss.

I haven't seen a "No 4e Players Welcome" sign on the D&D Next door. Like it or not, damage on a miss has been around for several years now, and is something that the designers need to make a conscious decision on whether or not to keep. 4e didn't even introduce it, just look at the 3e Meteor Swarm, you get 4 attacks and even on a miss the target still has to make a save or take full damage from the fire effect. Fire Seeds also do damage on a miss. And it isn't limited to just magic, alchemists fire does a point of damage on a miss too. I distinctly remember a party in one of my games using the fact that they could lob flasks of alchemists fire into a group of kobolds or goblins and know that they would still do a point of damage to the target (and likely to several targets) on a miss since they were only 1 increment away.

 

[CleverNickName]

Disintegrate...
...fireballs...
...Meteor Swarm...
...Fire Seeds...

None of these things are available at 1st level. The Magic Missile spell and the Reaper feat are.

alchemists fire...

...costs 20gp per vial, each weighing a pound. The Magic Missile spell and the Reaper feat are both free and unlimited.

So I can see why some people have a problem with automatic damage per round. And I don't think it has anything to do with the edition of the game they are playing or how long the mechanic has been around. I can't speak for everyone, but to me and my test group, it feels boring and anti-climatic. I think they can do better.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Put me down as another one who HATES a character being able to kill something by failing to do what they were trying to achieve: that is missing instead of hitting something. Damage when you miss just does not make sense. (And remember, if you are in the area of effect of a fireball, it has not missed you!!!!!) To me, the mechanics in the game should help define the result of the action, not obfuscate it. A "hit" should mean that the attack hits (even if the hit has minimal effect due to armor/toughness or whatever). A "miss" should mean that the attack misses.

My other issue with this is on a design level regarding absolutes. I don't like rules that say something always happens regardless of circumstances. There are several instances of this I would like to see removed from 5e in the next draft:
- Dwarves ALWAYS resist poison.
- Elves ALWAYS resist being charmed.
- Reapers ALWAYS deal hit point damage regardless of whether they hit or miss and thus will ALWAYS kill something with low hit points (at or below their STR mod.)

And this has nothing to do with how hit points are defined. I like hit points being defined as morale, the will to go on, divine providence, luck, toughness etc. (and in fact would prefer that that was all they meant and physical damage was treated separately but that is something for another thread). Hit points are a good abstraction that helps meld all these things together. However this should not mean that they should obfuscate whether an attack is a hit or a miss. If people want to screw around with the definition of "hit" and "miss", please find alternative words for the result of a slayers attack.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Obryn]

Narrative reason: because you are standing within a roaring ball of fire. It can't "miss" you because it is all around you. Instead, you are checking to see if you managed to cover up in time to avoid the full blast.

And that's one possible narrative. It postulates one kind of fiction for D&D's world - fireballs are basically instantaneous explosions. I'm asking why D&D is using that narrative instead of the, "Spells can be dodged by the nimble" one, where a fireball moves that much more slowly.

Game mechanics reason: Because there is no attack roll. You aren't rolling to determine whether or not the attack was successful; you are rolling to determine damage potential.

...and? You're rolling a saving throw, no? Based on Dexterity? If you save, you should "save" yourself from the whole effect, just like with Hold Person. Kind of like if you "miss" with a sword, you should really, really miss, right?

My point is just this: These are arbitrary distinctions.

-O

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

In all seriousness - all the feat does is make it so you make more-meaningful contact on a miss. Because you're strong and furious and aggressive, and can hurt someone even when parried. So that kobold who tried to block your attack with his spear? It would have deflected a wimpy cleric's hammer blow, but your axe shears straight through it and into his skull. That orc relying on his armor and shield? He's got a heck of a bruise now that you dented his armor and rattled his shield-arm.

Honestly, I am left wondering why we're not worried about half damage on saves in the same way - I mean you saved, shouldn't that mean you escape major damage from the spell?

This is where those of us that have a problem with it come in. If the ability implies that you make more meaningful contact on a miss, then you didn't miss. If it's simply described this way, it wouldn't cause cognitive dissonance. Of course, I also dislike the idea that a character never misses at melee attacks, but that's a different argument.

Hate to ask this - but why isn't it about dodging the fireball?

You can't really dodge a fireball. But you can drop prone and let the worst of it pass over you. Now, one could argue that the reflex save is doing the job abstract Hit points are supposed to do, but hit points don't factor in nimbleness and sometimes D&D abstractions overlap.

That's pretty much what this it. Minimal damage is key, as is the fact that everything in D&D combat is abstract.

Minimal damage still means you hit. That's what the abstraction is about.

I could go back and forth on this, but that's not useful. It's better to simply say that, while it's not critical, damage on a miss after a mundane attack causes some of us cognitive dissonance. It also has a few other possible problems that others have mentioned. If a mechanic can be found that avoids these while staying true to the concept, I think it's worth a discussion.

To reverse the questioning, does the Slayer concept have to do damage on a miss to please you? Or would another mechanic be acceptable?

 

[chriton227]

-A slayer, at first level can autokill any commoner he dislike
-A slayer, at first level, can autokill a bird flying at a distance of 319 feet. Blindfolded.
-A slayer, at first level, can damage an ancient dragon. Or a God. Maybe only a bit. But he damages it.

You shouldn't kill on a miss.

Why is this a problem for a fighter, but not for a wizard? The wizard can do automatic damage at 100' range, and on average more than the slayer's 3 points in melee or piddly 1 point at range.

-A wizard, at first level can autokill any commoner he dislike from 100 feet away, and can do it every 6 seconds all day long
-A wizard, at first level, can autokill a bird flying at a distance of 100 feet. He can do it while prone and aiming through a hole in a wall the size of a golf ball, as long as he can see the bird.
-A wizard, at first level, can damage an ancient dragon. Or a God. Maybe only a bit. But he damages it.

Dealing damage is supposed to be the fighter's strong suit, if the wizard is more reliable and safer damage at first level and increases in power faster like wizards traditionally have, then when will the fighter get to shine? At level 3, the fighter is still doing their 1 or 3 on a miss, the wizard is now doing 2-5 to two targets, or 4-10 to a single target. 4-10 damage automatically from 100' away sounds nice compared to 7-14 damage on a hit, 1 on a miss, every other round (unless you want disadvantage) that the fighter has at range, or 10-20, 3 on a miss while taking melee attacks. The wizard just keeps getting better too, doing an automatic 6-15 at 6th and 8-20 at 9th.

Saying "because it's magic" doesn't cut it with me. Flexibility is the wizard's strength, raw damage dealing ability is the fighter's. If you don't think it is realistic, try fighting in melee with someone who is combat trained, can deadlift 800lbs, and is wielding a 20lb axe, and let me know if you can avoid them doing some sort of damage to you every 6 seconds if they are really trying. Even if they miss, the axe hitting the wall or furniture near you with that much force behind it is going to generate some significant shrapnel. I can see removing Reaper from ranged attacks, but being in melee with a slayer should be a very painful experience.

As a side note, I will be shocked if ancient dragons and gods don't have some way to completely ignore the couple points of damage on a miss. Worst case all they need to do is take a good strong drink before the fight, being intoxicated guarantees that they will ignore the 1 point at range and gives them a 66% chance to ignore the 3 points in melee.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Why is this a problem for a fighter, but not for a wizard? The wizard can do automatic damage at 100' range, and on average more than the slayer's 3 points in melee or piddly 1 point at range.

-A wizard, at first level can autokill any commoner he dislike from 100 feet away, and can do it every 6 seconds all day long
-A wizard, at first level, can autokill a bird flying at a distance of 100 feet. He can do it while prone and aiming through a hole in a wall the size of a golf ball, as long as he can see the bird.
-A wizard, at first level, can damage an ancient dragon. Or a God. Maybe only a bit. But he damages it.

At will spells are another rule that must go.

 

[Empath Negative]

I get where the "hitpoints as abstraction" folks are coming from and why they don't see much wrong with the +str damage even on a miss.

To them there are a great many variables that can occur during combat and these variables shape how hitpoints can be reduced.

Think of it like a flowing dance almost, where things can be intriducate and subtle or pronounced... but most of all they flow.

Compare that to what others are talking about and why it feels "off". To us combat should feel a bit more like chopping wood. You make an action and you get a satisfying understood result, requiring less fluidity or personal imagery. If I swing my axe at this tree it chops a chunk out and it's all very well defined.

For us, if it wasn't such a pain in the ass we'd be down with the fighter's reaper doing 4 damage if that damage was done to say, fate points... where the near miss forced the creature in question to sacrifice some divine favor or somesuch. We'd get that mechanic even if it was largely the same thing as basic hitpoints... but we crave an elegant definition of everything... and when it's not provided... well it just pisses us right off.