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

[Ahnehnois]

I read the reaper ability simpler than that. He/she always hits with melee weapons (at least in the senses you explain). The D20 roll is just to determine how well. The "hit" and "miss" terms are stretched somewhat (becoming game mechanics terms, not descriptions of the action), but you don't have to take them literally in all circumstances.

They have to mean something, but you have articulated a rather large problem. It is apparently impossible for a slayer to miss. No one's that good.

 

[eamon]

I believe it's just str mod damage, so it's even less then minimum damage

Average damage on hit: 14
Minimum damage on hit: 9
Reaper: just 3.

 

[herrozerro]

They have to mean something, but you have articulated a rather large problem. It is apparently impossible for a slayer to miss. No one's that good.

Apparently the slayer is.

 

[Fifth Element]

But there is nothing about a saving throw with the FighterDwarf's Reaper Feat. It just says the FighterDwarf does half damage on a miss. Am I reading this wrong again?

Well, you're missing the fact that the feat does not cause half damage on a miss, it causes Str modifier damage, which is of course less than the minimum damage of a "hit".

But what you're really missing is the arbitrary distinctions that are being made here with respect to a combat system that is very abstract.

 

[Fifth Element]

Average damage on hit: 14
Minimum damage on hit: 9
Reaper: just 3.

Ultimately the problem might be that kobolds can have 3 hit points or less.

 

[ren1999]

I believe it's just str mod damage, so it's even less then minimum damage

Ah yes, modifier damage not half damage. I actually knew that but ended up typing half when I meant modifier.

I'm not missing the fact that the play-test says that you score damage on a miss. I didn't accept that in 4th edition and won't accept it in 5th. It isn't a deal breaker, I'll just change Reaper to give the player advantage on his or her next roll like one of the comments here suggested.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Also, I think the reasoning is a little backwards: I'd like to start off assuming the in-world occurence makes sense, not assuming some (pretty arbitrary) hit/miss distinction holds. And as explained before, in-world, damage on a miss makes a lot of sense.

What doesn't make sense here is a kobold having a natural armor bonus, or having a vastly superior opponent miss because of it. That much is true. Particularly when you start talking about size disparities and consider the idea of momentum, the attacker should cause a meaningful hit most of the time. It definitely would be clearer if D&D defined more aspects of combat, instead of lumping so many things together.

If instead of AC we had one clear mechanic for dodging and another for resilience, as well as one health mechanic for actual physical damage and others for other things, then these kinds of issues would not happen.

Ultimately the problem might be that kobolds can have 3 hit points or less.

They may start with more, but anyone can have 3 hit points or less. Moreover, they have full combat effectiveness any time they have more than 0. So yes, 3 damage can be very meaningful.

 

[eamon]

They have to mean something, but you have articulated a rather large problem. It is apparently impossible for a slayer to miss. No one's that good.

It's a simplification. In almost all cases, you can assume that a "miss" doesn't mean no contact at all, it just means the defender deflected the blow. For maximal precision, you'd want to distinguish between a sudden dodge (mostly just effort, so very little hit point cost - partly the Dex mod to AC here), a subtle parry (most energy deflected) up to a block (possibly jarring) or a solid strike to the armor (likely very jarring). But precision means complicated rules, and it's just a few points of damage; is it really worth it?

Also, even to the extent that Dex mod affects AC this doesn't mean lack of contact - it means the defender managed to avoid taking the full blow, for instance by parrying or by taking the blow where he can absorb the shock.

Still, perhaps the rule could be altered to say that a natural 1 does no damage.

Honestly though, I don't think a real swordsman actually swings wildly nearly that often. How often do you fall off your bike? A full 5% of the time? If you're practiced at something, you're probably not making many gross mistakes - the "miss" would have been caused by active intervention by the defending party, and that active intervention means it at least cost the defender energy and likely a minor hit to his armor, shield or weapon.

 

[Fifth Element]

They have to mean something

But they don't have to mean the same thing all the time in all situations. Just like saving throws, which always have to be interpreted based on the circumstances, because it's an abstract system. You've always had to interpret what a successful save means. The 1E DMG goes into this.

 

[Minigiant]

*clears throat*

Block damage.

The slayer is full of Street Fighter style cheese.