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

[JamesonCourage]

It's too weak. To balance it, it'd need to do more damage; but I'm not sure I see the fluff of auto-damage melee attacks with significant damage. 3 damage piddling compared to 14; I can rationalize that as just general effort of defense or bruising through armor or jarring of the shield arm. And indeed, against a foe that's outclassed, perhaps even a strike right through his defense, even when it's perfect. But damage that's at least somewhat comparable to a solid blow and completely unavoidable?

Personally, I think that the 3-5 damage (5 on the high end) is going to end up really weak, too. And factored with the objection to the narrative that it creates for some groups, I'd like to get away from automatic Strength damage on a miss, if possible.

I think if I had to choose between that options or none I'd just omit the ability; there will be enough other cool stuff to choose from, I'm sure. (I don't like too-weak abilities since they're traps; some players don't care or worse misjudge and that just causes intra-party imbalances).

What about an ability that triggers on a save? The Slayer can make a Strength check, and the defender makes a save (Dex? Con?). If they fail, they take full damage, and if they succeed, they take Strength modifier in damage. The change is that it's now a save, not an attack against armor class. That could be good or bad depending on what they're fighting.

Or, alternatively, what if it works so that when the Slayer has advantage, he can make a Strength check against the opponent's save (Dex? Con?). If they save fails, then the Slayer does full damage, but if the save succeeds, it deals half damage instead. That's a buff over the 3-5 damage that might become all but obsolete in later levels, but it's now necessary that you get advantage. And the feel of a guy starting to own when he has the advantage isn't a bad feel, in my opinion.

It's just another option in play at that point. I can make a normal attack against their AC for damage on a hit or none on a miss, or I can Str check against their save to deal full or half damage, but I need advantage.

Personally, I think people are a lot more accepting of a save for half damage than a miss for half. Is something like this acceptable? If not, why not? As always, play what you like

 

[Obryn]

I'm aware of what the other poster put up. Again, I don't care about that baggage. I mean this very non-aggressively, in the future, please don't reply to me and my question quoted and then bring baggage from another poster to it when I'm specifically trying to bridge a gap, not work on the trenches both sides are digging. Thank you.

Yeah - what I was saying was, I have been replying to several people and forgot you were you and not someone else. Sorry; I really meant nothing by it.

That's true, but compromise means listening and adapting. I'd like to see your issues made so that the overwhelming majority accept them. The same goes for the Reaper feat. Just because "you can't please everyone" doesn't mean that you need to stop compromising. Saying "just don't use it" seems like a weak reply, even in a modular game like 5e. No, I'd like as many feats, as many themes, as many classes, etc. available to as many people as possible, please.

To me, adding a feat that does miss damage is making as much available to as many people as possible. It's much easier to remove a rule element than add it, as long as the game is sufficienty modular and nothing really relies on the Slayer background.

While I don't like this feat's implementation and think it's weak, I don't find its inclusion specifically offensive, and I think that all reasons for and against have come down to arbitrary taste. Given this, I'd rather make it as inclusive as possible by adding things that may not be universal, rather than paring it down until nothing potentially offensive exists in it anymore.

To that end, I'm looking for compromise. A line has begun to be drawn on the Reaper feat, and I'm curious why it needs to be there.

The thing is that compromise on this issue becomes ... funny. Either damage on a missed attack roll exists, or it doesn't. It can't half-exist. So if the compromise is "it doesn't exist" it's not a real compromise.

So any such compromise, it seems to me, needs to be drawn out over the rules as a whole rather than specific in one rule item.

-O

 

[jadrax]

No, I'd like as many feats, as many themes, as many classes, etc. available to as many people as possible, please.

I am not sure that is a very good idea, because I don't want me gaming experience compromised so that it will be acceptable to thousands of people I will never even meet, let alone play with.

That's why Mike Mearl's is saying the whole point of modularity is turning things up to 11. Everything can be extreme because your not fettered by making it acceptable to people who just do not like it to start with.

I mean, personally I am never really going to be happy with Alignment, so trying to appease me on how the system works is fundamentally neither going to make me, or the people who like Alignment happy. But if you stick it in a module, I am happy because I am not using it, and everyone else is happy because they get the Alignment system they love without it being crippled to try and make me happy.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Yes, that's an argument that has been made, I suspect, since the day after OD&D was first released. Armour as DR would be more realistic, but since the D&D combat system has never been about realism, that's not much of a concern.

I'd say there's a fairly large percentage of people like me that would prefer a more believable system than one that confuses the terms "hitting" and "missing". It would be nice if the core rules were such that it could support all forms of play (by the use of add-on advanced rules modules).

Because, once again, it's an abstract system. Details are left out in favour of playability.

I mean, why are you content with damage being determined separately from hit/miss? You have only one category of "genuine" hit there. But surely hitting AC by more than 10 points should be a better hit that just barely hitting it? Yet against an opponent with a 12 AC, an attack roll of 12 will do just as much damage on average as an attack roll of 22, because damage is determined separately (barring crits).

That barring crits bit is the important thing though as it is criticals that provides that differing degree of success on an attack roll. Damage is variable because it makes it more exciting from a game perspective and from a believability point of view in that every hit should not be doing equivalent damage.

You're advocating degrees of failure based on the attack roll, but not degrees of success. That's not very realistic, though it is quite abstract.

No I'm not as explained just above. With the use of criticals, I'm very much looking for degrees of success based upon the attack roll (and would love it if this was taken further). Also you seem to be introducing the term realistic into the equation here. If you are talking consistent mechanics that are clear in their terminology and effect that provide an enjoyable and believable gaming experience then yes. I'm not wanting perfect reality or simulation, just the odd nod to things that should make sense.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Considering that I just used it as an example of dealing damage on a miss? It's obvious that that is exactly what I am saying.

So your opponent misses you but you still get a broken nose that from your example was not self inflicted. This does not make sense. From what you said, I would have thought it would make more sense to say:
* my opponent hit me forcing my shield into my nose breaking it,
rather than:
* my opponent missed me forcing my shield into my nose breaking it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[jadrax]

I'd say there's a fairly large percentage of people like me that would prefer a more believable system than one that confuses the terms "hitting" and "missing".

I could certainly get behind removing the term 'hit' and 'miss' in relation to Attack rolls, because its always been confusing because it dosen't properly connect with the AC and HP systems.

 

[john112364]

How about this as a compromise:

Change the use of the reaper feat to do damage only if you miss by 4 (or 5 or whatever number). This way your rolls still matter and this reflects a hit on the armor or a glancing blow that is so ferocious that is does a minimal amount of damage where as a non-slayer would not harm the opponent.

So you would not be auto damaging opponents that you have no chance of hitting such as gods, high AC dragons or heavily armored foes in general. And any DR should definitely apply. And a crappy role is truly a miss.

 

[Fifth Element]

That barring crits bit is the important thing though as it is criticals that provides that differing degree of success on an attack roll. Damage is variable because it makes it more exciting from a game perspective and from a believability point of view in that every hit should not be doing equivalent damage.

You missed my point. My point is that, except in rare cases (crits), the amount of damage dealt by an attack is divorced from the "quality" of the attack roll. You hit by 1 or by 15, you still roll the same damage dice. That's very abstract, and doesn't "make sense".

Heck, in 3E you could still roll crap on your critical damage, and cause less damage than another attack that just barely hit, but rolled well on damage.

 

[Empath Negative]

Sitting at the table hearing that you missed but you did 4 damage anyway is just plain old dumb. It's like Affirmative Action for fighters. Can't compete? Here's some free damage.

Mod Note: Please see my post below. ~Umbran

At some a fighter will swing at the BBEG, or even a mook, the DM will announce the player missed, and then the DM will take the piece off the grid. It's cheap and it's dumb.

4e failed. And let's get that clear... it failed... because of the crunch. Not the fluff. So if you want to make a new edition of d&d the first order of business is to identify what about the crunch made it fail.

Abilities like this, weapon damage with half hits even when you miss... I guarentee it's the kind of crunch that didn't help.

 

[herrozerro]

Sitting at the table hearing that you missed but you did 4 damage anyway is just plain old dumb. It's like Affirmative Action for fighters. Can't compete? Here's some free damage.

At some a fighter will swing at the BBEG, or even a mook, the DM will announce the player missed, and then the DM will take the piece off the grid. It's cheap and it's dumb.

4e failed. And let's get that clear... it failed... because of the crunch. Not the fluff. So if you want to make a new edition of d&d the first order of business is to identify what about the crunch made it fail.

Abilities like this, weapon damage with half hits even when you miss... I guarentee it's the kind of crunch that didn't help.

Oh, so now we are going there. Im not even gonig to stoop to that level...

Im done here.