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

[Campbell]

Given the abstraction of the combat system, it wouldn't do any harm in any event to use the terminology "successful attack roll" rather than "hit". Use mechanical language to describe the mechanics. Use ordinary language (like "hit") to describe the fiction. And leave it open to individual players to equate the two or not.

Wish I could xp. It should have always used that language. Same for failed attack roll/miss when things like armor are used in the calculus of attack rolls.

 

[Fifth Element]

TL;DR: If the game is built around an abstract combat engine, with abstract to hit rolls, abstract damage rolls and abstract hit points, be wary of the implications of introducing points of detail into your resolution system. They can quickly ramify and derail the whole thing.

Yes.

Given the abstraction of the combat system, it wouldn't do any harm in any event to use the terminology "successful attack roll" rather than "hit". Use mechanical language to describe the mechanics. Use ordinary language (like "hit") to describe the fiction. And leave it open to individual players to equate the two or not.

And yes. The disadvantage being that "hit" is much easier to say and read than "successful attack roll." But another term would be a good idea. Like when they called healing surges "healing surges" when they aren't necessarily healing.

 

[molepunch]

Reaper: Your aggressive fighting style makes all of your attacks close calls.
Benefit: You never fully miss, always connecting in some way with your attack. Even if your attack roll is under AC, you still deal damage equal to the ability score modifier of the ability you used to make the attack.

Done and done.

This.

 

[Herschel]

Yeah, I'll play too... what nonsense!

Why do people think that a fireball going off directly in your character's area is "missing"? That's not missing. [Of course the real disparity here is that an archer needs to roll to hit where as the wizard's fireball pea has unerring accuracy.]

In fact aside from the accuracy thing, the wizard might have it fairly hard here having to get through spell resistance, fire resistance, and even then it affords the target a save for half, not counting cover, evasion or improved evasion. Imagine if a fighter had to put up with their targets getting a chance to halve the damage every time they hit?

The crucial difference here is that a fireball may deal partial damage on a hit. The reaper automatically deals partial damage on a miss. The two situations are different regardless of trotting out the magic versus mundane stuff.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

LoL, the poor, poor, Wizard has it sooo hard. The fact is, as you mentioned, the Wizard AUTOMATICALLY hits for at least partial damage, if not full. The Fighter, in your scenario, has to make a hit roll (which the Wizard doesn't) and can only get full damage or nothing (where the Wizard gets essentially guaranteed half damage).

Also, in your scenario, Fighters are nothing but Stormtroopers, whiffing left and right while only getting the occasional "hit" against a statue. With things like AC, he isn't missing his target, he's hitting "armor", getting paried, only glancing blows. In baseball terms, the Fighter isn't the Home Run hitter who hits one out every 8ish at-bats but strikes out more often than not, he's the contact hitter who puts the ball in play consistently but the fielders can make a play.

 

[tomBitonti]

Odd scaling, and too unique

I'm still working our the exact reasons, but there seems to be something wrong about the scaling of miss damage.

Also, there doesn't seem to be a precedent for damage on a miss. Is the mechanic a throw-away for testing, or is it intended to be worked into the core mechanics as an option for how damage is applied? If it is kept, it seems to imply other and varied uses. Save for half, perhaps, but that has so far been kept as a distinct mechanic, for different sorts of cases.

Personally, I don't like it, since it strays into a whole different way of handling combat. That is, instead of rolling to hit and damage, just figure the expected damage, and directly apply that in each round of combat. "You hit on an 11+ for 1-8 + 2" becomes 6 or 7, automatically. That seems to be what damage on a miss is close to, and that (to me) is not the D&D style.

Edit: Also, I don't like non-scaling abilities. For example, I use a house ruled scaling tumble (AC bonus == Tumble roll - 15), instead of the fixed DC 15 check.

TomB

 

[CleverNickName]

So the answer would be for them to make it the Fighter does damage on a miss unless the target has fewer HPs then the total damage done.

Actually, "the answer" for us was to just ignore the Reaper feat. Now, whenever the fighter misses his target, the target's hp total doesn't change. It works perfectly.

 

[Salamandyr]

I got about 8 pages into this thread, so perhaps this has been covered prior to this. Point of personal experience, I've fenced, and studied HEMA for about seven years now. What this means is, every Saturday I go out to the park with some other guys, and do my best to hit my friends with steel swords. I bring this up to allege that I have some experience with damage on a "miss"

Some of the guys I train with are so aggressive that even when you parry their blade, either with your blade or block with your buckler, it hurts. They're strong, they're aggressive, and the force of their impact shocks your arm, loosens your grip, and wears you out even when they technically "miss". Oftentimes, if you counted up points, I won, as in, I managed to strike them in a more deadly fashion than they struck me, if they struck me at all(and sometimes I lose...we're all about equal in skill level). But against these guys, by the end of a bout, I'm bruised, sore, and worn out to a much greater extent than I am after a bout with someone else who might have other talents but is less aggressive. So the Reaper thing makes complete sense to me. Even when these guys miss they hurt.

If nicking an enemy to death with misses is a real problem (I'm not convinced that it is), perhaps a rule that an opponent can only be killed on an actual hit. So you can wear a guy all the way down to 1 hp with "misses", but the last strike must come from a successful hit roll. That would seem to bridge the game between reapers strike being a useful ability and "realism".

 

[Herremann the Wise]

LoL, the poor, poor, Wizard has it sooo hard. The fact is, as you mentioned, the Wizard AUTOMATICALLY hits for at least partial damage, if not full. The Fighter, in your scenario, has to make a hit roll (which the Wizard doesn't) and can only get full damage or nothing (where the Wizard gets essentially guaranteed half damage).

My tongue was slightly in cheek with that. Common resistances to fireball effects are normally ignored when discussing that spell as well as the fact the fireball doesn't miss but heh, there's no denying that the fireball spell can be pretty darn powerful at sweeping out creatures with low hps (and not so low hps).

Also, in your scenario, Fighters are nothing but Stormtroopers, whiffing left and right while only getting the occasional "hit" against a statue. With things like AC, he isn't missing his target, he's hitting "armor", getting paried, only glancing blows. In baseball terms, the Fighter isn't the Home Run hitter who hits one out every 8ish at-bats but strikes out more often than not, he's the contact hitter who puts the ball in play consistently but the fielders can make a play.

I'm a big fan of 3.x/PF Touch AC. That's the real indicator of whether someone is whiffing or not.

However, I make no such comment when it comes to a fighter hitting. When a fighter hits, they should be able to do a heap of cool stuff like 4e martial exploits. If the reaper is making touch AC, go to town with bonus damage although I think there are two better mechanics to represent this:

* Armor as DR is a better representational mechanic for making touch AC and bleed-over hps (with the reaper being able to ignore a portion of that DR even), and

* Splitting out physical damage as wounds and leaving hit points to represent everything else. That way when the reaper misses it can be morale, skill to parry or whatever that sucks up some hit points (but not wounds).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[pemerton]

there doesn't seem to be a precedent for damage on a miss.

Except for the very many 4e abilities (including martial powers) that do damage on a miss. Including Reaping Strike and Hammer Rhythm, which seem to be the immediate ancestors of Reaper.

 

[tomBitonti]

Except for the very many 4e abilities (including martial powers) that do damage on a miss. Including Reaping Strike and Hammer Rhythm, which seem to be the immediate ancestors of Reaper.

Ah. I should have said up to 3.5E/Pathfinder. I've read through a portion of, but have not played 4E, and (not justifying it, just showing my perspective) don't include 4E in D&D. That is purely my own perspective!

Actually, it is a telling point, that I didn't include a mechanic from 4E, and shows how one can miss a larger perspective.

Thx!

TomB