D&D 5E (2014) Poll on the Reaper: is damage on missed melee attack roll believable and balanced?

[TwoSix]

Wow, relevant necro! Nice!

 

[herrozerro]

It's because of the recent revival of the argument on the WotC boards. Em can't contain his displeasure for the mechanic.

 

[MJS]

I'm a hater, but don't agree with the poll statement. It's a very, very minor consideration, so easily tossed it doesn't matter. But I do hate it, and had to vote hate.

My hate has made me strong...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yes, although I think by introducing Touch AC, it allows you to freely but accurately describe situations where missing or ineffectively hitting is important.

Just three states will do:
1) Miss (not make touch AC),
2) Ineffectively Hit (make touch AC but no AC), and
3) Effectively Hit (making AC).
This should be enough to cover issues such as contact poison, reaper damage, magically damaging touch and so on where isolating one of these three is logically important.

You separate physical wounds from everything else hit points represent (morale, turning a blow, luck, divine providence, skill etc.). Hit points then have the freedom to represent a reaper terrifyingly miss their opponent; the close call whiff - not making touch AC but taking away "morale" hit points. Alternatively you can wear them down by forcing them to block their blows (making touch AC but not their AC) and incurring a like number loss of hit points.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

A "miss" against touch AC but beating the base DC for hitting an immobile object could also mean that you had to exert energy to avoid being hit. I figure dodging blows can get strenous over time.

 

[billd91]

A "miss" against touch AC but beating the base DC for hitting an immobile object could also mean that you had to exert energy to avoid being hit. I figure dodging blows can get strenous over time.

Dodging wearing down the target is already built into hit points in the first place. With an attack that does damage even on a miss, there's now no completely ineffective attack. It's always wearing down the target and I can't appreciate losing the completely foiled, avoided, or bungled attack. Now, if the attacker had the choice to inflict damage on his target even on a miss but it cost him, then I think we'd be on to something much more interesting.

 

[Halivar]

My number one complaint though is that a 1st level fighter can always damage a 20th level fighter. I just don't believe that is the case 100% of the time. Not in any fantasy world I would imagine.

To be fair, a 1st vs 20th level fight has all kinds of other problems beside that ought to be immersion breaking, regardless of edition. The models break down completely, IMHO.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think the overall design makes a big difference.

In August 2012 we were one attack with increasing dice as you level. It was a bigger deal when you missed.

Now we're at increasing number of attacks as you level.

Part of the autodamage was because you only got one chance to attack per round. But if I'm swinging 2-3 times at the mid levels then if I miss them all then I don't feel like I deserve to still do 2-3 times my Strength modifier.