D&D (2024) Graze on a miss questions

[Cap'n Kobold]

One thing that people may not be bearing in mind is that an attack roll does not necessarily represent a single swing of a weapon. A "graze" effect might be that the attacker applies a technique involving multiple swings that will end in an opponent getting hurt or being put at disadvantage in some way or other whatever they do.

 

[Reef]

All of your bolded suggestions seem to imply bludgeoning damage. But now that I’ve given it more thought, I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around Graze doing piercing or slashing damage on a missed attack.

Well, they were just examples. But as stated, D&D doesn't have a fine enough damage system to really make differentiation possible (or worthwhile). The weapon dealt damage/fatigue/removal-of-plot-armour, how it is described depends on the situation (and I would expect varies from round to round, as most DM's try to keep things interesting in their descriptions of the mechanical effects).

 

[Charlaquin]

All of your bolded suggestions seem to imply bludgeoning damage. But now that I’ve given it more thought, I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around Graze doing piercing or slashing damage on a missed attack.

How often does bludgeoning vs. piercing vs. slashing even make a difference though? Like, unless you’re fighting skeletons, they’re pretty much interchangeable.

 

[OB1]

Really the problem with Graze is, since it doesn't really scale, after a few levels it's going to be fairly pointless unless WotC changes how hit point escalation works for monsters (which I kind of doubt). Sure, being able to do 3 damage on a miss is neat when you're fighting foes of less than CR 1, but it's going to stop feeling less impressive to do 5 damage to a 105 hit point Hill Giant.

And that's before we even get into the discussion about resistance to damage reducing Graze damage to fractions.

It's a very conservative ability, a far cry from 4e's "half damage on a miss".

It does scale as you increase your STR stat from 3 to 5, and basically gives you +2 Damage per round to your DPR calculation at the highest (40%*5). It also scales nicely with the fighter's extra attacks and actions surges.

As a side note, I really hope they change the heavy weapon property to be STR based instead of Size based.

 

[Gorck]

Well, they were just examples. But as stated, D&D doesn't have a fine enough damage system to really make differentiation possible (or worthwhile). The weapon dealt damage/fatigue/removal-of-plot-armour, how it is described depends on the situation (and I would expect varies from round to round, as most DM's try to keep things interesting in their descriptions of the mechanical effects).

I suppose just having it do “the same damage type as the weapon does” is a way to simplify things.

How often does bludgeoning vs. piercing vs. slashing even make a difference though? Like, unless you’re fighting skeletons, they’re pretty much interchangeable.

I’m not entirely concerned with what damage type it does. It was asked of me how “the same damage type as the weapon” made sense logically. I was merely trying to work it out as a running stream of consciousness as more opinions were given.

 

[Reef]

I suppose just having it do “the same damage type as the weapon does” is a way to simplify things.

I’m not entirely concerned with what damage type it does. It was asked of me how “the same damage type as the weapon” made sense logically. I was merely trying to work it out as a running stream of consciousness as more opinions were given.

I'd say you're right, in that it's just the easiest way of simplifying things. Especially as mentioned, how it rarely comes up.

To be honest, in the middle of combat, I doubt anyone would even notice if my on the fly narration didn't match the weapon type. Just to add fuel to the fire, I wouldn't even require the narration to involve the weapon, because I've seen too many action movies do this:

"Miss. Drat. But Damage on a Miss!"
"Sure. You swing the great sword in a huge arc that he barely manages to deflect at the last moment. But as he's reeling, you smash your fist into his face."

I know that's probably way outside some people's comfort zone. But like I said, it happens in movies all the time, and I try to keep my fights feeling cinematic. I've got no problem saying that they are so highly trained with that weapon, they take any and all opportunity. And heck, I'm pretty sure real combat in the past would do such a thing. But like I said, I don't expect everyone to jump on board this train joyfully .

 

[UngeheuerLich]

To me, I don't think this thread should be about hill-dying or feeling like we're being tasked to justify our preferences.

No. You don't have to justify your preference. But I can still point out, if an explanation really makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Parmandur]

My opinion: "damage on a graze" forces the player to reimagine the way that hit points, damage, attack rolls, and weapons all work in order for it to make sense. I'm not willing to do that, so that new rule will never make sense to me. (Which is fine. I've never needed it.)

I mean, it works with HP as Gygax defines them in 1974, so it's good enough for me. 4E may have made it a little too endemic as a mechanic, bit as the Spwcial Thing for Greatsword & Glaice specialist Warriors? 'Sfine.

 

[Parmandur]

Dunno if anyone shared this upthread, but this is relevant:

"Hit points are a combination of actual physical constitution, skill at the avoidance of taking real physical damage, luck and/or magical or divine factors. Ten points of damage dealt to a rhino indicates a considerable wound, while the same damage sustained by the 8th-level fighter indicates a near-miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, a bit of fatigue piling up against his or her skill at avoiding the fatal cut or thrust. So even when a hit is scored in melee combat, it is more often than not a grazing blow, a mere light wound which would have been fatal (or nearly so) to a lesser mortal. If sufficient numbers of such wounds accrue to the character, however, stamina, skill, and luck will eventually run out, and an attack will strike home..."

From Gary Gyax's article Much about melee published in Dragon #24 (April, 1979).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I suppose just having it do “the same damage type as the weapon does” is a way to simplify things.

I’m not entirely concerned with what damage type it does. It was asked of me how “the same damage type as the weapon” made sense logically. I was merely trying to work it out as a running stream of consciousness as more opinions were given.

I think one way to look at the damage type is that you're using a weapon that is most likely going to deal piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage. If a target has special protection against piercing/slashing/bludgeoning, certain things that would normally be dangerous strikes are a lot less dangerous. But even though you strike with your slashing Greatsword, you might actually end up piercing through a slink in the target's armor, or actually smashing him with a fist or whatever.

A damage on a graze might not happen with a sword against a slashing-resistant monster because the monster doesn'T actually have to put the effort into defending from it because some blows will just be absorbed by its resistance. But if you don't have that kind of protection, the damage-on-a-graze guy is hitting so hard and so often that you're exhausting yourself a bit to keep dodging it, or it still is ringing in your ears even if it hits the toughest part of your armor or whatever.