Glancing Blow Looks Like A Miss

[Ahnehnois]

Mechanically, it should be based on the target's AC, but that requires the player knowing the target's AC.

Why would it require that? If you take the add CS die to attack roll version or something of that ilk, the player simply has to guess whether it's worth using (as fighter players have to do all the time).

Why can't it just be straight "On a miss"?

Because then you could miss by 20 or attack a god or roll a 1 and still deal damage.

 

[CM]

Because then you could miss by 20 or attack a god or roll a 1 and still deal damage.

For the sake of simplicity, take a page from the book of DM empowerment and just say no.

If you're letting players get into combat in such a ridiculous situation, rules minutae shouldn't really matter.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For the sake of simplicity, take a page from the book of DM empowerment and just say no.

If you're letting players get into combat in such a ridiculous situation, rules minutae shouldn't really matter.

Attacking a god is a ridiculous situation, but rolling a 1 happens roughly 5% of the time, and against powerful enemies, I find even fighters regularly miss by 10 or more. The playtest doesn't exactly have high AC foes and the 5e numbers scale less, but I still think missing needs to A) exist and B) still exist even with this maneuver.

 

[braro]

Because then you could miss by 20 or attack a god or roll a 1 and still deal damage.

I'm good with that; houseruled!

 

[Roxolan]

Attacking a god is a ridiculous situation, but rolling a 1 happens roughly 5% of the time, and against powerful enemies, I find even fighters regularly miss by 10 or more. The playtest doesn't exactly have high AC foes and the 5e numbers scale less, but I still think missing needs to A) exist and B) still exist even with this maneuver.

But why? Is it so hard to accept that a Slayer fighter could be skilled enough that none of his attacks are completely harmless? You gave the god example, that has been answered, but then you just made the same assertion again without explanation.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but attacks that do damage even on a miss (or can't miss at all) are already in the game. Magic Missile and Inflict Light Wounds are but two out of many.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But why? Is it so hard to accept that a Slayer fighter could be skilled enough that none of his attacks are completely harmless?

Yes!

Even a really wonderful fighter is going to fail to inflict harm for at least six seconds at least 5% of the time; even that is rather conservative. And these abilities are not just for skilled fighters, they're available to first level characters.

What about the converse, is it so difficult to accept that any attack has a chance of not doing damage?

You gave the god example, that has been answered, but then you just made the same assertion again without explanation.

It wasn't answered so much as dismissed, despite the fact that D&D frequently involves encounters with gods/demon princes/great wyrms (i.e. things that are really powerful and that PCs should not be able to harm so easily) and has rules for them.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but attacks that do damage even on a miss (or can't miss at all) are already in the game. Magic Missile and Inflict Light Wounds are but two out of many.

Those are spells, not attacks. Also, in most iterations, inflict spells do require a real attack roll (not a "magic attack roll") and do nothing on a miss.

 

[Roxolan]

What about the converse, is it so difficult to accept that any attack has a chance of not doing damage?

Not particularly, but in that case I'd rather not see the ability at all than this messy and useless incarnation of it. And yeah, if that's a design goal, then obviously the same should apply to spells.

It wasn't answered so much as dismissed, despite the fact that D&D frequently involves encounters with gods/demon princes/great wyrms (i.e. things that are really powerful and that PCs should not be able to harm so easily) and has rules for them.

If you're facing a being this powerful, they're not monsters, they're plot devices. You don't break out the dice, and you don't deal 1d4+1 damage with Magic Missile either. They're firmly in the realm of GM fiat.

Those are spells, not attacks. Also, in most iterations, inflict spells do require a real attack roll (not a "magic attack roll") and do nothing on a miss.

The effects of a spell are as arbitrary and in the hands of the game designers as the effects of an attack.

Edit: incidentally, almost every damage spell in D&D Next automatically deals at least some damage.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not particularly, but in that case I'd rather not see the ability at all than this messy and useless incarnation of it.

This definitely could use improvement; good suggestions have been given.

And yeah, if that's a design goal, then obviously the same should apply to spells.

Obviously spells have nothing to do with fighter class abilities.

If you're facing a being this powerful, they're not monsters, they're plot devices. You don't break out the dice, and you don't deal 1d4+1 damage with Magic Missile either. They're firmly in the realm of GM fiat.

Then why do they have stats?

The effects of a spell are as arbitrary and in the hands of the game designers as the effects of an attack.

Actually, since physical attacks are grounded in reality and magic is not, magic is more arbitrary. With regards to the physical side of the game there is a lot of wiggle room because it's a game and because D&D isn't particularly realistic, but there are constraints as to what people will accept.

 

[Salamandyr]

Seems to me it would work well to move the required roll to 5+