D&D (2024) Graze on a miss questions

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm not dying on any hill. I'm just not going to use a new rule. (shrug) Is it vital that I change my mind?

No. And what you use is totally your thing.
But one rule makes as much sense as the other. And me pointing that out is totally my thing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I find it easy to imagine how the damage happens. Since hit points represent luck and stamina as much as meat damage, graze damage is just the attacks being so hard to avoid that the target is using up all their luck to just-barely dodge it. I'm sure you can picture many fights like this from fiction.

"Okay but what if someone DIES from graze damage?"

I totally agree with that and I would like to rule that grace damage can not reduce someone to 0 hp.

 

[Reef]

I totally agree with that and I would like to rule that grace damage can not reduce someone to 0 hp.

I like graze, but adding that rider seems to be a sensible addition.

 

[Reef]

I like the idea that these weapons are so massive that it takes extra work to block or dodge them. That you even feel it through the armour. But I wonder if the name ‘Graze’ conveys that.

Maybe something like Gruelling, or Punishing. Um…guess that doesn’t fit with the naming pattern. Tire? Weary?

Oh well, that’s why no one is asking me to write this stuff…

 

[Rejuvenator]

So why is damageonamiss the hill you want to die on?

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

I like the idea that these weapons are so massive that it takes extra work to block or dodge them. That you even feel it through the armour. But I wonder if the name ‘Graze’ conveys that.

Maybe something like Gruelling, or Punishing. Um…guess that doesn’t fit with the naming pattern. Tire? Weary?

Oh well, that’s why no one is asking me to write this stuff…

To me, this IS what the thread is about: asking the obvious questions ("obvious" at least to the poster) about the rule, what it means in the fiction to us.

 

[James Gasik]

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".

 

[Reef]

I guess this whole idea swings on whether someone believes hit points are a combination of body/fatigue/luck/plot amour or if they think they are 100% body.

To me personally, I've always thought it obvious they were the former. High level fighters get more stamina for dodging, more skill for turning mortal blows into lesser ones, etc. It didn't make sense to me that a high level fighter is suddenly physically more bulletproof. That they can suddenly be stabbed 8 or 9 more times through the chest than a 1st level fighter. So the idea that a blow could be so massive that it was extra taxing to avoid (whether desperately dodging or enduring more shock through shield or armour) is perfectly reasonable.

I can see how someone who does see hit points as actual meat points, that high level fighters really do grow bigger or more dense, would definitely have a problem with this.

This sort of 'miss but not' mechanic isn't entirely new. Heavy Armour Master sort of does the same thing in reverse:

Graze
"A ha! He rolled under my AC! A miss!"
"Yep, but you still take 4 points of damage from shock/fatigue"
"But he missed..."

Heavy Armour Master
"The monster rolled over your AC! A hit!"
"Yeah, but my armour reduces the damage to nothing!"
"But they rolled over your amour!"

 

[Reef]

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".

Actually, the scaling is one reason I'm not overly concerned with it. It's a great ability when you are fighting goblins. When fighting giants, it's more of a consolation prize (and potentially more palatable fiction-wise).

 

[Rejuvenator]

I can see how someone who does see hit points as actual meat points, that high level fighters really do grow bigger or more dense, would definitely have a problem with this.

How about more John Wick?

He takes a ton of meat damage, but he never grew bigger or more dense.

(I say this as someone who sees hit points as a hybrid of body + mind + genre conceits -- the latter which I have a love-and-hate relationship with)

 

[Reef]

How about more John Wick?

He takes a ton of meat damage, but he never grew bigger or more dense.

Yes, but how is he taking more meat damage than he did when he was merely level one John Wick? I'd argue it was his skill turning lethal blows into survivable ones (which to me, is escalating Hit Points).