D&D (2024) Graze on a miss questions

[Charlaquin]

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!"

To be fair to the anti-damage-on-a-miss folks, I think most of them also see HP as a combination of body/fatigue/luck/plot amour. It’s just that they want body to always play at least a small part. Even if it’s just a little scratch, they want a “hit” to involve some physical damage, which is why the go-to argument in defense of this position is that poison doesn’t make sense if there‘s no actual contact.

 

[Gorck]

You don’t really need to reimagine how hit points work. Hit points are a combination of physical damage and nonphysical (emotional/mental) damage. Graze causing damage on a miss can be interpreted as a swing coming so close to hitting that the target loses morale or gets scared *^%#less.

Sure, but I think to further @CleverNickName point, certain ways of imagining hit points may beg the question of what does the damage types actually mean (slashing, bludgeoning, etc.)? Why do melee weapons have that kind of granularity in describing weapon damage? Maybe the damage type is just a description of how you die when a weapon kills you but it has nothing to do with hits that don't reduce you to 0 hp. In my opinion, some rules make me more curious or confused about how hit points work than other rules.

Would it make more sense if they changed the damage type from Graze to Psychic?

 

[Rejuvenator]

Would it make more sense if they changed the damage type from Graze to Psychic?

Hmm, I'd say yes and maybe.

Yes, because if the designers did that, it tells me they are trying to reconcile or connect the rule with the fiction that some/many people are imagining, and that's a good thing.

Maybe, because I don't know if everyone will be imagining the consequences of the miss as being mental or morale-related. It might be something else, depending how they imagine it.

 

[The Shadow]

The inconsistencies I like are sensible, reasonable abstractions.
The inconsistencies you like are gamey, dissociated nonsense.

The inconsistencies he likes will destroy the hobby forever!!

 

[Reef]

Would it make more sense if they changed the damage type from Graze to Psychic?

Actually, that would make it worse for me. To me, DoaM is definitely physical. It’s either the extra shock of parrying a massive weapon, the concussive force that is still felt through the armour, or the extra fatigue it takes to avoid. All indications of being worn down.

Psychic would imply somehow that it is all mental, and opens a whole other can of worms about who is affected and or how can it be blocked.

 

[Gorck]

Actually, that would make it worse for me. To me, DoaM is definitely physical. It’s either the extra shock of parrying a massive weapon, the concussive force that is still felt through the armour, or the extra fatigue it takes to avoid. All indications of being worn down.

Psychic would imply somehow that it is all mental, and opens a whole other can of worms about who is affected and or how can it be blocked.

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.

 

[Tutara]

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.

My feedback for a lot of the Weapon masteries will be that the idea is good, but the names don’t work for me.

Graze sounds like something I did to my knee when I was small - I’d prefer Impact or Crushing Blow (and then tie them into the less numerically popular bludgeoning weapons), in the same way I’d like anything other than Nick for the dagger mastery.

 

[Shiroiken]

• what the various opinions from the community about graze on a miss?

I'm sure it's a divided topic, as the flamewars about it during the D&D Next playtest were legendary. Personally I have no issue with it because I don't view HP as "meat." Since you don't actually take any significant wounds until half HP, per the description of HP, the idea that you'd suffer minor damage from a "miss" doesn't really break verisimilitude unless you conflate every mechanical miss with a wild swing that doesn't make contact. Since AC includes armor, many "misses" are contact that failed to produce damage, the notion that a "miss" cannot include contact is rather silly to me.

• what is the in-fiction story that connects to the graze on a miss mechanic?

The weapon connects, but your armor or dexterity allows you to avoid significant damage (i.e HP loss). Due to their mastery of that type of weapon, they are able to still graze you enough to deal a minor amount of damage. The name is only an issue in the rare instance that the missed attack actually drops the character to 0 HP, in which case the "graze" must have hit a major vein or artery.

• what is the in-fiction story behind the rule that "this damage is the same type dealt by the weapon"?

The same reason you can "hit" someone with a greatsword and not kill them. Actual contact with a greatsword would very likely either kill you or deal bludgeoning damage through the armor you are wearing. Instead, the game assumes the same damage type regardless for simplicity sake. In my descriptions as a DM I often change the damage type to account for this, but mechanically it remains the same.

 

[Gorck]

My feedback for a lot of the Weapon masteries will be that the idea is good, but the names don’t work for me.

Graze sounds like something I did to my knee when I was small - I’d prefer Impact or Crushing Blow (and then tie them into the less numerically popular bludgeoning weapons), in the same way I’d like anything other than Nick for the dagger mastery.

Yeah, I've Nicked myself shaving many times and i find it does extra slashing damage. I've never Nicked myself shaving by hitting myself with a second razor blade in my other hand

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

I generally consider the damage type as the primary damage type. After all if you are hit by a sword it is still a meter long bar of spring steel weighing in at around 8-900 grams. It is gonna hurt even if you were caught by the flat of the blade. Also, even if it cuts, some of the energy delivered will be blunt force trauma.
As I have said elsewhere D&D combat is too crude an approximation to subject to this level of fine analysis.