D&D (2024) Graze on a miss questions

[Charlaquin]

Absolutely nothing. Armor and shield aren't the only things that can make an attack miss.

But they do contribute to the chances of an attack missing, even when it doesn’t make sense for them to. And that’s fine, because hits, misses, and damage are abstract things that represent whatever they need to to make a cohesive narrative out of the mechanical interactions.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's the best part: Nothing!

We're simulating an action scene in fantasy game. AC is just a number to help the game go tagged to the armor because it's convenient.

Yes, that is the point I was trying to illustrate socratically.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

But they do contribute to the chances of an attack missing, even when it doesn’t make sense for them to. And that’s fine, because hits, misses, and damage are abstract things that represent whatever they need to to make a cohesive narrative out of the mechanical interactions.

They even had Touch AC to try to model this more realistically in 3.X. It's no longer a thing because 5e is less concerned with that level of "realism".

 

[Charlaquin]

They even had Touch AC to try to model this more realistically in 3.X. It's no longer a thing because 5e is less concerned with that level of "realism".

Not gonna lie, I actually kinda liked Touch AC. But I get why they got rid of it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Absolutely nothing. Armor and shield aren't the only things that can make an attack miss.

No. But it affects the hit chance nosensically if you think about it.

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

 

[CleverNickName]

No. But it affects the hit chance nosensically if you think about it.

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

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?

 

[Kalmi]

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?"

Still easy. It's the classic "Ha you missed!... oh I'm dead" trope. The combatants clash, the target mocks the poor aim of the grazer until a wound opens up seconds later and they fall down dead.

 

[soviet]

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

 

[Morrus]

I'm gonna have to make that subforum again, aren't I?

 

[Tutara]

Damage on a miss is ace. The graze property is fun.

However, I’d rather like it to become the fighter’s schtick at a certain level, rather than be limited to certain weapons. I see it as making fighters a dependable, consistent combatant in the way that expertise makes rogues dependable, consistent infiltrators. “At level X, fighters always graze their target.”

Barbarians hit super hard but can be swingy, fighters grind you down with the attrition of superior technique.