D&D 5E I Don't Like Damage On A Miss

[Invisible Stalker]

I can see it working, but only against multiple adjacent opponents. I missed the goblin I was aiming at with my sword, but it hit the one next to him and hit for x damage.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

So you're saying that when facing an opponent with an AC of say 18, made up of a base amount of 10 and +8 for some heavy armour, and you roll a 17 to hit, that should be interpreted as a whiff? If your opponent did not have his heavy armour, you would have hit. His heavy armour makes him a dodging machine?

You should have quoted my entire response incorporating touch AC rather than clipping it off. I agree that a 17 is a hit in that it strikes the opponent but due to their armor the glancing blow was not strong enough to deal hit point damage. I think armor in this regard is too simplistic and would prefer Armor absorbing damage but again, best for another thread. In the case you present, hitting a 10 AC or better is considered a hit and a 9 AC or less is considered a miss. The problem I have with a slayer "miss" is that it lumps a genuine miss, and a miss due to armor etc. in together obfuscating what the hell actually happened (particularly when an abysmally rolled miss potentially kills something). Split these into the slayer not hitting the touch AC as 0hp damage and a failure due to armor dealing STR mod hp damage and I'm cool as a cucumber with it. As stands, the designers can surely design this better.

Has "miss" ever been defined in game terms as anything other than "failing to roll high enough on an attack roll"?

I think 3.x/PF handles this well with Touch AC or at least lays the foundation for it. Again it would be nice if the definitions used in the core rules made sense. A hit striking the opponent (even if not well enough to damage) is a hit. A miss, misses the opponent completely. Would it be that confusing for everyone if they did this?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Fifth Element]

You should have quoted my entire response incorporating touch AC rather than clipping it off.

I was responding to the part where you said a miss is, by definition, a whiff.

I think 3.x/PF handles this well with Touch AC or at least lays the foundation for it. Again it would be nice if the definitions used in the core rules made sense.

Yes, 3E added some precision in that regard, which 4E essentially continued with the Reflex defence in addition to AC. It's not confusing, but may be too fiddly in a system which is still very abstract, even with that amount of precision added.

 

[Empath Negative]

So... I'm a human commoner who has lightning fast reflexes, and by lightning fast... I mean I'm literally "The Flash". I can move faster than the speed of sound.

But I JUST got my powers, so I still have the hitpoints of a level 1 commoner. We'll say 3 because of my sickly con because I did a lot of meth when I was younger or something.

Now, despite having an AC of 99 the Reaper can murder me without question. I simply can't beat him. If I'm standing next to him at the end of combat, despite being able to watch him swing his axe, eat a hamburger, drink a milkshake, and debate the virtues of Oprah's marriage... and then step out of the way at my leisure.

I still die.

GTFO. I could kill SUPERMAN if he had few enough hitpoints. He might have DR/- 9999. Doesn't matter. Superman dies. Don't even need kryptonite.

Now you might say this is nonsensical but stuff like this WILL COME UP IN THE GAME.

And the question is this: What is so damned important about keeping reaper the way it is that it supersedes the suspension of disbelief ire it will cause for many if it's kept in?

Is some vast wonderful thing gained by having it the way it is? No. Not really. Whereas by removing it, and things like it, you dodge a particularly nasty bullet.

 

[Fifth Element]

So... I'm a human commoner who has lightning fast reflexes, and by lightning fast... I mean I'm literally "The Flash". I can move faster than the speed of sound.

But I JUST got my powers, so I still have the hitpoints of a level 1 commoner. We'll say 3 because of my sickly con because I did a lot of meth when I was younger or something.

...

Now you might say this is nonsensical but stuff like this WILL COME UP IN THE GAME.

NO IT WON'T.

Keep the examples reasonable if you want to make a point. Bringing up things that WILL NOT HAPPEN doesn't help your case.

 

[herrozerro]

the superman example doesnt work at all either, even dr/- 3 would negate the slayer's ability

 

[Obryn]

GTFO. I could kill SUPERMAN if he had few enough hitpoints. He might have DR/- 9999. Doesn't matter. Superman dies. Don't even need kryptonite.

As pointed out below, even a DR of 3 neuters the ability.

Now you might say this is nonsensical but stuff like this WILL COME UP IN THE GAME.

No? It won't? What's your hypothetical Superman doing, just sitting there and taking it? And how's the Fighter surviving long enough to Reap him to death with 3hp pings?

If you've houseruled into existence a character with AC99 and 3 hp, it's fair game to Rule 0 and say you can also override Reaping. Yes, fallacy and all that, but let's face it - the example itself is already violating the Rule 0 fallacy.

And the question is this: What is so damned important about keeping reaper the way it is that it supersedes the suspension of disbelief ire it will cause for many if it's kept in?

I think no matter what WotC introduces as the default, someone will say their suspension of disbelief is violated. I don't know that WotC should appeal to the most conservative of attitudes regarding design decisions like this. Big tent. Compromise. All that stuff. I won't get everything I want, either, I'm sure.

But! As I said before, I don't particularly like the mechanic. It's both boring and underpowered against any foes other than goblins. If this were a L10 playtest, people would likely be complaining that the Slayer feature is completely useless and boring rather than being overpowered and boring.

-O

 

[Obryn]

I am not the person that you asked, but this was my list as a non-4e fan (this is off the top of my head so I might be missing one or two things)

Interesting list! Thanks! I would just +rep you, but...

-O

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Let's try this definition:
A "hit" occurs when a character strikes an opponent with a weapon and inflicts meaningful physical harm. A "miss" is when a character attempts to do this, but it unsuccessful.

Except that 14 damage on a critical 'hit' isn't even 'meaningful physical harm' to a character with more than 28 hit points-- meaning that this paradigm itself is nonsensical in relation to the hit point system.

Let's try this:
A "hit" occurs when a character may or may not have physically struck his opponent with a weapon but somwhow caused that opponent to have a diminished fighting capacity. A "miss" is when a character attempts to do this, but it unsuccessful.

In this paradigm damage on a miss is still nonsensical.

In that case, we are defining 'hit points' as a character's fighting capacity-- some combination of endurance, pain tolerance, and morale.

A Slayer, then, is someone who attacks so relentlessly and overwhelmingly that they cause 'damage' without striking their opponent directly-- even blocked, their blows dent armor and drive their enemies' shields into their chests and faces. Parrying their strikes leaves your hands numb and strains your muscles, and every crashing blow makes it that much harder to get your weapon back in line.

I fought a guy like that once. Broke my nose by driving the rim of my shield into the faceplate of my helmet. There's no way that was a 'hit' from a greatsword, but I could easily buy that as 3 or 4 damage.

Of course, all those other things people said about damage on a miss being anticlimactic and unbalanced are true too.

I really don't see that at all. Reaper damage is nowhere near 'hit' damage, and can only kill things that are either pitifully weak-- in which case there's no 'climax' to spoil-- or have been battered down to their last handful of hit points. Finishing someone off with a cherry tap is less climactic than ending a long, brutal fight with one glorious critical... but can certainly have dramatic impact if the DM has been playing the enemy's dwindling hit points appropriately.

As for 'unbalanced'... what is unbalanced about it? How is the Fighter being able to deal up to 5 damage on a miss more powerful than the Wizard being able to deal 1d4+1 multiple times in a round without even rolling? It's nowhere near as powerful as the Guardian's ability to grant disadvantage to one attack per round.

You want to take away automatic toHit bonuses every 2 levels, fine but give us a +1 ability bonus choice every level to compensate and give us better toHits without increasing our total ability scores above 20 and our natural bonuses over a natural +5.

I agree that the ability caps are a bad mechanic that should not be reinstated, and that ability score increases are a good mechanic that should be.

I love the death of the scaling attack bonuses because it allows weak monsters to challenge high-level characters, and gives low-level characters a fighting chance against stronger monsters. I love that characters are less superhuman, and take longer to become superhuman, than in 3.X.

But characters above level 10 are living legends, characters above level 20 are approaching divinity, and I want their ability scores to reflect that.

It's amazing to me that people want multiple options for the types of attacks a fighter makes, but not to describe the outcomes of those attacks.

Choices are good. In traditional D&D, Fighters have always been the class with the least options. 4e changed that and many people, even non-fans, believe that was a good thing.

I'd add in dodging vs blocking and vitality vs wounds before I'd see a fighter having class abilities other than simple mathematical bonuses.

I'd love to see a Conan-style Parry and Dodge system in D&D, but it seems to me that it would interact poorly with the Armor Class rules and changing to an Armor as DR system would either be horribly unrealistic and unbalanced, or else overcomplicated and unwieldy-- especially in comparison to the beautifully elegant ruleset we're using.

The entire battle does matter. However, if you have a highly dangerous opponent, almost dead, the fighter attacks it, rolls a 2 and misses, and that opponent goes on to kill a PC the next round, the fighter player will be saving "man I wish I was a slayer".

Which is a good thing, because that means the player who did choose to be a Slayer gets to feel better about the times his character or someone else's have been dropped because he wasn't able to protect them like a Guardian would have.

Conversely, if the same situation arises and a slayer rolls a 2, misses the enemy's AC by 15, and still kills it, the DM will be incredibly frustrated, and anyone with a hint of objectivity will smell the cheesiness of it.

Really? Because as a DM, I design my monsters with the intention they're going to be killed and it's going to take a lot of hits and Slayer-style misses before that one missed attack roll is going to kill my BBEG anyway.

If the Fighter kills my epic BBEG with a lucky critical, I'm going to lavishly describe the resulting decapitation or diagonal cut.

If he kills him with the cherry tap instead, the BBEG is going to laugh at the feeble attack... and then cough up some blood, stare at it in amazement, and collapse. Or maybe I just won't tell the players he's dead at first, until he skips his next action and they notice he's literally dead on his feet.

Neither of those is anti-climactic, and done right, they make a very minor mechanical ability look a lot more awesome than it really is.

Furthermore, how did the wizard feel about MM being at will and un missable for even more damage than the slayer miss?

Talk about meaningless choices...

I like Slayer, but I don't like magic missile. I think all spells should be attack rolls, if for no other reason than to give Wizards a reason to stay sober.

On the other hand, I don't mind the scaling on magic missile. Compare it to the Fighter's additional attacks.

Now, as I mentioned before, I agree that the Reaping thing is a cruddy mechanic purely from a mechanical point of view. It's boring, and it gets less and less important as hit points and damage inflate around it. I have no qualms about a Fighter auto-killing a kobold. But in a few levels, that ability will be less and less good.

I'd imagine that it would combine interestingly with other mechanics that Slayers get at higher levels, especially Fighter Slayers. It's not bad at all for a Fighter with multiple attacks against a high AC opponent.

And no offense but should d&d next's core start with such ridged traditionalism? Should kobolds have 3hp because by the gods thats what they used to have?

No scaling attack and saving throw bonuses. Skills that aren't associated with specific ability scores. Wizards and Clerics using different systems for preparing and casting magic.

I'm not seeing a lot of rigid traditionalism here. Kobolds have 3 hit points because they're chump monsters that are supposed to go down in one hit.

 

[gloomhound]

Damage on a miss? I'm agin' it!