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

[Campbell]

[MENTION=11586]RigaMortus2[/MENTION] I prefer Option 2, but with a couple conceits. I prefer to let players narrate the effect of attacks or spells used against them just as I narrate the effect of spells and attacks they use, and I pride myself on knowing the abilities of the player characters especially always active abilities like Reaper. Here's my version of the exchange -

DM: The ogre growls, his eyes set upon Draven. He stumbles forward, swinging his massive club. Hits AC 19 for 30 damage.
Draven/Joe: That's a hit. Draven stands tall, interposing his blade in the way of the the ogre's club, but cannot withstand the ogre's might. The club finds its home in Draven's solar plexus. He grunts in pain, grits his teeth. He'll live. How does the ogre look? Perception 15.
DM: You've given him a solid beating. He's struggling to lift his club, but you've cut off his only avenue of escape. Your turn.
Draven/Joe : Seeing opportunity, Draven lunges forward with his blade. Hits AC 13 for 11 damage.
DM: As Draven lunges forward he stumbles a bit on debris and misses his mark, but is able to make impact with the flat of his blade. The ogre topples over. Bet your glad you picked the Slayer theme Joe.
Draven/Joe: That was a close one.

Of course there would probably be a little more back and forth if interrupts rear their ugly head.

 

[Fifth Element]

Again I can't help but think that Armor as DR would be better at reflecting this than a system where missing is a confusing combination of real missing and glancing blows that normally don't affect hps (but that perhaps should).

Yes, that's an argument that has been made, I suspect, since the day after OD&D was first released. Armour as DR would be more realistic, but since the D&D combat system has never been about realism, that's not much of a concern.

It would seem that there are three situations here:
1. Genuine Missing (not hitting Touch AC)
2. Glancing Blows (hitting but not dealing hp damage)
3. Genuine Hits (hitting AC and dealing hp damage)

In this context a slayer should do 0hps in situation 1, STR mod in 2, and normal damage in 3. Essentially my issue (as well as others who have concern with the Reaper ability), is that Reapers do STR mod damage in situation 1 when they should not.

Because, once again, it's an abstract system. Details are left out in favour of playability.

I mean, why are you content with damage being determined separately from hit/miss? You have only one category of "genuine" hit there. But surely hitting AC by more than 10 points should be a better hit that just barely hitting it? Yet against an opponent with a 12 AC, an attack roll of 12 will do just as much damage on average as an attack roll of 22, because damage is determined separately (barring crits).

You're advocating degrees of failure based on the attack roll, but not degrees of success. That's not very realistic, though it is quite abstract.

 

[Steely_Dan]

The only thing I didn't like about it at first is that we forgot to apply it to a several attacks! But now, very happy (I like the fighter to have that consistency).

Had our first play-test last night, this is the edition I have been waiting for since 2nd Ed.

 

[Obryn]

I get why people like the mechanic, or don't see any problems with it when it comes to description or the narrative it produces. I feel like it's been asked a few times, but maybe it hasn't been clear. What, exactly, makes it so good that it shouldn't be replaced by an ability that more people would find acceptable?.

I think at this point, the trenches have been dug, and that's pretty much that.

I have absolutely no narrative/versimilitude reason for disliking the mechanic, and I have basically zero patience for an attitude of "wizards get cool stuff because MAGIC." And I think it's pretty good at low levels - Slayers should be able to mow through kobolds.

With that said, it's basically the most boring way to mow through lesser opponents imaginable. This seems to be borne out in playtest reports; if a slayer doesn't even need to roll a die, it's kinda boring, no? Regardless of how thematic it is?

Like I said earlier, getting automatic advantage against enemies below a certain HP threshold (looking at max hp here, not current) would work for me. Set it fairly high though - 5 hp per level or something like that. Along with Cleave, this would work for me and probably cause fewer problems for folks who are dead-set against "miss damage."

I think the "enemy gets disadvantage when you miss them" sounds nice, but the more I think about it, the more I think Slayers might want to miss if that's the benefit; think of the party nova possibilities.

-O

 

[Dalamar]

With that said, it's basically the most boring way to mow through lesser opponents imaginable. This seems to be borne out in playtest reports; if a slayer doesn't even need to roll a die, it's kinda boring, no? Regardless of how thematic it is?

My experience is exactly the opposite. In the playtest I DMed, the player of the fighter was extatic once he realized he couldn't fail to kill kobolds. He stopped rolling the attack die, and instead described in detail how he killed each kobold and rat. Group favourite was bodyslamming a kobold into boiling oil (oil had been established as being right next to the two).

 

[I'm A Banana]

What, exactly, makes it so good that it shouldn't be replaced by an ability that more people would find acceptable?.

It's part of a theme, right?

So it can be theoretically swapped out for something that the people with problems with it would be happy with.

It's the promise of the modular nature of 5e: You don't HAVE to use any bit or fob.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's part of a theme, right?

So it can be theoretically swapped out for something that the people with problems with it would be happy with.

It's the promise of the modular nature of 5e: You don't HAVE to use any bit or fob.

what I want to know, is if it is such a problem this theme, why not just not take slayer, make your fighters a guardian...

 

[Nathal]

How about automatic miss on a natural 1, with no auto-damage? Seems fair and easy enough. I've used rules like that forever.

With that said, it's basically the most boring way to mow through lesser opponents imaginable. This seems to be borne out in playtest reports; if a slayer doesn't even need to roll a die, it's kinda boring, no? Regardless of how thematic it is?

-O

 

[Obryn]

My experience is exactly the opposite. In the playtest I DMed, the player of the fighter was extatic once he realized he couldn't fail to kill kobolds. He stopped rolling the attack die, and instead described in detail how he killed each kobold and rat. Group favourite was bodyslamming a kobold into boiling oil (oil had been established as being right next to the two).

Well, I am playtesting tonight. I will see what my own group thinks!

-O

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Again, I like Obryn's suggestion. Advantage on attacks against weak opponents captures the slayer concept for me better than automatic damage. This could be handled a few ways.

1. A flat HP threshold that scales with level. It's simple, but it also requires that the player be told when he's within that threshold.

2. It kicks in when the monster is below 50% hit points (bloodied). Similar problem as above, but the bloodied concept is at least familiar.

3. Based on Challenge Rating or monster level.


Mechanically, I think number 1 is the best due to the finishing move feeling of it.