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

[DEFCON 1]

Facing an opponent with an AC of 12, you roll a 19 on the die for a total of say 23. It seems you've completely outclassed your foe on that one. And then you roll snake eyes for damage. Oops, turns out you didn't do as well as you thought. Or you could roll an 8 on the die and just barely hit the foe (apparently), but then you roll 2 sixes for damage. Turns out what should have been a glancing blow was really a massive strike.

Similarly, you can't jump into narrating a Reaper attack based on the result of the d20 roll, because there's that damage to account for. If you say you swing over the creature's head, and yet cause damage, you'll look as silly as saying that you *just* got a glancing blow through your foe's defences, but then roll max damage and kill it in one shot.

Quoted for truth.

And this kind of rather dodgy narrative logic between game rules and fluff is all across the game, which is why I just can't get worked up about it. And why I have a hard time seeing another person's viewpoint where one dose of dodgy logic they can gloss over, but another one is the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Fifth Element]

You know what I find unbelievable? The idea that in a 6-second round, a trained fighter will only swing his weapon once. That's just silly. What's he waiting for?

Attack rolls, like hit points, are abstract. Heck, in some earlier editions weren't combat rounds 1 minute long? Are we really supposed to believe that you only make one attempt at a hit every minute in those games?

So describing a poor attack roll as "a whiff" is not believable, because that implies only a single swing of the weapon. That's not what an attack roll represents. I believe Gygax was equally explicit about this as he was about hit points.

 

[Fifth Element]

In such a system, a reaper does hit point or wound damage on their main attack (dependent upon skill, advantage, disadvantage), but they are always going to force a small loss of hit points, representing the bumps and bruises, wearing down and even fear of the defender, but never their wounds. That's my preference anyway.

Absolutely, such a system would provide more precision for thing like this.

However, given that the playtest does not use such a system, instead relying entirely on abstract hit points, claims that the Reaper thing doesn't "make sense" don't really make sense.

 

[P1NBACK]

You know what I find unbelievable? The idea that in a 6-second round, a trained fighter will only swing his weapon once. That's just silly. What's he waiting for?

Attack rolls, like hit points, are abstract. Heck, in some earlier editions weren't combat rounds 1 minute long? Are we really supposed to believe that you only make one attempt at a hit every minute in those games?

So describing a poor attack roll as "a whiff" is not believable, because that implies only a single swing of the weapon. That's not what an attack roll represents. I believe Gygax was equally explicit about this as he was about hit points.

It's a good point, but I think the idea was always, "you do a series of attacks during this 'attack roll' and if one of them hits, you deal actual damage".

So, sure, your series of attacks might not deal any damage. That's because you're crashing against their armor, or they are dodging, or they're just cuts and scrapes.

When you land a solid blow during that series of attacks, it's actually harmful and could kill you.

 

[FireLance]

Well, here's a way to trade off some balance for increased simulation, though I realize that I'm opening myself up to some quote about giving up a little balance for a little extra simulation:

Keep the current Reaper feat, but have a variant (maybe call it Reverse Strike) that works as follows: when you miss on your attack roll, as a free action, you may make another attack that deals your ability modifier damage. You may roll twice and use the better result for your second attack, and you may target a different opponent than the one you targeted with your first attack.

This makes it quite likely, although not a certainty, that the Reverse Striker will hit on his second attack. There is also the additional flexibility of targeting a low-hp opponent with the lower-damage second attack instead of the original target. High AC opponents are also less likely to be affected, which is another plus from the simulationist perspective. Given 5e's goal of bounded accuracy, you are also unlikely to encounter an opponent that you can only hit on a natural 20.

Those who don't want to deal with the additional die rolling, or who prefer the certainty of automatic damage, can stick with Reaper instead.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's a good point, but I think the idea was always, "you do a series of attacks during this 'attack roll' and if one of them hits, you deal actual damage".

So, sure, your series of attacks might not deal any damage. That's because you're crashing against their armor, or they are dodging, or they're just cuts and scrapes.

Absolutely - I'm addressing the claim that a low roll on a d20 must be considered a "whiff". Crashing your opponent's armor and dealing them some cuts and scrapes can certainly justify such a minimal amount of damage as Reaper allows. The objection was that kobolds could be killed without even touching them, which is nonsensical in the context of an abstract attack roll.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Absolutely - I'm addressing the claim that a low roll on a d20 must be considered a "whiff".

It is not that it must be considered a whiff, but there should be some possibility that it could be a whiff (with the caveat that a "1" most likely should be a whiff). The slayer with it's absolute design says the slayer never whiffs if the "miss" kills the defender. Trace it all back to hit points doing a crap job of representing physical injury.

In terms of design, I'm sure someone at WotC could come up with something that is more effective, more flavourful and without the anomalies. That would be better for everyone.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Redbadge]

The problem is that it's not "good" when it comes to having overwhelming support. When 30-40% of people don't like it as it stands now, that's not "good" when it comes to believeability. You may disagree, and that's fine. Like I said, I can understand the "miss" damage, but it's the uber-competence that gets me in the long run. I just don't accept that.

I get why you like it. Thanks for replying to me. But surely you can help come up with something that 88-90% of people would like that would seem ferocious and relentless? As always, play what you like

My group and I really like the Reaper feat as it stands. It is super fast, simple, easy to adjucate, and makes my younger brother smile pretty much every time it came up, both on kobolds and on the ogre. However, I could see replacing it with something that doesn't generate 30+ page threads, as long as that something was just as quick, easy, and fun to us (or more so).

Curiously, since other game elements such as Vancian magic and save-or-die (and a not insignificant number of other topics) also generate 100s of pages of vitriol and heartache (and no doubt around 30-40% really don't like it), should we alter and parse these other mechanics until 90% of people are satisfied with their final form? This is an honest question. Perhaps, your answer is "tradition", which does sound like a reasonable response to me, but I'll give you a chance to answer.

Edit: This question goes back to your point about not including controversial rules elements in the core game, but reserving them for detached modules, because some people don't want certain assumptions to be in the base rules.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It is not that it must be considered a whiff, but there should be some possibility that it could be a whiff (with the caveat that a "1" most likely should be a whiff). The slayer with it's absolute design says the slayer never whiffs if the "miss" kills the defender. Trace it all back to hit points doing a crap job of representing physical injury.

Thing is, a skilled swordsman can 'whiff' a swing or two, but there's no way a skilled swordsman deliberately trying to kill a corporeal creature-- except perhaps a Quickling-- goes six whole seconds without hitting something. And if he's hitting armor, hitting shield, even hitting his enemy's weapon... there is a degree of force and frequency for which those 'inconsequential' contacts will wear down an opponent's ability to keep defending himself.

If one of those 'cherry taps' is the blow that takes the monster from 2 hit points to -1 hit points... maybe the furious smite rended through the foe's shield and into the foe's chest. Maybe the deflected thrust nicked a major artery as the attacker recovered. Maybe the accumulated bleeding from all of the minor cuts and scratches finally sent the victim into shock.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Thing is, a skilled swordsman can 'whiff' a swing or two, but there's no way a skilled swordsman deliberately trying to kill a corporeal creature-- except perhaps a Quickling-- goes six whole seconds without hitting something. And if he's hitting armor, hitting shield, even hitting his enemy's weapon... there is a degree of force and frequency for which those 'inconsequential' contacts will wear down an opponent's ability to keep defending himself.

But here essentially is the problem. Hit points are meant to track this wearing down.

When you "Hit" (as in not miss), this is supposed to represent this wearing down until reaching bloodied (half hit points) or until zero or below (an incapacitating injury). That first half of hit points is meant to represent the contacts among other things that affect the character's capacity to defend.

However, other things that should equally cause such wearing down in combat such as running and charging, jumping and climbing, as well as swinging a chunk of metal do not affect hit points and so perhaps when a character misses, even if it is inconsequential contact, why should this be singled out and registered as hp loss when the others are not? Or, if all combatants are doing this in combat (such as you suggest),why is the reaper singled out as the only one who gets to have these efforts acknowledged as having an effect?

Essentially:
*If it is inconsequential combat contact that the reaper's ability comes from (and which all combatants are subject to), it should be available to all combatants and not just the reaper.
*If on the other hand it is the "close call", then consistently close calls causing death fails to make sense either.

Whichever way you cut it, the mechanic and the flavour are not quite meshing in my opinion.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise