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

[Fifth Element]

But in terms of the flavour attached, most combatants are doing this as described in the full argument. To say that someone does this better would be OK if everyone did x but the reaper gets to do x+y. But the reaper gets something for this while everyone else gets absolutely nothing. This is where I'm saying that the flavour does not mesh.

I don't see the issue. All characters can do this, it's just that the slayer gets to cause a piddly bit of damage (a mechanical effect) when doing so.

This is the nature of feats. In 3E, Power Attack puts a mechanical effect on something that all melee combatants would do during a fight. Same for Combat Expertise and many others. These feats represent something that the character is particularly good at, so why shouldn't he get a mechanical effect that other characters, who are not particularly good at it, do not get?

Otherwise, what's the point of feats?

 

[Iosue]

Reaper: Your aggressive fighting style makes all of your attacks close calls.
Benefit: You never fully miss, always connecting in some way with your attack. Even if your attack roll is under AC, you still deal damage equal to the ability score modifier of the ability you used to make the attack.

Done and done.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I don't see the issue. All characters can do this, it's just that the slayer gets to cause a piddly bit of damage (a mechanical effect) when doing so.

It is certainly related to how one looks at the mechanics of the game. For you it's piddly damage. For me it's full of anomalies that can (and often do in a lower level game) end up being lethal. To each their own.

This is the nature of feats. In 3E, Power Attack puts a mechanical effect on something that all melee combatants would do during a fight. Same for Combat Expertise and many others. These feats represent something that the character is particularly good at, so why shouldn't he get a mechanical effect that other characters, who are not particularly good at it, do not get?

Otherwise, what's the point of feats?

I think exclusionary feats such as power attack, weapon finesse and combat expertise were used to accomplish numerous things (including getting fighters to not dump stat intelligence amongst others). I think a better design would have been giving any combatant the option to perform such attacks (a reckless, finesse or defensive attack for example alongside the maneuver attacks such as trip, grapple, overrun etc.). The power attack, weapon finesse or combat expertise feats are then used to augment something that is already there for everyone at a basic level; rather than excluding some from doing something they should be able to do and that the game should mechanically support.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Fifth Element]

I think a better design would have been giving any combatant the option to perform such attacks (a reckless, finesse or defensive attack for example alongside the maneuver attacks such as trip, grapple, overrun etc.). The power attack, weapon finesse or combat expertise feats are then used to augment something that is already there for everyone at a basic level; rather than excluding some from doing something they should be able to do and that the game should mechanically support.

This is getting into "a rule for everything" territory. One good thing, from a game design standpoint, about consigning these things to feats is that not everyone has to learn the rules for them. If you take the feat, you learn the rules. Otherwise they're irrelevant to you. It keeps the basic system simpler and easier to learn.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

This is getting into "a rule for everything" territory. One good thing, from a game design standpoint, about consigning these things to feats is that not everyone has to learn the rules for them. If you take the feat, you learn the rules. Otherwise they're irrelevant to you. It keeps the basic system simpler and easier to learn.

I don't think a handful of different ways of attacking is that much effort and is certainly not trying to cover everything, if anything it is consolidating things. I think consolidating maneuvers into force and finesse maneuvers and attacks into standard, finesse, reckless and defensive actually constrains things nicely allowing the various feats and specific styles to neatly branch from these fundamental attack forms. Everyone in melee can do these six things. Like ability scores in 5e, they become the lens through which an action is made. Food for thought anyway and more consolidation than a rule for everything I think.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[mach1.9pants]

Reaper: Your aggressive fighting style makes all of your attacks close calls.
Benefit: You never fully miss, always connecting in some way with your attack. Even if your attack roll is under AC, you still deal damage equal to the ability score modifier of the ability you used to make the attack.

Done and done.

That sorts the plausibility but can cause other problems. Any power/feat/etc that only works on a hit...

To me the plausibility is not a problem. A miss in DnD is not a whiff in the air, DnD's armour system doesn't work that way. So 'miss' is not technically a miss but a 'not fully damaging in a meaningful way' result... hits but bounces of armour etc etc. So if you have the ability to always meaningfully (mechanically) hit then no plausibility probs. The only thing is the DM would have to cramp down on things which don't feel right, like the auto killing every animal in bow range mentioned on the other thread.

 

[pemerton]

But in terms of the flavour attached, most combatants are doing this as described in the full argument. To say that someone does this better would be OK if everyone did x but the reaper gets to do x+y. But the reaper gets something for this while everyone else gets absolutely nothing.

Everyone does get to do X flavor-wise; it is just that in the case of the average adventurer, X rounds down to zero.

My analysis would be a bit different from IanB's. I would say that everyone does get to do X, flavour wise - everyone has a chance of hitting and doing damage. It's just that for the reaper, the chance of hitting is 100%, though above a certain threshhold (= to X) then the damage they do will be greater.

In which case their is no mechanical backup for the flavour and a lack of meshing of the two, leaving the reaper feat sticking out.

As I posted upthread, I think it's obvious that the flavour is crap, and that the "close call" thing should just be a reflection, on any appropriate occasion of narration, of the general hit point rules.

But Reaper doesn't particularly stick out in this respect. The Sleep spell also has stupid and misleading flavour (about sprinkling sand). And all this misleading flavour is a direct descendant of Essentials, which has overdone and often misleading flavour for its feats and powers.

Done and done.

Yep. The rewrite is easy: the Reaper never misses, but only gets to add the damage beyond the stat modifier on a successful attack roll.

 

[pemerton]

I think consolidating maneuvers into force and finesse maneuvers and attacks into standard, finesse, reckless and defensive actually constrains things nicely

In my experience it actually tends to open a can of worms.

Some of the worms relate to other features of the ingame situation. For example, why can't I take an attack penalty to move further? (In Rolemaster, HARP and 4e this is possible. In AD&D it's not. In 3E it is, but only once your BAB gets to +6, so that the difference between single attack and full attack comes into play.)

Why can't I make a perception check to look for weak spots in his armour and then exploit them? (In Burning Wheel this is possible. RuneQuest and HARP don't call it out, but they have piecemeal armour systems plus perception mechanics plus called shot mechancis that should make it possible. RM doesn't have piecemeal armour rules or called shot mechanics, so this can't be easily worked into the game.)

Etc.

And some of the worms relate more to metagame issues. For example, doesn't my bonus to hit represent my skill as a fighter? So why, then should I - the player - be deciding whether it is better to fight defenisvely or fight recklessly? Shouldn't the adoption of optimal tactics already be expressed in my combat bonus? (Runequest takes this approach.) The issue is compounded by a feat like Power Attack, which doesn't trade off attack for defence, but rather trades off one part of attack (to hit) for another part of attack (damage). Given that the attack roll is abstract, and the damage roll is independent of it (so provided I hit, there is no difference between a 12 or a 19 on the d20, and either could result in a roll of 1, or a roll of max, damage). So what does Power Attack even correspond to in the game? To use a piece of terminology coined elsewhere, it looks to me like a "dissociated" mechanic that only has meaning within the mathematical apparatus of D&D's to hit and damage rolls.

(HARP has a power attack option that does correspond to something in game - you can sacrifice attack bonus to increase your damage adjustment. But in HARP, damage is not independent of attack roll: you hit if attack roll less foe's defences > 0, and provided that you hit, then you then apply damage adjustments to work out the final damage number, and a look-up table tells you what actual damage this corresponds to. And that damage is not ablative, like in 3E, but wound results. Which means that you can't just optimise your power attack based on a DPR calculation, as you can in 3E. So in HARP, unlike in 3E, power attack really does model sacrificing precision for force.)

TL;DR: If the game is built around an abstract combat engine, with abstract to hit rolls, abstract damage rolls and abstract hit points, be wary of the implications of introducing points of detail into your resolution system. They can quickly ramify and derail the whole thing.

 

[pemerton]

That sorts the plausibility but can cause other problems. Any power/feat/etc that only works on a hit...

Given the abstraction of the combat system, it wouldn't do any harm in any event to use the terminology "successful attack roll" rather than "hit". Use mechanical language to describe the mechanics. Use ordinary language (like "hit") to describe the fiction. And leave it open to individual players to equate the two or not.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Given the abstraction of the combat system, it wouldn't do any harm in any event to use the terminology "successful attack roll" rather than "hit". Use mechanical language to describe the mechanics. Use ordinary language (like "hit") to describe the fiction. And leave it open to individual players to equate the two or not.

good point