D&D 5E Poll on the Reaper: is damage on missed melee attack roll believable and balanced?

[eamon]

There's been vocal discussion on the matter, but mostly by a few parties that care either way. So how does the en-world population at large feel about missed melee(!) attack rolls resulting in damage?

To be clear: I'm talking about abilities like the Reaper on the playtest fighter which does 3 damage on a miss (and a hit would deal 2d6+7 or between 9 and 19 damage). I'm not talking about ranged attacks or even one handed weapon attacks to avoid getting lost in hypotheticals: just the Reaper as it is now.

 

[erleni]

I don't see any problem. Characters do not know if players hit or miss with their dice. They only can see that the Reaper is able to wear down enemies pretty fast.

 

[Dannager]

Hit point damage is an abstraction that does not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with a sword coming into contact with your enemy's flesh.

Basically, I have a hard time seeing how this is something to complain about, from a believability standpoint, unless you reject the fundamental notion that hit point damage is not the same as physical injury.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't like it at all...it wrecks my willful suspension of disbelief. In my brain, a miss means a failure to deal damage. If a creature takes damage (of any kind, for any reason, however it is defined), it somehow got hit. Therefore, the attack was not a miss. Therefore, my disbelief shatters.

Maybe I'm "doing it wrong." But that's how I'm always going to do it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There's been vocal discussion on the matter, but mostly by a few parties that care either way. So how does the en-world population at large feel about missed melee attack rolls resulting in damage?

I think it feels a little wierd but not as bad as the surge. However given the reaction, i think wotc would be wise this time to consider criticisms in believability issues (even if supporters of the mechanic can offer what seems like a plausible explanation, the designers really should pay a bit more attention to this stuff this time around IMO).

 

[B.T.]

"Balanced" and "believable" are two entirely different things.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hit point damage is an abstraction that does not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with a sword coming into contact with your enemy's flesh.

Basically, I have a hard time seeing how this is something to complain about, from a believability standpoint, unless you reject the fundamental notion that hit point damage is not the same as physical injury.

You might not, but the same could be said about the healing surge mechanicsin 4e or the marttial enciunter powers and people had enough issues with those to walk away from the edition.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

That depends on how I'm feeling about Hit Points at any given moment. Mostly it doesn't bother me very much as its not a lot of 'damage'. (Of course, I've long felt strongly that armor should be mostly damage reduction and less hit avoidence, but large numbers of HPs means that doesn't really work.) {shrug}

 

[eamon]

"Balanced" and "believable" are two entirely different things.

Hope it's clearer now the poll is up; sorry about the delay (had to trim the options down to length...)

 

[variant]

No option for 'It should be melee only.'