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

[Ellington]

I think it's alright.

There should be some sort of feat you should be able to take where you never take damage on a miss, though.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

So do you reject the long-standing, fundamental assertion of D&D that states that hit point damage is not a reflecting of physical injuries sustained, but rather the ability to dodge, turn hits into near-misses or scrapes, sheer luck, and determination to fight? In other words, the assumption that hit points don't represent anything more than a very abstract idea of a character's will and ability to continue?

If so, why do you choose to reject that assertion?

You've got your information wrong.

It has already been proven, and quoted, that hit points "do" represent physical contact and other abilities such as luck.

So I'm not sure where you get this "long standing assertion" from.

From 3.5:
HIT POINTS
Your hit points tell you how much punishment you can take before
dropping.

 

[Obryn]

There's a 270+ post thread here about the same topic.

I like the poll, though. I didn't see my own option, though - "Damage on a miss is okay for believability and balance, but Reaper is a really weak feat that looks like it will be boring and scale badly." I picked OK for both, because IMO it's certainly not overpowered!

-O

 

[Dannager]

I think Dausuul has it perfectly pinned why it is so jarring for many people.

I don't have a problem with the slayer wearing down his enemies a bit on a miss. I do have a big problem with the fact that he can get a killing strike, on a miss.

At that point it's not about the definition of abstract hitpoints anymore, but about attacks that are capable of killing opponents when they really shouldn't be.

So an attack that misses but causes an enemy to dodge out of the way in a foolhardy manner, accidentally cracking his skull on a table/knocking himself unconscious on a door/impaling himself on a spike/tumbling off a cliff/stabbing himself with his own dagger, etc., despite being perfectly plausible, a staple of fantasy fight scenes, and obedient to the rules structure, is completely unacceptable in your mind and has no place in D&D?

Really?

 

[Dannager]

You've got your information wrong.

It has already been proven, and quoted, that hit points "do" represent physical contact and other abilities such as luck.

So I'm not sure where you get this "long standing assertion" from.

Of course hit points represent physical contact, but that's not all that they represent, as I pointed out.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Of course hit points represent physical contact, but that's not all that they represent, as I pointed out.

That's not what you implied.

So do you reject the long-standing, fundamental assertion of D&D that states that hit point damage is not a reflecting of physical injuries sustained, but rather the ability to dodge, turn hits into near-misses or scrapes, sheer luck, and determination to fight?

Your own words.

 

[Dannager]

That's not what you implied.

So do you reject the long-standing, fundamental assertion of D&D that states that hit point damage is not a reflecting of physical injuries sustained, but rather the ability to dodge, turn hits into near-misses or scrapes, sheer luck, and determination to fight?

Your own words.

Then consider me clarified. I don't think anyone else actually thought I meant that hit points were never lost due to physical injury.

 

[herrozerro]

For everyone that hates damage on a "miss", Reaper's text need only be changed:

"When the die would indicate a miss, the character with Reaping Strike lands a glancing blow that inflicts minor damage."

Take that! Willing Suspension of Disbelief!

It's even simpler than that. didnt anybody read the reaper feat description???

"Your aggressive attack style makes all of your attacks close calls.?

What is so hard about that to believe?

 

[El Mahdi]

For everyone that hates damage on a "miss", Reaper's text need only be changed:

"When the die would indicate a miss, the character with Reaping Strike lands a glancing blow that inflicts minor damage."

Take that! Willing Suspension of Disbelief!

Do you realize just how often people who had a problem with this in 4E were told the same thing...?

It didn't wash then, and it doesn't wash now. It's not an extreme thing to want both the mechanics and fluff to make sense from the start, without having to do the designers jobs for them...

This is one of the things that was a major complaint about 4E, and a major point of division. It's a significant mistake to do this again with 5E, to any extent.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then the question that deserves to be asked (and I'm sure the designers of the game are asking it of themselves constantly) is: Should the rejection of core principles of abstraction - principles that have a defensible gameplay raison d'etre, as well as long-standing tenure in D&D's history - by a segment of the fan-base influence the developers of the game to reject those principles as well? In other words, to what extent do the game's designers allow those with particularly fragile suspension of disbelief to cull otherwise-solid elements of the game from the final product?

No that isn't the question they should be asking. They should be asking how do stop driving players away from the game and at the same time attract new blood (I am not going to get into a debate with you about HP----I am tired of having the same discussion over and over on that point--- but like the other poster above, i don't share your conclusions about them).