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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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?