D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[Weather Report]

I definitely think damage on a miss will not be default for GWF, thank god.

The pro-damage on a miss folk seem to think (and exclaim) that only 9 or so people do not like it, but it seems the same 9 (actually, less) or so on here and on other boards really dig it.

Hmm, yeah, I think it will go (or be a Feat, like Tactical Warrior).

 

[Burninator]

Sorry, but this is more a feature than a bug.
Fighting is not less about maneuvering, feinting, positioning... than trading actual blows. If something must die in a fire, it's the "Damage die by weapon" rule. Even if you want to use those funny polyhedrals (by the way, they make cool modrons minis), having a damage die per class and fighting style is far better than the traditional binary proficiency nonsense.

Weapon selection matters in D&D, and those funny sided dice are one of the core things that makes D&D unique. A greatsword using a different damage die than a longsword is a sacred cow that will never die, and for good reason : bigger swords can kill you better. This is where simulationism comes in : if fighting proficiency mattered and weapons didn't, why did we bother honing metallurgy and weapon engineering and balance for centuries?

A branch is nowhere near as effective as a sword, not in D&D, and not in real life. Fighting style might be similar, but if I harry / penetrate your armor every time I attack, I still want a big sword to deal more damage than a branch. I'm sorry, but that's just common sense. Anyway, feedback also showed when they removed D6s and replaced it with Deadly Strike since it allowed weapon choice to have a meaningful impact on the game as you progressed in levels, and then even replaced that with multiple attacks so that str mod and +ses from magic weapons to remain proportionally relevant, then that is also a clear sign that this mechanic fails to conform to the feedback that stated weapon choice should matter.

Not only that, but when they made rogues auto-succeed on skills, that was taken out due to poor reaction and it being not fun. So the agency of the dice, again, are reinforced as mattering a lot to gamers.

 

[Derren]

if fighting proficiency mattered and weapons didn't, why did we bother honing metallurgy and weapon engineering and balance for centuries?

Because different armors call for different weapons, something D&D never really simulated, which is imo a shame (2E had some variants for that I think).

 

[Burninator]

I definitely think damage on a miss will not be default for GWF, thank god.

The pro-damage on a miss folk seem to think (and exclaim) that only 9 or so people do not like it, but it seems the same 9 (actually, less) or so on here and on other boards really dig it.

Hmm, yeah, I think it will go (or be a Feat, like Tactical Warrior).

Yeah, I'm fine with edge-case techniques like this being in a feat.

At least I can play core games without feats as part of the standard rules, and find some.

Being able to mute feats is going to turn D&D Next into one of the most easily modularizably-by-game-style things.

Aside from that, these fighting styles have way too much overlap with feats like Dual Wielder, Great Weapon Master, etc to remain as-is. There's no way Great Weapon Master will remain as is on a balance level only (or other feats will be boosted to be comparable, such as Dual Wielder), and I just don't see why they need two ways to re-affirm that I'm good with two-handed weapons. It's redundant to offer that to fighters then get them to double down on it with a feat.

I'd be much more comfortable with them reversing which one of these was a feat. GWF should give Cleave, and the feat should give you 2X str mod or just Power Attack. Something like that. Then damage-on-a-miss can be in a feat, and I can rest easier.

It's hard to tell people to houserule three core PHB classes' non-optional mechanics from the game with a straight face. As if that will go over well with new players. At least with feats, you can guarantee that feat glut will make it less and less likely to come across this mechanic at a game table. Bury it through rarity / obscurity works for me. It cannot remain in the big 3 fighter classes if they even want to pretend to go after all the classic D&D gamers' dollars

D&D is 3rd now, they can't just throw away potential customers like that. Ill will from this should have an impact, hopefully before it's too late. If you say "houserule it away", then the DM has to give another option in its place. Something that won't be portable to other tables, and probably have balance and design issues of its own.

The lowest common denominator PHB rules should be as inclusive as possible, by not introducing mechanics that force the exclusion and marginalization of old-school D&D fans or any other major play style. It's much easier to add stuff than take it away. Hard to ban stuff from the core PHB fighter, in my experience. Especially when it's in the ranger and the paladin too. That's another point about bad design here, which they will surely clean up : fighting styles should be in a separate list, no use in copying the same mechanic three times. If (i.e. when) there are errata, you'll have to change every single time this is mentioned. If it's defined in one place, with classes referring to those similar to spells, that allows those styles to increase over time

 

[billd91]

Because different armors call for different weapons, something D&D never really simulated, which is imo a shame (2E had some variants for that I think).

You must have missed 1e's Weapon Types, General Data, and "To Hit" Adjustments table. That was a weapon vs armor type modifier table.

 

[Burninator]

Because different armors call for different weapons, something D&D never really simulated, which is imo a shame (2E had some variants for that I think).

You have 3000 posts on this forum yet say this. False.

Edited to remove snark, I apologize.

 

[Zardnaar]

This mechanic is terribad.

 

[pemerton]

with auto damage I always have to either narrate an impact of some sort or - if not the reason given by the developers (i.e. brunt force through armor)- I have to try and rationalize an even more improbable reason that I've sapped his stamina or whatever it is that lowers his hp the equivalent of my strength mod.

So narrate an impact. Narrate the great weapon fighter carving up his/her enemies, cutting them down like wheat before the scythe! Isn't that what a player who chooses this ability is looking for?

 

[bogmad]

So narrate an impact. Narrate the great weapon fighter carving up his/her enemies, cutting them down like wheat before the scythe! Isn't that what a player who chooses this ability is looking for?

... I just told you I don't want to EVERY TIME.

 

[TwoSix]

... I just told you I don't want to EVERY TIME.

So just say a great weapon fighter's fighting style is to swing her weapon in front of her in broad, sweeping arcs. Her great strength renders this lethal to any without a modicum of fighting talent who do not move themselves from her reach. Even those with fighting skill find themselves bruised and battered by trying to avoid the relentless reaving of the trained warrior.

There you go. A single narrative voice to fall back on for the character.