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

[Imaro]

The earlier editions do it wrong. Or at least, add in wholly unnecessary subsystems.

Uhm... ok, if you say so. Guess the conversation is over because TwoSix believes all the earlier editions did it wrong... are you serious??

EDIT: You can't possibly believe that having subsystems for something like lethal vs. non-lethal damage is objectively wrong, and/or unnecessary for everyone's enjoyment (especially the ones who continue to play everything before 4e. If you do there's really nothing that can be accomplished from us continuing down this path.

 

[Weather Report]

Uhm... ok, if you say so. Guess the conversation is over because TwoSix believes all the earlier editions did it wrong... are you serious??

Just roll with the hee-larity.

 

[TwoSix]

Uhm... ok, if you say so. Guess the conversation is over because TwoSix believes all the earlier editions did it wrong... are you serious??

Well, yes, because I believe something you should all quit discussing it. From my throne room, that's pretty obvious.

 

[chaochou]

I view this as a game mechanic looking for a rationalization.

I view all game mechanics this way.

 

[urLordy]

I don't think there's any inherent reason to favour one of these fictions over the other - the game could even include both options and point out that choosing one or the other is choosing to flavour your gamewold in a paticular way.

I don't know what "inherent" really means in this context, but favouring one fiction over the other has always been about appealing to whomever one cares to please. (I feel badly for James Wyatt at Wandering Monsters where he tries so hard to come up with a compelling story for various monsters.)

I agree that it could be more of a campaign specific story than anything else, and if the GWF was explicitly labelled as Campaign Specific -- theoretically I mean, not that this is pragmatic -- then I think disagreement would be muted. I think DMs and players would feel like they have more control or expectations of which element was supposed to be part of their gaming table.

 

[Cyberen]

Methinks that if someone has issues with the abstract HP, he should effectively file a complaint against "no subdual damage in Next" and send it to WotC.
Meanwhile, subdual is no longer part of the game, so I guess TwoSix doesn't have to apologize for noticing their absence.
It's been more than a year now that only the final blow is taken into account in terms of narrative. I guess we would have to find suitable stories to narrate "victory by attrition" (which doesn't have to be lethal).

In terms of DPR, we are looking at approx half STR mod additionnal damage per attack. You can go 3.5 style and move this two handed extra damage to the "hit" part, it shouldn't change game balance drastically.

 

[Wicht]

But presumably [MENTION=221]Wicht[/MENTION] does, given the expressed concern that this ability might lead to players having their PCs killed. How else is that concern to be addressed except in statistical terms?

While the math is not unimportant, the actual implementation of the math to create a certain feel, is just as important, as is, to me, the possibility of failure. Being unable to fail is boring. A fight in which there is a guaranteed progression of the math to your advantage is fairly unappealing to me. A system in which every character does an identical amount of damage in every situation, is likewise, kinda stale.

If its just about the math, its not necessarily a game I want to play.

 

[Weather Report]

I have no problem with the math, it's just the missing but not missing deal that niggles me.

 

[skotothalamos]

Maybe I missed this in the 25 pages of posts already here, but I'm amazed at how many people apparently didn't even read the 4e Player's Handbook and just gave up on it based on first impressions.

Reaping Strike
You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy’s defenses.
At-Will

Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Level 21: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half Strength modifier damage. If you’re wielding a two-handed weapon, you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier.

 

[Weather Report]

Maybe I missed this in the 25 pages of posts already here, but I'm amazed at how many people apparently didn't even read the 4e Player's Handbook and just gave up on it based on first impressions.

Reaping Strike
You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy’s defenses.
At-Will

Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Level 21: 2[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Miss: Half Strength modifier damage. If you’re wielding a two-handed weapon, you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier.

Agh, my eyes!