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

[urLordy]

I certainly dont think the effect should be limited to GWF.. it's mechanics can support more than one presentation.

Well, the current exclusive correlation of GWF to DoaM is definitely one of the things that drives the anti-DoaM opinion. I think its totally incohesive from a rules design perspective as well as from a sim perspective. It also makes it frustrating to discuss in a forum, because who can keep track of which aspects of the current rule are seen by any one person as defensible or tolerable or preferred or worth saving or whatever. That leaves me to generally take arguments for damage on a miss as the way the rule is presented right now, and many people are ok with the rule as presented right now, even when the effect is limited to GWF only.

 

[Garthanos]

Armor makes you not take damage better...

Mostly I was checking to see if you were a literalist... my second post where I said it doesnt need to be defined so simplistically is more to the point.

 

[Wicht]

Can I knock the fact that the fighting man is reduced to random effects for his more interesting capabilities and in a real fight it would be a combination of choices possibly in heroic play special effort allocation etc as well those circumstances.

If it makes you feel better.

Personally I find called shots to be too disruptive to the flow of the game. The random simulation of damage has always been preferable. Especially as I consider anything good for the goose good for the gander and don't think the players would like called shots being used against them. No, better to leave injuries as a random effect.

Though the use of feats and tactics within combat outside the actual parameters of damage, such as tripping, bullrushing, picking people up and throwing them, I am fine with.

 

[ImperatorK]

This rule is bad because Fighters Can't Have Nice Things(TM).

 

[urLordy]

This rule is bad because Fighters Can't Have Nice Things(TM).

This post is bad because it reduces hundreds (thousands?) of posts of intelligent earnest debate to Five Words Out Of Nowhere(TM).

 

[TwoSix]

What if... and I'm not really arguing about damage on a miss right now but rather saving throws. A lot of the argument has turned into arguing about how saving throws are inadequate to area of effect attacks because we don't have precise 3d modeled simulations of explosions in a game that relies on dice.

What if-Instead of arguing AoE attacks should fall to the same damage resolution as an attack, which seems one extension of the argument, we just created a rule that if you crit on your saving throw you don't take any damage? Would that better model the "sometimes a lowly kobold can survive an explosion through sheer luck"?

I'm not sure I like the solution, especially if your kobold is near the epicenter of the blast, but just wondering how people would think about that.

I rather like it, actually. But then, I would.

 

[Garthanos]

It also makes it frustrating to discuss in a forum

until the game is in print that is my general take..since I have seen DoA work just fine I see no reason it wont in the future.

I am fairly certain they havent shown us very much of the system.... and some parts are simple form (its easy to say all damage on a miss or damage on successful save are now based on a more complex touch armor class or reflex ac)

Its easy to include a Nimble dodger feat which allows a save for no damage under those circumstance which eliminates the damage... or allows a damage reduction of a specific amount.

In fact its so easy and we have a very incomplete picture just not seeing the validity of many of the complaints

FWIW I would prefer alternatives and disassociation with the specific weapon.
A two handed sword is actually faster at the tip due to leverage and usage techniques than many shorter weapons - it is most often used in short strokes that maintain its position between you and your adversary.. Completely different models are appropriate to how you use the tool.. its not the tool.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Personally I find called shots to be too disruptive to the flow of the game. The random simulation of damage has always been preferable. Especially as I consider anything good for the goose good for the gander and don't think the players would like called shots being used against them. No, better to leave injuries as a random effect.

When I use my injury system, which includes hit locations and called shots, in non-D&D d20 games, it works great. The main reason I don't use it for D&D is the amount of hacking it would require; all kinds of character abilities would need to be created or rewritten to account for it. Heck, just using vp/wp for D&D requires that a boatload of things get rewritten to leverage it properly, and that system was actually presented in detail in a D&D book.

But if a new game, written from scratch (say, one that was supposed to be modular and all-encompassing), incorporated the possibility of specific damage and meaningful character abilities that interacted with that damage from day 1, that would work.

 

[Garthanos]

Personally I find called shots to be too disruptive to the flow of the game. The random simulation of damage has always been preferable.

Taking out the eyes is a classic of the fiction though... as is hamstringing to induce a slowed effect.

The archetype most interested in fighting has the least interesting choices through most of D&D's history it took many years before a fighter could even get to do a take down.

 

[dmgorgon]

This post is bad because it reduces hundreds (thousands?) of posts of intelligent earnest debate to Five Words Out Of Nowhere(TM).

Not only is the post bad it's completely wrong. Everyone posting here wants fighters to have nice things, we just don't agree with the kinds of things the fighter should have.