First of all, I said so earlier and will repeat it again, I really don't care how other people decide to play the game or not, their table their rules. And I won't ever think that I can somehow convince other people to play or view something differently, I've been on the internet for long enough to know that it is not how things work. On the contrary, it has the tendancy to force both party into an entrenchment and start to see things as black and white only with no grey area. Doesn't mean that I don't like to argue from time to time on the internet because quite honestly, I like to have my perception/opinion challenged sometimes, it helps to stay out of the echo chamber where you are only surrounded by persons who thinks like you. Doesn't mean that I will change my idea, but still, it can be good to be reminded that not everybody thinks like you.
Where I don't agree with you, it's about the source of the problem, it's not about the idea that a to hit roll should be a binary operation for some. Quite frankly, I have never, ever saw someone have a problem with the Fireball spell, or any spell, doing damage on a miss like it does in 4e. This 'problem' always come up regarding a martial class doing damage on a miss. So it's not really about the mechanic, it's about the narrative tied to it. It's really about the idea that a fighter who miss its attack should not be able to still do some damage. It's working for magic, but not for martial attack. And quite frankly, in other editions, I could accept that, I would turn it into a saving throw. For exemple, I don't think there would be a problem with that power, would there be?
Reaping Strike: You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy's defenses. The defender must make a dexterity Saving Throw. If he fail, he suffer 1(W)+Strength modifier damage. If he succeed, he takes half your Strength Modifier damage or equal to your Strength modifier if you are wielding a two-handed weapon.
But in the case of 4e, it is made clear, written black on white, that a miss can still have hit the target. It is made clear that it is not, in fact, a binary operation. So it is about refusing the parameter set from a game and then saying that it is unrealistic, that it doesn't make any sense. For me, it is the same as if someone would refuse that a character still take damage from a successful saving throw. I mean, he succeeded right? So why does he still take damage if he succeed? Or if someone would refuse that you can still have a consequence even if you succeed your roll in a PbtA. You can disagree with it, but don't judge it by refusing to take into account the parameter of the rule. Because the parameter that a miss can still involve being hit is made clear, so saying that 'a miss should be a miss! Period!' is the same as saying that 'a success should be a success! Period!'... and I don't see people bringing this up.
