the target not even being in the square you swung at
Huh? Putting to one side that, by default, D&Dnext doesn't use "squares", the ability has as a requirement that an attack roll be made. You can't make an attack roll against a target you can't reach. So your statement here is simply wrong.
a fighter with 16 STR hits harder with his spork than a giant with 30 STR hits with a tree trunk.
A spork is neither a two-handed nor a versatile weapon. Also, a giant with 30 STR will have an expected DPR well above that of any GWF warrior. So this statement is also wrong.
Even objectively -- determination in itself is not a total argument for guaranteed result
I used the word "determination" because Ahnehnois did. My preferred word is "relentless". And relentlessness does guarantee results - the ineluctability of results is what makes a storm, rising flood waters or a GWF warrior relentless.
The GWF DoaM fighter has been predetermined to always hurt his opponents in some way.
Correct. That's the essence of the ability.
"determination" is what you came up with when you work your way backwards from the preordained results to some fictional cause.
I'm not working back to a cause. As I've mentioned several times, I am not interpreting the ability in a process simulation fashion.
Rather, I am identifying the persona that the ability expresses. And I identify that as relentlessness. (In 4e it is called Reaping Strike, which has similar connotations - ie the stalks cannot stand against the scythe.) Having the ability does not cause the character to be relentless
in game. In the fiction, the cause of relentlessness can be whatever you like - "Someone murdered my family and now I'm out to get revenge on a harsh world" is a well-known staple but obviously not the only option - and the function of the ability is to give this relentlessness mechanical expression.
How does Ahn know to the contrary? Because he's not watching the same movie with a predetermined Hollywood ending for the GWF fighter, and he can play out the plot to experience causally if never missing does in fact happen or not, and can easily imagine a GWF fighter who is determined and still doesn't hit, thus muddling with suspension of disbelief.
Sure. I have never asserted that if you have process sim preferences you should like the ability. I think that was established on page 1 or 2 of the thread (the next 40-odd pages were taken up by some people expressing puzzlement about how someone with process-sim preferences can enjoy D&D combat at all).
My point has been that, if you
don't have process sim preferences then the ability might be valuable to you, and play a useful role in PC build and play. Thus, contrary to Ahnehnois's assetions, I have given a good explanation as to why I like the ability.
Whether you explain it as relentlessness or not is irrelevant, it is a discrete package of something. A character may or may not have GWF, but whether or not this is the case is known, and is a choice of the player, and is an intransient property of the character, and is discrete and separable from any other property of the character.
<snip>
My explanation is only a "process simulation" to the extent that the mechanics of acquiring the character ability explicitly require.
<snip>
this is an ability that a character acquires and uses in a systematic, reproducible way.
Given that I am not interpreting the rules in a proccess-sim fashion, I don't agree with this. The player acquires the ability - at the stage of character building, which is something that the
player does. The ability does not have to correlate to any discrete skill or training of the PC.
And even if it did, there would be no reason that this skill or training couldn't manifest as a minium output rather than an increase in maximum spike (which is what you are insisting on).
What is that supposed to mean?
pemerton's probably arguing that DoaM is a "player fiat" ability that exists outside of the reality of hte game world and is not subject to this kind of logic. Which is a pretty dubious rationale in this context. And you're right, one that is very stylistically inappropriate for many games, inconsistent with the generally grounded nature of this ruleset, and is hardly suitable for a D&D character class.
OK, so it seems you do know what I mean.
As to "hardly suitable for a D&D character class", why not? This is the sort of thing which leads me to assert, as I did upthread, that you disregard the fact that others play the game differently from you. For those others, this may be
highly suitable for a D&D class. After all, other class features that have no real simulationist expression - such as that rogues are more precise in striking with weapons than fighters - have long been regarded as suitable for D&D classes.
As to "inconsistent with the generally grounded nature of this ruleset", what is that "grounded nature". I've cited upthread the rules text for attacking, missing and taking damage, and I don't see anything there about "being generally grounded". I could bring up auto-damage from AoEs also and ask in what way that is "generally grounded".
"Generally grounded" strikes me as nothing more than a loose synonym for process simuation - and nowhere do the rules assert that they are process sim rules, and they certainly don't read that way to me (eg look at the rules for narrating damage).
As to "stylistically inappropriate for many games", I don't think that is in disupte. But you denied that those who liked it had given a reason why. In explaining why I like it, I'm not trying to show why you - with a different style - should like it. I'm explaining why I - with a non-process-simulation style - do like it. And you now seem to have acknowleged that in fact you
do understand why I like it. Hopefully you will therefore stop denying that anyone has given a reason for liking it.
I found a blog post that makes some good points about this issue.
http://daegames.blogspot.com/2013/11/d-next-miss-conceptions.html
Thanks for the link. (Can't XP you, sorry.)
