D&D 5E "Damage on a miss" poll.

[pemerton]

The fighter somehow having the ability to drain the opponent's health without "hitting" in the common language sense of the word

I don't think that is how most of those who like damage on a miss would think of the ability. So starting from this conception of the ability, and then saying "I don't see how that connects to the idea of a relentless dreadnought of a fighter," is probably not that helpful.

If you want to understand why some people like it, you might want to think about other ways of framing the ability than "draining health without touching someone".

I imagine it's also meaningful to a player if his character dies. That doesn't mean that there should be a feat that makes the character immune to dying.

Why not? Isn't that what "Diehard" is for?

And in 4e there are many build options for recovering from death in various ways. Probably the most interesting is Long Walk Back, the 30th level ability of the Dark Wanderer epic destiny:

If you die and are not returned to life within 12 hours, your body and possessions disappear. Twelve hours after that - 24 hours after your death - you arrive, equipped as you were when you died, having just walked back from wherever it is you and your DM decided you awoke after you were slain. Your condition is the same as if you had been subject to a Raise Dead ritual, but without any death penalty. You can choose to arrive at the place of your death, at the location of any of your allies, or at any location you consider home. There’s a final purpose in your existence, and it’s not random death.​

In other words, PC death is another fine site for looking at player fiat abilities.

 

[Bluenose]

The fighter somehow having the ability to drain the opponent's health without "hitting" in the common language sense of the word.

I do not think that the "common language sense" of the word Hit refers to a blow which connects with a target but bounces of it's armour as a Miss. Certainly that's not the way it's used in the journal I'm currently reading of a World War Two anti-tank gunner, who regards a shot that connects as a hit even if it comes off the armour. You may want to acknowledge that the way Hit and Miss are used in D&D are fairly idiosyncratic to the game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you want to understand why some people like it, you might want to think about other ways of framing the ability than "draining health without touching someone".

Well, there's a novel idea. If something doesn't make sense to me, I should just change my way of thinking until it does.

Um, no thanks.

Why not? Isn't that what "Diehard" is for?

It's a perfectly good example of relentlessness. The character still dies though.

In other words, PC death is another fine site for looking at player fiat abilities.

I don't think there are any fine sites for looking at "player fiat" abilities.

I do not think that the "common language sense" of the word Hit refers to a blow which connects with a target but bounces of it's armour as a Miss. Certainly that's not the way it's used in the journal I'm currently reading of a World War Two anti-tank gunner, who regards a shot that connects as a hit even if it comes off the armour. You may want to acknowledge that the way Hit and Miss are used in D&D are fairly idiosyncratic to the game.

Really? If I were fencing with someone, I'd categorize parried blows as "misses". I think it would be pretty intuitive to describe blows that bounce harmlessly off of someone's armor the same way.

 

[sheadunne]

There was a maneuver in TOB, I can't remember the name, where the player rolled 2 d20s to determine the effect of the ability. I find it might be appropriate for this type of ability.

It might look something like, roll 2 d20 to hit.

If the high number hits, but the low number misses, deal Strength+Level damage to target
If the low number hits, but the high number misses, deal Regular damage to target
If both numbers hit, deal Regular damage to the main target and Strength+Level damage to each adjacent creature.
If both numbers miss, deal no damage to target (or if you want to limit the ability, deal Strength+Level to the character making the attack)

That might feel like what someone is doing when they're swinging with a great-weapon.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION]
That's kind of interesting. I think rerolls are an appropriate and fruitful target for expanding the way nonmagical characters advance. I've never seen an approach where both rolls matter. This is the sort of thing that could be implemented poorly or get out of hand, but could also provide a nice venue to differentiate a skilled person from a nonskilled person.

 

[The Human Target]

Want to explain how it's actually meaningful?

Nope!

 

[The Human Target]

I imagine it's also meaningful to a player if his character dies. That doesn't mean that there should be a feat that makes the character immune to dying.

This approach to it makes me think of video games where you can tweak the settings (or apply cheat codes) to make failure impossible. Some people do enjoy playing Madden and simply waltzing through the defense and scoring a touchdown every time, or storming through the hallways of Quake with invincibility mode and a rocket launcher.

That is a playstyle. However, the playstyle where you can't fail is a whole game that the DM runs (called a "monty haul" in a D&D context), not one fighter ability placed side by side with the others.

This is stupid and rude.

Surprise surprise.

 

[The Human Target]

In all fairness, if you get discouraged after missing once then games like D&D are just not for you. The problem is trying to fit the word "playstyle" into everything. Never missing is not a playstyle, it's just a preference which is not the same thing. D&D has never catered to that type of player and shouldn't start now. It is a game at the end of the day and not story time.

D&D is a game and story time both.

No one said he got discouraged after a single miss. Thats hugely unfair.

It weird that you demand D&D cater to you but no one else.

 

[The Human Target]

Obviously it isn't "once" and neither I, nor the person who reported that issue, said or implied it was once.

Why is it not a playstyle, and isn't a playstyle simply a set of preferences? It is a playstyle, D&D has in fact catered to that type of player with 4th edition, and they're simply continuing with one option for three classes now. It's a game, indeed - the objection to the option is that it's too gamist in fact, so it would follow that you're retort of "It is a game at the end of the day" should answer your question as to why some people like this option for the game.

You are doing an excellent job of rationally explaining your opinion without slinging mud.

 

[Halivar]

You know, in the Great Edition Wars(tm) people were mean to each other over much bigger things; powers, monster construction, the very underpinnings of the game.

Here we are slinging crap over a paragraph. Kind of a waste of 79 pages, all told.