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

[bogmad]

So just say a great weapon fighter's fighting style is to swing her weapon in front of her in broad, sweeping arcs. Her great strength renders this lethal to any without a modicum of fighting talent who do not move themselves from her reach. Even those with fighting skill find themselves bruised and battered by trying to avoid the relentless reaving of the trained warrior.

There you go. A single narrative voice to fall back on for the character.

But I don't want a single narrative voice. I want options that I can come up with on the fly, with variability according to the context of the situation and/or die roll.

 

[Wicht]

So narratively, a fighter with this feat/skill/what-have-you, never, ever misses?

 

[Halivar]

So narratively, a fighter with this feat/skill/what-have-you, never, ever misses?

If I was rolling a fighter with this ability, I would perhaps describe it as a fighter who knows how to force an opponent into an awful option; to take a hit or sacrifice footing (or giving him some other disadvantage that can be agreed with the DM as falling within the purview of the hp abstraction, and not otherwise modeled elsewhere in the rules).

 

[Weather Report]

So narratively, a fighter with this feat/skill/what-have-you, never, ever misses?

..yeah,,,

 

[Wicht]

If I was rolling a fighter with this ability, I would perhaps describe it as a fighter who knows how to force an opponent into an awful option; to take a hit or sacrifice footing (or giving him some other disadvantage that can be agreed with the DM as falling within the purview of the hp abstraction, and not otherwise modeled elsewhere in the rules).

It seems strange then that this is a strength sort of ability and not necessarily a wisdom or intelligence ability and that a skilled fighter with the longsword can't do exactly the same thing. Rather, the specificity of the ability, tied to strength, and only with a two handed weapon, seems to suggest simply overpowering the other every time and never actually failing to connect in some small way.

 

[froth]

I think its fine.

 

[TwoSix]

But I don't want a single narrative voice. I want options that I can come up with on the fly, with variability according to the context of the situation and/or die roll.

I am thoroughly confused by what people want at this point.

 

[Halivar]

It seems strange then that this is a strength sort of ability and not necessarily a wisdom or intelligence ability and that a skilled fighter with the longsword can't do exactly the same thing. Rather, the specificity of the ability, tied to strength, and only with a two handed weapon, seems to suggest simply overpowering the other every time and never actually failing to connect in some small way.

I could easily see a DM saying, "If that's your explanation of how you use this ability, then the attack is modified by Int, not Str." That would be perfectly fair, IMHO. If the player said, instead, "I smite his shield with a most dolorous stroke, to numb or injure his shield arm if he does not move it" then I as DM could be persuaded to let him use it as a strength check. Perhaps there are other ways the narrative could go using other ability scores.

But then, I have disliked the whole Str-based melee combat from the start. I accept it as one of those idiosyncratic parts of D&D.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

My suggestion would be to make it an ability that fighters get some some particular level. They can "deal X damage on a miss". Note, I said *can*. That would only be an option if they only missed by Y (say, 5 points). This damage is via a quick elbow to the side of the head, or a foot stomp, or hip or shoulder check, etc. Basically, close-combat fighting. This would emulate missing with your sword, having your opponent try to grab you from behind, and then you throwing your head back, bashing or opponents face. You see it all the time in movies and read it in books. You will also note that only the "good fighters" in these movies and books seem able to do this...ergo, the higher level requirement.

That said, the drawback to choosing to do damage is that you have, effectively, "touched" your opponent (so if they have any touch-based attack, or particularly dangerous form...fire elemental, say), you may get affected by their abilities.

*shrug* Then again it wouldn't bother me if they just dropped it altogether...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Wicht]

So you are fine with the effectiveness of the ability changing from round to round depending on the narration of the player. That is, if the player decides to narratively focus on his intelligence and experience in battle (and assuming strength is his max score), then you are fine penalizing him for his narration and apply intelligence modifiers instead of strength? Or are you suggesting there should be a different such ability allowing damage on a "miss" with each ability score. "I always hurt them because I'm smart;" or "my dazzling smile weakens the enemy in every round of combat no matter what I roll."

I also find it interesting when DMs allow the players to describe what the effect of an attack will be before actually rolling the dice and seeing how it turns out.

And if your player decides to "numb" the shield arm, does that have any actual in game effect, or is it just color?