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

[Weather Report]

As long as NO, which is pretty much a given.

 

[darjr]

Yea, I think this is a bad rule. I think it would have been much better if, upon a miss, the fighter could take a second attack at a penalty (or bounus?) with 'something' else. Like a knee or head but or a pommel or a body slam. Something that could only do 1d4 (or 3, or 3!) but they'd have to roll to attack. They could roll both d20 at the same time. And I'd be willing to give him that extra attack for the sake of not having to find and flavor yet another reason why he 'did not miss'.

I suppose then the power could be used with other weapons or sword and board.

 

[Halivar]

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'll be honest; as a DM I hate to paint myself in a corner with hard-and-fast rules on how to adjudicate a situation. I prefer a logical narrative, and I frequently ask my players, "Ok, what does it look like?" Get them thinking about the scene in their mind, and not the figs on the table (if I have them out). Mostly I would prefer to play this by ear.

This was most essential when we were playing 4E, where the tendency for unengaged players was to say, "I use my Blah Blah Blah power" and leave it at that.

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.

Errr, I have them describe what they would like to do, then see what the dice have to say about it.

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

I'm comfortable with giving the player this level of narrative control. If they miss, I would say the attack was blocked by their ferocious attacks, but the opponent is gritting his teeth as he absorbs the shocking blows. If they had hit, obviously the narration would be different. If the attack does a significant amount of damage, then the block missed and blood is drawn. If the attack is more moderately successful, I might say that something more dire happened to the poor sod's shield arm just just a temporary numbing. Mind you, these are just possibilities.

 

[Bluenose]

Weapon selection matters in D&D, and those funny sided dice are one of the core things that makes D&D unique. A greatsword using a different damage die than a longsword is a sacred cow that will never die, and for good reason : bigger swords can kill you better. This is where simulationism comes in : if fighting proficiency mattered and weapons didn't, why did we bother honing metallurgy and weapon engineering and balance for centuries?

Because different weapons are effective in different circumstances. And please note that's not because of lethality - a dagger was/is a really really good weapon for killing someone in expert hands, much more precise than a greatsword - but because of factors like reach, armour penetration, and usefullness in a defensive mode.

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

Mostly it appears they want this ability gone from the game, and don't are what argument they have to use to get it.

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.

That's apparently how a lot of people resolve social interaction, making a suitably epic speech before rolling a dice to see whether they actually did so or not. If they roll dice at all for such situations, that is.

 

[Cyberen]

"Using his superior reach, the skilled great weapon wielder can't be ignored on the battlefield. Keeping him at bay is the only viable option, even if it is a really taxing one."
Against this type of opponent, you can't turtle and have to go all in. I think it's a wonderful addition to the repertoire of available tactics.
Of course, to embrace this view, you have to accept HP as a tactical resource rather than meat... So it should wisely be kept "optional". (But I have to question the sim types what HP is simulating exactly ? Maybe Burnington, with his superior knowledge of RPG design, physics modelling, weapon damage and sacred cows could help us... )

 

[bogmad]

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

I won't say exactly what I want because that's pretty broad, but I think folks can get a basic sense by reading my posts.

However, I can tell you what I don't want as far as auto damage on a miss goes though.
I don't want it. It just takes too much work to justify.

Damage on a near miss I don't mind as much.
At least it leaves the option of a total miss and doesn't dictate that I always have to come up with a sometimes non-intuitive, head-scratching reason for the damage.

And like pming mentioned, a near miss of 5 by less could also help emulate other things like a head butt or punch when in melee that are emulated better with something distinct from the weapon damage dice.
I wouldn't really care too much if it were just totally excluded either.

 

[Burninator]

"Using his superior reach, the skilled great weapon wielder can't be ignored on the battlefield. Keeping him at bay is the only viable option, even if it is a really taxing one."
Against this type of opponent, you can't turtle and have to go all in. I think it's a wonderful addition to the repertoire of available tactics.
Of course, to embrace this view, you have to accept HP as a tactical resource rather than meat... So it should wisely be kept "optional". (But I have to question the sim types what HP is simulating exactly ? Maybe Burnington, with his superior knowledge of RPG design, physics modelling, weapon damage and sacred cows could help us... )

Any branch you pick up off the ground is not a "great weapon" by any means. This mechanic makes a joke of the entire game.

Also, "superior reach..." would be better suited to a Reach weapon property, no? Also, big, heavy weapons are less accurate, they are slower and clumsier, and should do greater damage less frequently, not the reverse.

Focusing on fighting with that weapon should reduce the penalty of using one in its intended way that is mechanically relevant elsewhere (such as, for example, reducing penalties when using Great Weapon Master for double damage), or conversely, increasing the benefits with some thing.

I believe Cleave should be put in this mechanic instead, and GWM should be just the part about taking -5 to deal double damage. Nobody would object to splitting up GWM's benefit as it's the most OP feat there is right now, and in a game no using feats, I'd still love the Cleave mechanic to be available (and presumably do most respondents too). GWM is going to get nerfed / split up, this is a perfect way to do it : make the fighting style GWF be the cleave part, and get rid of damage on a miss entirely, and keep the double damage as the feat.

I'd much rather the feat part grant disadvantage on attacks, so that it cancels out a barbarian's Reckless Attack and keeps dice roll count sensible, and then maybe give barbarians an extra attack at lvl 11 like the fighter.

 

[bogmad]

Also, a "near miss" of 5 or less, can better display a fighters progression in ability.
A first level fighter with GWF isn't an unstoppable juggernaut though he might get some extra minor blows in. But by the time he's high level and his attack bonus has increased significantly he is something to be reckoned with in nearly every instance. It's not a switch that is turned on instantly so that he suddenly never misses.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

"Using his superior reach, the skilled great weapon wielder can't be ignored on the battlefield. Keeping him at bay is the only viable option, even if it is a really taxing one."
Against this type of opponent, you can't turtle and have to go all in. I think it's a wonderful addition to the repertoire of available tactics.
Of course, to embrace this view, you have to accept HP as a tactical resource rather than meat... So it should wisely be kept "optional". (But I have to question the sim types what HP is simulating exactly ? Maybe Burnington, with his superior knowledge of RPG design, physics modelling, weapon damage and sacred cows could help us... )

This is assuming the fighter is automatically better than anyone. Things with high constitution don't have to worry too much about fatigue.

Just saying that HP is resource than meat. We know exactly what is has been described but this mechanic still doesn't work using that description. This mechanic does what a lot of 4th edition did, it makes decisions for the monsters. You are saying that the creature grew fatigued because he had to dodge, that's not your call to make. What happens when you fight a construct who has no fatigue.

BS never equals logic.

 

[urLordy]

"Using his superior reach, the skilled great weapon wielder can't be ignored on the battlefield. Keeping him at bay is the only viable option, even if it is a really taxing one."

"superior reach..." would be better suited to a Reach weapon property, no?

When sparring in kickboxing, reach is pretty significant - you really feel it when going up against a guy a foot taller than you; it's tricky to get a punch in without him punching you in the face first. (That's what an opportunity attack is simulating). That's even more apparent when the opponent has a knife and you're really scared of getting cut.

I think that the superior reach of a two-handed weapon is the unique flavor here. It really distinguishes the heavy weapon fighter from all other fighters.