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

[pemerton]

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).

Halivar and I are on the same page here.

And as for "never, ever missing"? Not at all: just being able to reliably where down an opponent at least a little bit every 6 seconds of melee. (Ie it's only "never misses" if you assume that there is only one attempt to hit per 6 seconds - which seems pretty un-verisimilitudinous to me!)

 

[Cyberen]

"damage" (= HP depletion, not necessarily physical wounding) on a miss can be seen as Gamist/Narrativist, but also Simulationnist, if you embrace the abstract nature of D&D combat System.
It models a Fighter as a very taxing opponent, because his training makes him a reliable dreadnought. Even when he's not displaying tremendous shows of swordplay, his carefully honed practice enables him to win some ground (his opponent is getting tired/getting bruised/is put in a suboptimal position/over extends himself/ makes a mistep/ one of many possible narratives).
I think it would be a good match for the Warrior subclass, moreso than the actual option of doing more spiky damage, as it builds a good model of a fighter with military training. I am not sure it should be tied to GWF.
The more showy "master at arms" and his improved criticals can remain the default, Basic, subclass.
I certainly agree damage on a miss should be put somewhere where people can ignore it without having to houserule, as it seems to retcon the representation of D&D combat for many experienced players (even though this retcon is not supported by any edition RAW, nor any "logical" claim, it definitely exists, and should not be dismissed by the design team).
I also agree that WotC Q&A on this topic is nonsensical.

 

[wedgeski]

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

Mearls, is that you?

 

[LostSoul]

Should that kind of choice really be up to the player to decide or should it be up to the task resolution system to resolve? Should a PC really have that degree of power over the circumstances that may come up in a conflict - that he is never ineffective in his attacks? Suppose he wants to smash the macguffin in the BBEG's hand and prevent the rising of some dread god? As a GM, I might want that to be a possible resolution of the crisis, but perhaps not so be easy as the two-handed weapon warrior would have it.

How would you have handled a "called shot" before? ("I stab the orc in the face!") Is there any reason you can't do it the same way now?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even though I understand the abstract nature of AC and HP, I still have to say that I dislike the damage on a miss mechanic because- as someone has bluntly pointed out- it messes with the common sense usage of the words "hit" and "miss."

This matters.

It matters, not because I don't understand it- I do- but because counterintuitive use of language is a barrier to understanding by people unfamilar to the game or hobby. I've seen it before, such adding getting you negative AC, and I'm seeing it with the new guy who is playing his first 3.5Ed game ever with our group in about a week- unusual terminology and words used in unusual ways is a stumbling block to grokking.

Its not a killer. By itself, that mechanic won't stop me from buying the game, nor possibly liking it enough to go beyond the initial release.

But it IS bad design because it is clumsy and counterintuitive, and it doesn't have to be like that.

 

[KarinsDad]

I view this as a game mechanic looking for a rationalization.

This happens quite often in RPGs. Just because the game mechanic itself is thought of, doesn't make it a good game mechanic.

It's the equivalent of too many Red Bulls in the dev brainstorming session. Once thought of and added to a game system, it's like a weed that is impossible to ever pull out.

And just because a given person CAN think of a rationalization that works for that person, doesn't mean that there are not other gamers out there who are still bothered by it. No matter how much one rationalizes it, it doesn't make it work for everyone.

I once had a player who stopped playing 3E when 3E first came out because his PC came up behind an NPC and drew an Attack of Opportunity via the NPC's reach weapon. The player had a concept that if the NPC is fighting someone in front of him with his spear, then he couldn't suddenly whip it around behind him at the speed of light and prevent a PC from backstabbing him.

According to the rules, the NPC could do that, but it was still so non-intuitive to the player that he quit playing. He was totally ticked off about it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I view this as a game mechanic looking for a rationalization.

Well put, and an accurate, concise summation of my ultimate core feelings about this.

 

[wedgeski]

And just because a given person CAN think of a rationalization that works for that person, doesn't mean that there are not other gamers out there who are still bothered by it. No matter how much one rationalizes it, it doesn't make it work for everyone.

Whatever my own feelings on the mechanic (I don't mind it, but equally don't mind if it's removed because so many people *do* seem to mind it), no single game design is destined to please everyone.

And if your NPC was unaware of the PC in question, he wouldn't have got that AoO, surely?

 

[KarinsDad]

And if your NPC was unaware of the PC in question, he wouldn't have got that AoO, surely?

Interestingly enough, a conscious PC on his turn can "drop his guard" and provoke an AoO. An unconscious PC on his turn "keeps his guard up".

AoO is another game mechanic that tried to solve one problem by introducing others.

 

[Imaro]

I'm curious... for those claiming this can be rolled into the abstract nature of combat by narrating a miss as something other than a hit (mis-step, fatigue, etc.), how do you narrate a kill by miss damage and do you or do you not think that this type of mechanic has the potential to create some pretty anti-climactic situations where a PC doesn't even have to hit to take the BBEG out.

OAN: Do you feel this type of mechanic be ok for an NPC (since I am hoping, at least optionally, that we will be able to create NPC's with the same abilities as PC's) to use (and/or kill) a PC with?