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

[Ahnehnois]

Personally I like to imagine the Great Weapon fighter is making mini AOEs with his huge swings.

Then why doesn't the attack work like any other AoE?

 

[Derren]

Depends on how you want to look at it. Personally I like to imagine the Great Weapon fighter is making mini AOEs with his huge swings. but YMMV.

And the war on simulation continues.
You know that this is not how fighting works?

 

[herrozerro]

This kind of false dichotomy drives me nuts. It's not a good mechanic on any level. Actions that have no chance of failure are boring and raise significant balance issues in certain cases. They're also counter-intuitive and make the game harder to learn and understand.

This is a issue in any exception based game. The rules say X, until Feat/Power/Spell/Ability says you do Y. it's not counter-intuitive, it's how the game always worked. In some cases it makes the game easier to understand, in the case of this simple mechanic, sure it can be made more complex, but at the sake of simplicity and ease of gaming.

 

[herrozerro]

Then why doesn't the attack work like any other AoE?

Because it's exception based design silly.

 

[herrozerro]

And the war on simulation continues.
You know that this is not how fighting works?

If you want to look at it that way sure. For a game that is supposed to be inclusive, why should simulation be the default?

 

[Derren]

If you want to look at it that way sure. For a game that is supposed to be inclusive, why should simulation be the default?

Why should anime be? (Oversized weapons making AoE attacks)

 

[herrozerro]

Why should anime be? (Oversized weapons making AoE attacks)

So we are at an impasse. We both think our way should be the default. so let's split the difference, you have some of your mechanics in the game and I can have some of mine. Sound good?

Edit: Also I prefer fantasy, Anime is just a cheap shot to try and make my stance seem like something it is not.

 

[Ahnehnois]

This is a issue in any exception based game. The rules say X, until Feat/Power/Spell/Ability says you do Y. it's not counter-intuitive, it's how the game always worked. In some cases it makes the game easier to understand, in the case of this simple mechanic, sure it can be made more complex, but at the sake of simplicity and ease of gaming.

Attaching jargon to it doesn't make it any less stupid. I'm not aware of D&D being an exception-based game in general, and creating an exception to the fundamental d20 rule of how a check works for one character ability would hardly be a wise exercise of that paradigm.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm not a huge fan of damage on a miss, but am ultimately willing to accept it given that HP in D&D have always been a bit abstract and thus the "damage" from a miss could represent losing a bit of luck or stamina rather than a physical wound.

I do prefer that it is removed, however.

 

[herrozerro]

Attaching jargon to it doesn't make it any less stupid. I'm not aware of D&D being an exception-based game in general, and creating an exception to the fundamental d20 rule of how a check works for one character ability would hardly be a wise exercise of that paradigm.

Really? that's how exception based games work! general rules are superceeded by specific rules.

Take any rule. Weapons needing to be drawn with a move action. Feats or abilities change this and let players play by different rules.

Feats as a rules element are all exception rules.