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

[Kobold Stew]

No doubt the poll doesn't reflect your particular interests (no poll will) and represents a self-selecting group, and so will over-represent those most passionate, which will include those claiming it is a dealbreaker (as with any voluntary poll).

At the same time, over 80% say the mechanic is balanced, so that's roughly 4 to 1, which I'd claim as a pretty significant result.

Play, don't play. That still doesn't explain why we need another thread. The mods should close this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It adds a cool mechanic where a fighter can be dangerous to anyone, what is missing if it is removed is just a fighter's ability.

I don't see that this statement is meaningful or even really true. A character with this ability could still be in a situation where he can't reach an enemy to attack, or can't survive long enough to, or the enemy regenerates at will or something. So, not dangerous to anyone.

And I still don't see what it translates to in in-game terms.

I also disagree the idea that this rule is smaller in scope. Both are rules that govern all characters.

Keeping in mind that I can't post 5e mechanics, here's the first page of the 3e SRD. This is the core mechanic of all d20-based games. Changing how it works is a big deal.

I don't see anything about what action it is to draw a weapon on that page, or even about actions at all. I don't think Quick Draw and damage on a miss are even remotely comparable in terms of the scope of the exception involved.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Here's an additional thought -

The only place this rule seems to be an issue is this one power. There aren't a raft of special attacks or spells that "hit on a miss" this way. Why does this power exist? Because they needed a concept for "heavy weapon fighter" that wasn't overpowered. There's nothing about the concept that requires unstoppable damage.

Maybe they just didn't have a better idea for greatsword specialists?

Exactly. Though, if they're really that bereft for ideas, I don't know why I'd pay for a book full of their ideas. There has to be a better way to create general mechanics for big strong fighters.

 

[urLordy]

No doubt the poll doesn't reflect your particular interests (no poll will) and represents a self-selecting group, and so will over-represent those most passionate, which will include those claiming it is a dealbreaker (as with any voluntary poll).

You asked if we "need" another thread and referenced the poll thread. If the poll is flawed, it doesn't count towards the quantity of useful threads, so perhaps we do need this thread.

At the same time, over 80% say the mechanic is balanced, so that's roughly 4 to 1, which I'd claim as a pretty significant result.

OK except the OP isn't about balance, it's about believability of the mechanic.

 

[herrozerro]

I don't see that this statement is meaningful or even really true. A character with this ability could still be in a situation where he can't reach an enemy to attack, or can't survive long enough to, or the enemy regenerates at will or something. So, not dangerous to anyone.

Your right, but really, any ability can be out of range or a character can be killed before being able to use it or an enemy can regenerate to negate any other number of abilities.

Not seeing where any of those circumstances do not apply to any other character.

 

[fanboy2000]

For me personally, I don't find the reasoning bad at all. If the game has variable damage, then it seems to me that it's possible to have some attacks minimum damage > 0.

How this plays out to me is that the attacker makes a precision attack for a small target area. But, if the attacker misses the small area, damage is still done to the surrounding area and thus the attack still does damage.

Analogy/example: say an archer aims for the bullseye on a target, but gets misses the bullseye. Generally speaking, if the archer is competent, the arrow will still go into the target, but the archer still missed the bullseye. Thus the archer (partially if we're dealing with a perfectionist), characterizes the shot as a "miss".

The abstract mature of AC and HP means a wide range of possibilities exist. It is, I think, a strength of the system.

What if damage on a miss was re-written as "You cannot miss with this attack. You still make an attack roll, but if you would have missed, you instead strike a glancing blow for half damage."? Would that be more acceptable?

Maybe? Certainly, the word "miss" in D&D has historically meant "0 damage". So changing that is risky.

 

[fanboy2000]

The only place this rule seems to be an issue is this one power. There aren't a raft of special attacks or spells that "hit on a miss" this way. Why does this power exist? Because they needed a concept for "heavy weapon fighter" that wasn't overpowered. There's nothing about the concept that requires unstoppable damage.

Wait, is the OP about one power? Did I miss a link? Man, I'm behind.

So much for precision.

 

[Jester David]

It's can be a little problematic.

If hitpoints are meat then damage reflects injury. Which is fine when you hit, as you either bypass armour or they cannot dodge fast enough. Damage on a miss means you hurt but didn't get through armour.
This instance isn't that egregious as AC might mean armour absorbs the blow, except the character is talented enough that even that hurts. However, it's more awkward when the character's AC is magical or based on agility. You don't miss the monk because his armour absorbed the blow, you miss the monk because he wasn't where you were swinging.

It gets much sillier when hitpoints represent energy and fatigue. When you hit, you don't actually connect but the blow takes so much energy to avoid it tries the target. Damage on a miss means the exact same thing, you don't hit but energy is expended dodging. The narrative for a hit is exactly the same as the narrative of a miss. This is problematic.

Modifiers make make this equally weird. You're more likely to miss when blinded or cover is involved or there's a thick mist granting concealment. If you miss because of that modifier the narrative says that you miss due to being unable to see or striking the cover. Yet damage on a miss means you still actually connect.

 

[MJS]

Ok, here is another criticism of this way dumb Heavy Weapon fighting ability: more encouragement of ability score inflation.
If PCs are going to train in their weapons, there are so many better ways to reflect it. How about a Defense bonus? How about increasing the damage dice? Initiative bonus resulting from reach?
The reasoning is shaky and weird enough, but my real beef with this ability is that it's lame. And you will never see a 2-handed fighter without 18 STR again.

Is the ability "balanced"? Assuming loopholes are banned, it's certainly not overpowered. But if it goes into 5E, it will be a perennial PITA, sowing confusion for many years to come. This thread, and others like it, will never end. Fighters vs. Spellcasters, lookout!

The essential dumbness of it is the explanation in the OP. A low attack roll does not indicate a skillfully placed blow. The good news is, it's easily replaced or ignored.

 

[Sage Genesis]

It gets much sillier when hitpoints represent energy and fatigue. When you hit, you don't actually connect but the blow takes so much energy to avoid it tries the target. Damage on a miss means the exact same thing, you don't hit but energy is expanded dodging. The narrative for a hit is exactly the same as the narrative of a miss. This is problematic.

Modifiers make make this equally weird. You're more likely to miss when blinded or cover is involved or there's a thick mist granting concealment. If you miss because of that modifier the narrative says that you miss due to being unable to see or striking the cover. Yet damage on a miss means you still actually connect.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. On the hand you say that a hit doesn't connect, but then a miss means that you do connect? That seems wrong.

My take on it is that if one uses hit points to include energy and fatigue (I see no reason why it has to be exclusively either that or meat points), then a hit is both connecting and an expenditure of energy from the target. On a miss, there's not that kind of connecting but the target still expends energy to avoid the blow and fatigue creeps in.

The issue that crops up then, however, is why only this type of Fighter can wear people out by attacking. Battle fatigue is a real factor that decides the fate of many battles. If hit points include an aspect of fatigue, then (low) damage on a miss is more realistic than no damage at all on a miss. So why can only Fighters do this? Why don't Barbarians tire people out? Why is a missed attack from a Paladin or bear-shared Druid effortlessly dodged whereas a Fighter's isn't? The game 13th Age seems to have nailed this issue down far better than Next so far.