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

[Herschel]

Part of where the disconnect for us is the word "whiff", and I blame DM's for narrating misses this way (including me). The dude had a 12 AC until he put on fullplate. My 15 attack did not whiff. It went *KLUNK*. In my mental schema, this opens up a realm of possible narrative outcomes.

Yep. An analogy from another board I'll borrow is that a hit in D&D is akin to a hit in baseball. It has nothing to do with contact being made it has everything to do with an exposed area being exploited. GWF is akin to hitting a line drive that a fielder (re: armor, parry, etc.) doesn't field cleanly. You don't get credit for a hit, but you're still partially successful (ie: you get on base or you do a little damage).

 

[Bluenose]

And that's fine for an air elemental. I don't know that the RAW needs to deal with very possible special condition a monster might have. If we go down that road, we wind up with a rule system that reads like stereo instructions*. And, as much as I loved the system, the 4E books were written just so.

*with apologies to Beetlejuice.

Alternatively you end up with a system that tells you specifically to narrate hit point loss in a way that's appropriate to the situation. There's nothing in the rules which tells Manbearcat to explain the Elemental that way, but it's what makes sense for the situation.

 

[Halivar]

Alternatively you end up with a system that tells you specifically to narrate hit point loss in a way that's appropriate to the situation. There's nothing in the rules which tells Manbearcat to explain the Elemental that way, but it's what makes sense for the situation.

I would expect the DM to use his best judgement to narrate in a logically consistent way. When the mechanics of a situation cannot be logically narrated, then those mechanics must change (a DM-call followed by a house rule).

 

[bogmad]

Part of where the disconnect for us is the word "whiff", and I blame DM's for narrating misses this way (including me). The dude had a 12 AC until he put on fullplate. My 15 attack did not whiff. It went *KLUNK*. In my mental schema, this opens up a realm of possible narrative outcomes.

And if AC were totally based on armor and not Dex more so for some pcs I'd agree with you. I agree that most of the time *KLUNK* is the sound a miss makes and DEX bonus to AC is mainly the ability to better deflect blows to more solid pieces of armor. What sound does a miss make before armor is added though? There are still small chances that the sound of a miss is that of a blade cutting through air, or I think there should be. GWF as implemented negates my ability to narrate that way.

 

[Herschel]

For full transparency: I am okay with this rule, but I think it could have been written better. They erred on the side of brevity and simplicity, to a degree I would not have. I would have done something like this:

If you hit, you get a bonus 50% STR bonus to damage.
If you miss, but WOULD have hit touch AC, you deal STR bonus to damage.
If you would have missed touch AC, you get nothing.

This is far less useful against Dex-high targets, but it solves a lot of issues, IMHO.

Ugh! If I never see "Touch AC" again it will be too soon.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yep. An analogy from another board I'll borrow is that a hit in D&D is akin to a hit in baseball. It has nothing to do with contact being made it has everything to do with an exposed area being exploited. GWF is akin to hitting a line drive that a fielder (re: armor, parry, etc.) doesn't field cleanly. You don't get credit for a hit, but you're still partially successful (ie: you get on base or you do a little damage).

A fielding error I think is more analogous to an attack roll that would have missed, but hits due to some circumstance bonus or the defender losing his Dex or something.

Damage on a miss is more like the batter hitting the ball and being thrown out, but the umpire blowing the call and calling him safe. Every time, apparently, since this batter has an on-base percentage of 1.000.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

While the HP mechanic itself is very poor, mechanics like this tend to make the mechanic even worse and stick out like a sore thumb. The funny thing to me is how many people try and justify the damage on a miss.

I've also heard the saying "fighters can't have nice things", well I'm afraid this doesn't fit the bill in my opinion. If this is considered a nice thing then I hate to see them get something bad.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What the hell is wrong with keeping a miss as a miss?

See the kinds of threads and arguing this causes? If the mechanic tested so well then we wouldn't be seeing this kind of reaction.

 

[Herschel]

A fielding error I think is more analogous to an attack roll that would have missed, but hits due to some circumstance bonus or the defender losing his Dex or something.

Damage on a miss is more like the batter hitting the ball and being thrown out, but the umpire blowing the call and calling him safe. Every time, apparently, since this batter has an on-base percentage of 1.000.

The partial success doesn't necessarily need to be just "getting on base" though. A sacrifice bunt/fly/hit & run, fielder's choice, etc. would also be positive outcomes of making contact with the ball without being credited with a hit. The fielder is just an easier analogy for armor/shield/parry though as they "field" contact.

 

[Herschel]

What the hell is wrong with keeping a miss as a miss?

See the kinds of threads and arguing this causes? If the mechanic tested so well then we wouldn't be seeing this kind of reaction.

Epic logic fail 101.

I see two threads on the first page about this subject, both started by you. A vocal minority does not constitute a majority. Heck, everyone on this site put together is a small minority.