Sir Brennen
Legend
This was up Thursday, but wasn't showing on the Wizards main D&D page until today:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131017
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131017
I still completely, absolutely dislike damage on a miss for non-area attacks and want it to die.
Between AC and hit point abstractions, the in-game representation of what happens on a "hit" or a "miss" is already so nebulous that it's not worth trying to define specifically. Adding on-miss damage doesn't really muddy those waters any further.
I still completely, absolutely dislike damage on a miss for non-area attacks and want it to die.
Also the explanation is bogus. A strike which "was so brutal and skillfully placed that it did more than anyone else could have done with the same attack." would be a crit but not a miss with a few points of damage, likely fewer than other characters could have done with a hit.
Agreed. Not sure why this is an issue.
It might make sense to say something like, "If you attack the target and miss, but your roll was sufficient to hit the targets touch AC, you still do damage equal to your strength bonus." But saying, "Regardless of how hard it is to connect with the target, you still manage to do tissue damage.", is not something I can accept.