Strap yourself in this is going to be a long one.
Don't think so (?).
Link.
Link.
Link.
Link. etc.
I'll read those later, but that is why I asked as opposed to directly stated that this
might be a stormwind fallacy. I'll read them and get back to you.
Are those who are opposed to damage on a miss opposed to any benefit from a miss? What if the miss generated a damage bonus on your next attack against the same target equal to your Strength bonus?
Am I opposed to getting a bonus on the next hit because you missed this time? Yes.
I would similarly be pissed if you insta-killed (or added more damage) to a gun shot because you missed the previous time. You miss = fail to hit = do no damage.
Why should "miss" be any more a direct reflection of reality than "hit" is?
Linguistically?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hit
Defined as "To come into contact with forcefully; strike." (First line.)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miss
Defined as "To fail to hit, reach, catch, meet, or otherwise make contact with." (Again first line.)
Exactly, and also, like I've said before, some "misses" hurt.
NO THEY DON'T. Hitting
softly hurts less. Missing doesn't hurt at all, because you missed. Planes that fail to collide are called near misses. They do NOT collide. They have zero HITS. Thus, they do not damage one another via collision - not even softly.
You know, I don't really like damage on a miss all that much, at least how it's written currently. The two things I want that would make me like it--no killing blows on a miss, and no damage on a natural 1, also make the rule more complicated, to the point that I just don't think it's worth bothering with.
But whether I like it or not, it's still a perfectly plausible way to model reality.
Also, it shouldn't work at all. You forgot that condition.
Of course it is. You were attempting to do 1d8+3 damage. You only did 3. Thus a failure in your attempt.
Or you just don't call a failure by a fighter with that feature a "miss". "Miss" can be a solid shorthand for all sorts of failed rolls.
Miss is a solid shorthand for failed attack rolls. You failed the attack roll. Now roll zero damage - because you failed.
And here's the flipside. Dragon breathes fire. Everyone make saving throws! Yay, I made it -- only half damage! But that half damage is still more than my hp total. So I die. But I was successful...on my "saving" throw. So why aren't I "saved"?
Area of effect. Meaning, it HITS all the squares in the area. It isn't aiming to hit your torso, head, arm, leg, or any part of a single person's body. It is aiming to hit the square. Technically in the 3e days you had to roll to hit that square. After you do hit the square everyone in the affected area need to roll to save - to take less damage as they are stuck in the area.
Example:
I can shoot a gun at you. I may HIT and succeed at placing a bullet in you. I may MISS and fail to put a bullet in you. I may "crit succeed" and shoot you in a vital organ.
Or I can throw a grenade at you. If I can hit the square, the physical place you are standing, then I succeed in blowing up the grenade in that square. Your chance for NOT taking damage is to be lucky and succeed on a save. If you are unlucky you take the full brunt of the effect. There is no situation (where you don't have cover or something) where you take zero damage from me lobbing a grenade.
Now, two handed swords, like all melee weapons and all ranged weapons, require a roll to HIT a person. When they do you can start to roll damage to see how badly someone is hit.
Fireballs/dragon's breath do not require a hit. You take damage for being in the area, even if it is only half damage - from it hitting behind you or something.
That is how they are different. Can we drop the "but fireballs/dragon's fire" gag now?
I think there are some situations where damage on a miss might make sense. A hard enough hit can still damage a person even if the weapon used didn't penetrate armor. Flexible armor such as a leather jacket is much lighter than rigid armor, but it doesn’t absorb the full force of the blows it stops.
Which is represented ALREADY by two different mechanics, both of which relate to the armor the person is wearing. The first is bonus to AC (DnD's typical method) to say that if you are wearing better armor, you are harder to vitally hit. And if you are wearing leather that you are still going to take damage from a similar (attack roll) attack whereas the guy in full plate won't.
The second of course is damage reduction, which IMO more closely approximates this relation. But it is one that DnD has historically shied away from using. As such all resolution of attack vs. armor is done with a single roll vs. AC. This model of "yeah, but so strong you still do damage on a MISS" doesn't reflect the one roll to hit history or model that DnD uses.
