Can you please cite that definition? It is not one that the rules use - obviously - given that they include, as a possible consequence of a miss, the dealing of damage! Page 2 of the "How to Play" document defines a hit as an attack roll which, after relevant bonuses and penalties are applied, equals or exceeds the AC of the target.
Page 2 also says the following; "To hit the target, your result must be equal to or greater than the AC. If you hit, you deal damage with your attack, reducing your target’s hit points."
I believe it is the next line.
Funnily it doesn't define what a miss is. Presumably a miss is the opposite of a hit. So, "to miss a target, you result must be less than the AC. If you miss, you do not deal damage with your attack, and do not reduce the target's hit points."
Or in the Combat section (under basic attacks) p.19:
"If you hit, you roll damage, unless your attack specifies otherwise."
So, a miss is "If you miss, you do not roll damage, unless your attack specifies otherwise."
And the attack in question would presumably refer to the ability we have issue with. But since you are asking for a definition in the rules what miss is that is the best I can give.
Except to additionally say that assuming that 'specifics overrides general' that this damage on a miss would hit on a 1, where the rules do specify that you miss.
But unfortunately the pdfs only gives so much information on what happens on a miss - namely nothing. Miss an attack on a unseen target - you roll too low or they aren't there. Miss on a perception check, you fail to see the target. In every circumstance a miss is a failure, not a half-failure.
Obviously if this ability is in play then damage can be dealt without hitting on an attack.
But unless you are saying this ability is valid because the ability says it is valid, what you are saying here is not an argument. We are conversing about how well an ability is designed or how well it fits. If I say 'poorly' because it is inconsistent with the book, your argument can't be "but its in the book." That is rather cyclical of whether it deserves to be.
At the mechanical level, the player has a "fiat" ability - s/he can simply declare an attack and thereby bring it about that, in the fiction, the target is somewhat worn down. In the fiction, the fighter in question is so unrelenting that every 6 seconds of combat with this guy guarantees that the target will be on a trajectory towards death.
Okay we are going to have to get more specific here. I'm going to assume we are using YOUR version that the fighter tires the target out until they die. NOT Rodney's version that some part of the attack is so brutal it transitions through the armor of the target.
(This requires that I put aside everything Rodney did say, and the implications there upon.)
Now, outside of the ability saying that he is so unrelenting that he somehow deals the fighter's STR to the target every round they are in melee (or rather every round he makes an unsuccessful attack) what do you have to say that it SHOULD be this way? What about being in combat with this guy is so tiring that he can kill you without landing a solid blow? Without landing a blow (as you say) he cannot poison you, for example, but he can still kill you? He can't poison but he can still deal lethal damage in the form of tiring out a pixie/immortal that otherwise never tires or sleeps.
Beyond this, as Celebrim brought up and I echoed, why is it that a fighter is so unrelenting that he is able to tire a target out, even if that target is an immortal creature doing nothing more than dodging every attack, without also having that fighter also be tired out by wielding his greatsword.
You are having him kill the target through a series of tiny cuts, without actually killing him through a series of tiny cuts - interesting.
I don't know what you think the attack roll models, and so I don't know what you think it's exclusion from the resolution process is modelling. But presumably you are familiar with the idea of games with fate points, which players can spend in order to fiat outcomes rather than rely on the dice? In that case, it might help you to think of this ability as building into the fighter a fate point resource for the player - every time the fighter attacks, the player has a little fate point s/he can play which says "No matter what the dice say, you take at least 3 (or 5, or whatever) damage from this attack".
Actually, I am only barely aware of fate points (I'm including hero points, adventure points, or other variants). I've never used them as a player or allowed them as a DM. I know they can add bonuses or change outcomes, but I don't have any idea on what kinds of things they can change specifically.
Beyond that, as I understand it fate points are a rare and precious commodity. They don't replenish regularly and once spent they are drained. The fighter would similarly have a limited quantity and thus able to do something like hitting on a miss a finite number of times a day. No wait. This ability however works on EVERY attack all day long - so long as the fighter still has HP. (But then again I don't think that HP should be the fighter's only measure of staying in a fight.)
Beyond THAT, if they had fate points - a system I have never once used EVER - then yes I would let the fighter dictate something in such a way. I would do that because if I'm allowing fate points I'm allowing that kind of subsystem. It is not, however, a core mechanic of the game. It is like saying that I dislike when players get to automatically create all NPCs personalities, friendship scale and abilities when they go to talk to someone. I would say that doesn't work, is inconsistent and frankly breaks my immersion as I am the DM and I run and create the NPCs. Now if I were running a game (system, or even using tokens) where this were an ability the characters had a finite number of times in the game then that would be different. They would be allowed to create NPCs and dictate what they could do for their character. It is a subsystem (or an entirely new system) to deal with - one I can opt into. It is NOT the same as saying "I do 3 damage, against everyone, on a miss, even if I can't see them, and even on a roll of 1, and even if it kills them."
The fighter does have a capability to deal extra damage - namely, this ability! And why should the fighter tire him/herself out quicker than the pixie.
First, cyclical. Outside of - this ability! - does anyone (non-magically, and yes excluding fate points if they would allow such a thing) have such a capability? Especially another fighter?
Second, the pixie is used to being small and buzzing around. He may have to buzz from place a little faster but presumably he is immortal and doesn't need rest or sleep (I believe those were requirements Celebrim put forth). Why SHOULDN'T the fighter be more tired? He is wearing armor, using a sword that is frankly tiring by simply holding it (I'm a big guy and I have wielded a greatsword, it is tiring). If the answer to he shouldn't is "the ability doesn't say so" then you have no real answer.
The point of this ability is to model an unrelenting fighter. S/he strikes so swiftly and viciously that the pixie gets worn down, and loses the energy to dodge, more quickly than against an ordinary foe.
Except that isn't what is being modeled.
He is striking so swiftly that even if he rolls a 1 (a normal auto-miss) he is able to hit the tiny creature - wear it down (by your example tiring it out), and losing its energy to dodge all at once - without rolling a hit.
What that example would be is he is able to cause the pixie to somehow NO LONGER have an AC worth speaking of. Cause non-lethal (because of the wearing down). And it still doesn't explain how the fighter does it by "being unrelenting."
Tovec said:
as long as the rules are clear pemerton doesn't care if they make sense
It's against board rules to insult other posters, so I'd rather that you didn't.
It is not an insult. It is a representation of your arguments for the past several pages and especially this last one.
Your argument boils down to "the ability says it works, therefore it works." But when questioning the validity of something you have to have proof beyond the thing you are questioning.
The rule makes perfect sense. It is a fiat mechanic, like a fate point mechanic, that empowers the player of the fighter to impose a certain vision of the fighter upon the fiction: namely, this fighter is so relentless that 6 seconds of combat with him/her will always wear an opponent down.
If it made perfect sense we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It is a fiat mechanic on the wrong side of the screen an unlimited number of times per day, when no one else can do it, when the fiction describing it doesn't make sense and is obviously inconsistent.
It is a fate point mechanic, which you have to extract or "not use" from the greatsword wielding maniac that even the barbarian doesn't get.
And yes, I assume you like fiat, I don't - it shouldn't be a necessary part of the core game.
It isn't an eventual wearing targets down, it is an eventual killing of targets through not-hitting. It isn't represented by non-lethal. It isn't represented by bypassing armor (a truly vicious hit). It isn't DOING the things you or Rodney say it does. It is doing a specific thing and now everyone else has to come up with a reason to try and explain it and then hope that reason doesn't already exist in something else.
- It is hardly perfect.
Of course those who like process simulation mechanics don't like it, but that tells us nothing about its coherence as a mechanic. The real puzzle for me, as always, is why people who like process simulation mechanics would play D&D rather than (say) Runequest or HARP.
I don't recall saying my objection was that it wasn't process sim. Your side brings that up a lot though. I object because it has a shaky basis in the game.
As someone said a few pages back "it seems strange that a fighter with a greatsword cannot ever NOT hit." How is it that it is impossible for the fighter to miss. Impossible for him not to do damage. That has been my issue since page 1. You haven't answered it except to say "the ability says he can" and that "it flies in the face of process sim" which I guess is supposed to be a good thing in and of itself.
Oh, and I hate runequest, what am I supposed to like about it? I don't know what HARP is. But, yes, when I find a system that I like more than what WotC is producing I play that instead. However, I don't play games
for process sim. I wouldn't even know what that means or how I would look for it in a game before deciding it is a good thing. But when WotC is working on a new edition and they ask for my feedback and I see a hole I sure as heck tell them I see it and hope they fix it. It isn't as simple as "not using the broken thing" when it comes out, if you have the opportunity to change it BEFORE it comes out.
) they should go back and re-read it.
