Arilyn
Hero
I don’t think it’s a big deal either, actually I think it’s a great mechanic. But people get really touchy when it comes to the degree of abstraction involved in attacks, hits, and damage. That’s why damage on a “miss” and if hit points should be meat are two of the most controversial topics in D&D. To me, a failed attack roll doesn’t have to mean a miss, a successful attack roll doesnt have to mean a hit, and damage doesn’t [/i]have to[/i] mean physical injury. For many others, the opposite is true, and damage on a failed attack roll isn’t going to sit well with them even if you argue that the failed attack roll isn’t really a miss. That’s a non-starter for many people, and in my observation, many PF1 fans in particular.
I agree, it's not likely to survive playtesting. It's odd though. There are plenty of spells which pretty much do damage on a miss...
And the game is already full of abstractions, unrealistic absurdities, and large swathes of players obsessing over their DPR, you wouldn't think this would be that big a deal.