Maybe this guy is a SJW. Whilst you are all thinking physical damage and stress from combat, maybe someone coming at you with a 2H weapon and GWH feat thing is instilling in you Emotional Damage.

"Roll to see if you need to go and have a lay down in a darkened room, and if so for how long."

Quote from: jibbajibba;729983The problem has many levels. Firstly the round is a series of blows idea though referenced in the text is never actually thought of like that especially with special attacks. Second the armour makes you harder to hit model means that a blow could ring off your breastplate or it could miss by three feet. Thirdly hp are abstracted but not uniformly so you can't for example expend hp in order to have a blow miss and avoid an associated special effect.

So in this example if you say you miss but your blow rattles their armour but the guy you missed was an unarmoured wizard, it doesn't work. Likewise if you try to say that this mighty blow special attack with your two-handed sword is actually a flurry of mighty blows as an attack isn't just one swing... it doesn't work with the description. And if you say the blow is so mighty that you need to leap to one side and expend energy (=hp) then what is a reflex save for and how does that leap to one side differ fron the actual hit for 2 damage that triggers the weapon's poison/flame/level drain power.

The original abstract model has been usurped by the increasing sophistication of the game and the desire to add more options. This means that rules relying on that abstraction no longer makes sense. You need to simplify and unabstract (??) the model define it clearly then you can design to it in a consistent way.

I was just trying to find out what explanation the power description offers.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;729988Maybe this guy is a SJW. Whilst you are all thinking physical damage and stress from combat, maybe someone coming at you with a 2H weapon and GWH feat thing is instilling in you Emotional Damage.

Great.  Now all the min/maxers will be playing hetero white male Christian jocks, because each of those categories grants an extra +1 emotional damage to the target...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;729996Great.  Now all the min/maxers will be playing hetero white male Christian jocks, because each of those categories grants an extra +1 emotional damage to the target...

And of course they are immune to emotional damage themselves :-)

Quote from: estar;729987You are overthinking it.

The Great Weapon Fighting mechanic is fine with the the abstract of D&D combat. If want to get technical about I suppose you could say if the attack is higher than 10 + dex mod then it does damage on a miss. But that just make  it more fussy.

The primary problem is not the "design" or the "abstraction". The problem is that vast majority of gamers equate a dice roll with a single swing the weapon. It is natural and logical to make this assumption. That is the primary problem with the mechanic not the design. For the above reason I would not include any type of damage/effect on a miss mechanic in a D&D derived game.

Disagree and i covered your point already. Whilst the text says that no one thinks of it like that even the dsigners introduce cleave attacks, pin attacks blah blah allof which assume a single strike.
So the question is do you stick to a description that the rules no longer reflect or do you accept how the rules actually work and rewrite the description to fit.

Quote from: jibbajibba;729999Disagree and i covered your point already. Whilst the text says that no one thinks of it like that even the dsigners introduce cleave attacks, pin attacks blah blah allof which assume a single strike.
So the question is do you stick to a description that the rules no longer reflect or do you accept how the rules actually work and rewrite the description to fit.

Modern D&D has moved so far away from the abstractions its designs are rooted in that thev whole thing is already a clusterfuck at this point. This confusion and mix of discrete action and abstraction has caused more headaches about issues like this, the whole action economy load pigshit and a slew of other problems.

D&D needed to shit or get off the pot and decide if it was an abstract game or not over 30 years ago and its still fucking constipated.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730044Modern D&D has moved so far away from the abstractions its designs are rooted in that thev whole thing is already a clusterfuck at this point. This confusion and mix of discrete action and abstraction has caused more headaches about issues like this, the whole action economy load pigshit and a slew of other problems.

D&D needed to shit or get off the pot and decide if it was an abstract game or not over 30 years ago and its still fucking constipated.

Agreed. The game has to determine its underlying  combat paradigm and then follow that through to its implementation

Quote from: Exploderwizard;730044Modern D&D has moved so far away from the abstractions its designs are rooted in that thev whole thing is already a clusterfuck at this point. This confusion and mix of discrete action and abstraction has caused more headaches about issues like this, the whole action economy load pigshit and a slew of other problems.

D&D needed to shit or get off the pot and decide if it was an abstract game or not over 30 years ago and its still fucking constipated.

But I think the issue is, because it hasn't done so, the game is a bit of a blend, and anytime they try to go one direction or the other, they alienate segments of the play base. In my experience, people kind of see what they want in the D&D combat system. If you don't think too hard on it, you don't really notice. So for doing damage on a miss, I think the test is whether it has the kind of effect something like Healing surges had, where it amplified an issue you might otherwise have ignored.

My problem with it, based on Estar's explanation, is there doesn't even seem to be an effort to describe what it is at all, it is purely mechanical. I just do not like that kind of design. Like they started with the idea of letting people do damage on a miss, rather than starting with something cool they wanted fighters to be able to do in combat, then creating a mechanic to represent that. I am not sure it quite rises to the level of healing surges for me in terms of jarring me out of the game, but that also kind of depends on what the description of the ability actually is. I see the issue, I just don't know that I would be that aware of it during play or not.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730057My problem with it, based on Estar's explanation, is there doesn't even seem to be an effort to describe what it is at all, it is purely mechanical. I just do not like that kind of design.

I agree but I also will point out this is not unique to the Great Weapon Fighting style. The entire playtest has very little description. I don't view this as a problem of the playtest. My own Fudge rules read very much like this at this point in time.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;730057Like they started with the idea of letting people do damage on a miss, rather than starting with something cool they wanted fighters to be able to do in combat, then creating a mechanic to represent that.

In my opinion it doesn't come off like that at all. It is part of list of fighting styles; Archery, Defense, Great Weapon Fighting, Protection, and Two-Weapon Fighting.

Archery = +1 to ranged weapons
Defense = +1 to AC
Great Weapon Fighting - Strength Bonus as Damage on a miss
Protection - impose disadvantage on a target within 5 ft if armed.
Two-Weapon Fighting - Add ability modifiers to 2nd Attack when using two weapons.

As stated earlier my take on Great Weapon Style would have been to roll damage twice take the higher result.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;729466I thought it was Rooster.

But honestly, if someone is making six figures as a video game designer he/she is probably making that money by working insane hours.  Like 80 hours a week.

They probably do work insane hours but six figures for a good game programmer is not crazy talk.   I really doubt than any board or rpg game developers make that much money.  Maybe a few like Steve Jackson who own their own company do.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;729601Damage on a miss is stupid.

With that said, dismiss it from your game if you think it's stupid.  If I ran 5e, I would.

It is dumb and wotc should consider that some people will not buy 5e just because of it.  Will anyone not buy it if it isn't in there?  I doubt it.  They have more to lose by including it than by getting rid of it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;730054Agreed. The game has to determine its underlying  combat paradigm and then follow that through to its implementation

Isn't that what they did with 4e?  That's where abstract bullshit like damage on a miss comes from.

Quote from: estar;729984It is a fighting style called Great Weapon Fighting that can be picked by the Fighter. On a miss with a 2H or versatile weapon the fighter does damage equal to his strength modifier. There is no explanation or fluff text.

So if I make a fighter with a 9 strength, can I heal people by missing them?

Quote from: estar;730063I agree but I also will point out this is not unique to the Great Weapon Fighting style. The entire playtest has very little description. I don't view this as a problem of the playtest. My own Fudge rules read very much like this at this point in time.

And i havent really been following the playtest much, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I realize they could just be focusing on the mechanical side in order to playtest it.

QuoteIn my opinion it doesn't come off like that at all. It is part of list of fighting styles; Archery, Defense, Great Weapon Fighting, Protection, and Two-Weapon Fighting.

Archery = +1 to ranged weapons
Defense = +1 to AC
Great Weapon Fighting - Strength Bonus as Damage on a miss
Protection - impose disadvantage on a target within 5 ft if armed.
Two-Weapon Fighting - Add ability modifiers to 2nd Attack when using two weapons.

As stated earlier my take on Great Weapon Style would have been to roll damage twice take the higher result.

I see, i missed that it is part of a style listl. that makes a bit more sense. I keep going back to this image of a foghter plowing through his opponent's defenses to cause some minimal amount of harm. If that is what they are shooting for, it seems an alright approach. But it sounds like it is more about wielding a massive weapon and causing minimal damage through that in a similar way. Probably better for them to avoid the problem entirely and adjust it so people find it less jarring (because they really don't need discussions like the ones you had for come and get it, right out of the gate).

Your approach is probably better because it still allows for a miss, which seems to be what is messing with most people (and i am seeing a lot of complaints about this online).

Quote from: mhensley;730071Isn't that what they did with 4e?  That's where abstract bullshit like damage on a miss comes from.

Not abstract damage on a miss comes from actually running hp as written. So hp are a mix of luck, stamina, skill etc not just physical damage.
The result of that is that is that you could miss but still causeca loss of energy. So its concrete rather than abstract. However, they didn't follow through hp act like this sometimes, healing surges etc but not all the time they are also the physical damage as well. A wound/vitality option is a fix.
So they keep abstract hp mixed with concrete effects.
Now that ignores the fact that most d&d players prefer abstract hp. So the most sucessful choice would have been to keep hp as they were in previous editions. Meaning an abstract mix of stuff and thus only a hit can do damage because all hits include real damage, just like healing surges don't work because any healing includes some real damage.
Personally i prefer the concrete model of wound/vitality (as i have detailed at length before) but the key here is that needed to pick a position to make it coherent. Instead they chose neither and went for a kludge.