Quote from: GnomeWorks;768191And yet people bitch when I pull out the "fighters can't have nice things" line.

But here is a pretty solid example of why that phrase exists.

.*Fighters have more ability bumps/feats
*Fighters attack more often, for more damage, than everybody else.
*Fighters can wear heavy armor and wield badass weapons.
*Fighters have a ton of HP's, and advantage on CON saves.

Fighters have a LOT of nice things. But because a fighter can't do what a magic-user does means, for some people, that they've been screwed with their pants on

Quote from: GnomeWorks;768191And yet people bitch when I pull out the "fighters can't have nice things" line.

But here is a pretty solid example of why that phrase exists.

In this case I have to agree.

Why was is was it an atrocity against gaming for the fighter to have this? But the mage doing it, (later) and doing it far better was fine?

The replacements for both were ok at least.

Quote from: Omega;768200In this case I have to agree.

Why was is was it an atrocity against gaming for the fighter to have this? But the mage doing it, (later) and doing it far better was fine?

The replacements for both were ok at least.

Because people take the words "hit" and "miss" literally when it comes to fighters doing physical attacks with weapons.

That's the real issue here, not some kind of bizarre anti-fighter rant.  If you take the words "miss" and "damage" literally, then there's basically no way in which it makes any sense for a fighter to do damage on a miss.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;768191And yet people bitch when I pull out the "fighters can't have nice things" line.

But here is a pretty solid example of why that phrase exists.

In this particular case I agree with you because it's not actually a class ability but an archetype requiring a singular type of weapon. But I understand why people dislike it and the revision is fine.

Quote from: robiswrong;768204Because people take the words "hit" and "miss" literally when it comes to fighters doing physical attacks with weapons.

That's the real issue here, not some kind of bizarre anti-fighter rant.  If you take the words "miss" and "damage" literally, then there's basically no way in which it makes any sense for a fighter to do damage on a miss.

What do hit points represent?

If they are anything beyond "meat," then this argument is bullshit, because then you have things like "oh well hp represents your ability to turn a killing blow into a not-killing blow," which means that the words "damage" and "hit" and "miss" don't actually map to what you claim they do.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;768235What do hit points represent?

If they are anything beyond "meat," then this argument is bullshit, because then you have things like "oh well hp represents your ability to turn a killing blow into a not-killing blow," which means that the words "damage" and "hit" and "miss" don't actually map to what you claim they

if you "hit" me i expend hp to turn that blow into a not killing blow. That is what hp do. If you don't hit me i don't need to do that...... Simple.

I would be all for using hp as a deeper fatigue mechanic but it would be i spend hp to do more damage or i spend hp to increase my ac. The option to spent hp or not remains associated to the in game event. If you miss me but still do damage then you are removing the possibilty that you are simply shit at hitting stuff :-)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;768191And yet people bitch when I pull out the "fighters can't have nice things" line.

- it's not that nice of a thing

- it's weird

- it makes people look at hit points harder, which is never good

- hit points may not necessarily be meat points but they have to include meat points because nothing else does, and that is why it is bad to look at hit points harder

Quote from: GnomeWorks;768235What do hit points represent?

If they are anything beyond "meat," then this argument is bullshit, because then you have things like "oh well hp represents your ability to turn a killing blow into a not-killing blow," which means that the words "damage" and "hit" and "miss" don't actually map to what you claim they do.

Um, I'm not the one railing against damage on a miss.  I'm simply trying to explain the other side's arguments, and that it's a little more nuanced than "fighters can't have nice things."

I thought Damage on a Miss was pretty evocative of swinging around a LARGE weapon near anyone and when the sword struck armor or a shield and it was a glancing blow or something that was essentially "blocked" (ie. a miss) it would still hurt like hell or dislodge something or loosen up a piece of armor or etc. etc.

Nothing about it I found 'Broken' considering that I've been using this feature since the Playtest's initial inception back in the first packet (5/26/12) where the pre-gen Dwarf Fighter had a feature called Reaper. It wasn't a problem then and wasn't a problem in the final packet on 10/14/13 where it was a Fighter's choice either.

However I'm not seeing the problem with the basic concept of GWF now being Brutal from 4E. It's different and invokes a bit of a different feeling when using it but it's not bad. The Reaper's style is still something I'd like to see later on or even just homebrew the damn thing in the game as an additional Fighting Option.

Quote from: Batman;768309I thought Damage on a Miss was pretty evocative of swinging around a LARGE weapon near anyone and when the sword struck armor or a shield and it was a glancing blow or something that was essentially "blocked" (ie. a miss) it would still hurt like hell or dislodge something or loosen up a piece of armor or etc. etc.

Nothing about it I found 'Broken' considering that I've been using this feature since the Playtest's initial inception back in the first packet (5/26/12) where the pre-gen Dwarf Fighter had a feature called Reaper. It wasn't a problem then and wasn't a problem in the final packet on 10/14/13 where it was a Fighter's choice either.

However I'm not seeing the problem with the basic concept of GWF now being Brutal from 4E. It's different and invokes a bit of a different feeling when using it but it's not bad. The Reaper's style is still something I'd like to see later on or even just homebrew the damn thing in the game as an additional Fighting Option.

Works for me just like the original definition of Potent Cantrip for Evokers. Houserules are Dnd to me.

I didn't hate the mechanic myself but it *does* lead directly back to the ARE HIT POINTS ACTUAL MEAT OR BATTLE FATIGUE? argument and fuck that's one that will never ever be settled despite every iteration of the game going for the meat/stamina/luck/experience combo platter explanation that is also quite clearly the correct one.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;763854Are you nuts?  Most of them want to flush the legacy of D&D - see "Fire these guys and replace them all with 20 year olds, stat!" response to Rob's 'blog post.

And yes, that was a real comment made by someone.  Meant sincerely.

Ahem.

Link? I'm way behind on muh blog readin.

Quote from: Batman;768309I thought Damage on a Miss was pretty evocative of swinging around a LARGE weapon near anyone and when the sword struck armor or a shield and it was a glancing blow or something that was essentially "blocked" (ie. a miss) it would still hurt like hell or dislodge something or loosen up a piece of armor or etc. etc.

Depending on how you interpret hp's that glancing blow you describe, above, is the fluff text for a hit, not a miss.  I also think DoaM proponents also forget that spells are finite resources and weapon swings are not. A fighter can "miss" multiple times a round and still do 15 dmg while "missing."  And it's a hit, not a miss, if it does damage. Wizard spells that do damage on a failed save are all hits.  That's their schtick.  4E made it everyone's schtick, though, so some folks still expect it.  My advice for DoaM proponents is play 13th Age.  It's all DoaM.  Guess it feels good to NEVER, EVER fail.

I think the problem is that HP IS meat, and fatigue, and luck and other things it has had this duality for a long time. It was what it needed to be to fit the narrative. I know what AD&D tried to define it as, but rules didn't quite match up to that definition. With a to 'hit' rule, a 'damage' roll, and a cure light 'wounds' spell. The definition fell apart and HP took on this particle/wave like duality. It was what the narrative called for at the moment. Undefined and amorphis. Sometimes meat and sometimes only fatigue and sometimes both, at the same time.

With DOAM it is only one thing, fatigue, until the fatal blow. And I think that is the crux of some peoples issue with it.

Me? I still think it's the above. HP IS meat and it IS fatigue, and sometimes both, and sometimes neither, just a counter. And it should stay that way, it's a perfect mechanic, you can't really nail it down so it serves a purpose that fits the narrative at the moment, in the heat of battle as it were.

I think some rules work best when they are unclear and not well defined.

Quote from: honesttiago;768315Depending on how you interpret hp's that glancing blow you describe, above, is the fluff text for a hit, not a miss.  I also think DoaM proponents also forget that spells are finite resources and weapon swings are not. A fighter can "miss" multiple times a round and still do 15 dmg while "missing."  And it's a hit, not a miss, if it does damage. Wizard spells that do damage on a failed save are all hits.  That's their schtick.  4E made it everyone's schtick, though, so some folks still expect it.  My advice for DoaM proponents is play 13th Age.  It's all DoaM.  Guess it feels good to NEVER, EVER fail.

The way I see it is Hit =/= Contact and Miss =/= Whiff. A Hit is like in Baseball where I hit the ball and it lands somewhere in play and I get to run to the base. I can smack the ball ALL day long and foul 1,000,000 times but none of contact is an actual "hit". So in D&D a Hit with a Martial Weapon is when you succeed in equaling or exceeding a target number. That's the game's definition. Not the literal meaning of "hit" as in, I made contact with something.

Granted it's ALL subjective and people will flavor their favorite position on the issue, and I also feel it IS an issue D&D has grappled with since it's inception. The rules, til 4E, however kept things pretty ambiguous. 4E's Reaping Strike sort of let the Couatl out of the bag so to speak and now we're dealing with the differences that have always been there.

But I have to fully admit that it doesn't matter because I'll be running D&D:Next with Wounds and Vitality system, so there's a much clearer definition of how something like DoaM works in conjunction with a term like "Vitality" and how that doesn't  translate over to "Wounds" (something DoaM could never do because the attack was a "miss").

Quote from: Marleycat;768311Works for me just like the original definition of Potent Cantrip for Evokers. Houserules are Dnd to me.

Exactly. House rules are pretty much standard-practice in my book that every edition gets. I think I house ruled nearly MOST of the Forgotten Realms prestige classes from the Player's Guide to Faerûn into 4E as well as a ton of other things like Gunns and Boot-Knives. I also use a lot of other people's homebrew stuff too, like someone's complete creation Avatar: The Last Airbender 4E campaign (complete with 4 Bending classes and 3-4 paragon paths for each Bender AND paragon paths if you wanted to be the Blue Spirit or a fighter with Hook-Swords). It's usually all over the place balance wise, but who cares? That's the the DM is for.