Quote from: Sacrosanct;693564The only time I'd have an issue with it is if there was some power down the road that said something like, "Whenever you cause damage, you do X."

Yeah, 'Poison + Damage on Miss' is something that came up with a earlier version of the ability in my playtest. Although to be fair, that wouldn't have happened in a real game, we were purposefully looking to test things that might be problematic.

Quote from: Benoist;693571It's not just that. There are also situations in which a single attack roll really can only logically be interpreted as a single swing. The actual strength of the D&D attack roll abstraction is that you can interpret it in a variety of ways, depending on the exact circumstances of the game as they unfold. With something like this, you are making an assumption that there is always contact and the attack roll with the weapon always models multiple passes of arms. So it cuts off the possible interpretation that there would be a single blow, hit or miss, in a particular circumstance. Which absolutely CAN happen at my game table on occasion.

I can see the single blow vs multiple passes coming up quite often in most situations.

For example the difference between moving your maximum move rate and attacking vs a full round of melee with an already engaged opponent. On the movement round you may only one actual shot at the opponent.

The rule could be ammended like so:

On any round you begin combat within reach of a target, you score STR modifier damage on a miss.

This means that auto damage is NOT scored while closing with an enemy but can be done while engaged. This will make light fighters want to stay mobile forcing the heavy to chase them around, and heavy fighters want to trap thier opponents in corners or other areas ill suited for retreat.

Quote from: Benoist;693571It's not just that. There are also situations in which a single attack roll really can only logically be interpreted as a single swing. ....So it cuts off the possible interpretation that there would be a single blow, hit or miss, in a particular circumstance. Which absolutely CAN happen at my game table on occasion.

Not really.

You swing and 'miss' but make contact.  You do minimal damage since you fail to bypass armor.  This would normally be represented by rolling high enough to hit 'touch' AC, or AC without shield, or some such.  

You swing and 'miss' and completely miss the target, making no contact with their armor or shield (etc).  The target had to expend some effort to avoid the blow.  Since a large, heavy, weapon is not easily ignored, the opponent had to move to avoid taking a 'real hit' and possibly much larger damage.  The amount of movement required to avoid such heavy blows is 'more wearing' than combat against lighter weapons where you can trust your armor to absorb the blows more completely.

Because hit points are so abstract, the specific method of dealing damage on a 'miss' can also be abstract.  I can understand why it's not to your taste, but ultimately, I think it helps with the 'realism' of heavy weapons.  

There are other ways they could have done it, too.  I mean, a greataxe could do 4d12 damage but you might attack with a -4 penalty compared to lighter weapons - the weapon is heavy and awkward, but when it hits - ow!.  Since we're trying to distill reality to game mechanics, some sacrifices are going to be required.  There particular solution does a generally good job of representing that heavier weapons still deal damage even when you're not cleaving your opponent from nose to navel.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;693575You swing and 'miss' and completely miss the target, making no contact with their armor or shield (etc).  The target had to expend some effort to avoid the blow.  Since a large, heavy, weapon is not easily ignored, the opponent had to move to avoid taking a 'real hit' and possibly much larger damage.  The amount of movement required to avoid such heavy blows is 'more wearing' than combat against lighter weapons where you can trust your armor to absorb the blows more completely.

Ah err. No. Sorry. It's actually easier and less tiring to avoid blows from heavy, slow weapons in a melee than to dodge repeated blows from lighter, quicker weapons which can easily take you off guard. By this logic, if you are an expert in rapier fighting, say, you should do more "damage" on a miss than the two-handed weapon fighter. So the argument that it really models "fatigue" doesn't work.

Sacrosanct was right: it's got to assume there is some contact achieved during the pass of arms.

Quote from: Benoist;693568*nod* I think it'd be much better if the assumption was spelled out. After, that's why you have human referees: to judge on a case-by-case basis if that particular ability applies or does not apply.

Like

Great Weapon Fighting: When you miss a target with a weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. (. . .) This ability assumes there is a chance of contact with the target during the round, in an ongoing melee where multiple passes of arms are likely to be modeled by a single attack roll, for instance. In situations where a miss could not be interpreted as anything else but a lack of contact with the target, this ability would not apply.

First off, I agree that is good to explain the reasoning behind this kind of stuff. Because lord knows the players find themselves in all kinds of situations especially ones the designers did not envision.

But concerning the particulars of the Greatsword I don't see the distinction you are trying to make. In GURPS, Harnmaster, the reenactment fight videos, all make it clear 2H weapons are massive things with a lot of power and force behind them. That even a single exchange can be damaging.

My advice to a referee who want this aspect of 2H weapons in a D&D game would precisely what Wizards did just do the minimum damage on a miss and be done with it. If you are in a place to roll for a melee damage you are in a place where it a factor.

I would also caution him on whether does he really need this level of detail in his D&D game? I would tell him that for some of your players every inch of mechanical advantage matters. But for most they got this image in their mind's eyes of their fighter is like.

They will play that fighter with a 2H sword if that what they want despite any slight disadvantage. In the fullness of time they will find a way to make up the lack of a magical shield with other types of protection items. That in my experience the lack of a shield vs extra damage pales to the suite of magical items the character possesses in later level. Pales compared to the increased to hit chances and number of attacks.

If that is an important distinction then use it otherwise just keep to the basics and put the work in making your adventures and campaign interesting.

Quote from: Benoist;693578Ah err. No. Sorry. It's actually easier and less tiring to avoid blows from heavy, slow weapons in a melee than to dodge repeated blows from lighter, quicker weapons which can easily take you off guard.

But you don't have to avoid all of those blows.  Your armor and shield can be trusted to absorb blows from smaller weapons without necessarily forcing you to jump out of the way.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;693575There are other ways they could have done it, too.  I mean, a greataxe could do 4d12 damage but you might attack with a -4 penalty compared to lighter weapons - the weapon is heavy and awkward, but when it hits - ow!.  Since we're trying to distill reality to game mechanics, some sacrifices are going to be required.  There particular solution does a generally good job of representing that heavier weapons still deal damage even when you're not cleaving your opponent from nose to navel.

In an abstract system even a hit for maximum damage isn't always cleaving your foe from nose to navel. It depends on if its the shot that kills him.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;693580But you don't have to avoid all of those blows.  Your armor and shield can be trusted to absorb blows from smaller weapons without necessarily forcing you to jump out of the way.

OK see this is why trying to split hairs on the abstraction can be problematic. I cannot imagine a guy engaged in a melee wearing a suit of chainmail and a shield against a guy who has a light, thin blade that could pierce through his chain ever "trusting his armor to do the protection job for him." And someone's got to swing that shield around too, by the way.

Quote from: Benoist;693578Ah err. No. Sorry. It's actually easier and less tiring to avoid blows from heavy, slow weapons in a melee than to dodge repeated blows from lighter, quicker weapons which can easily take you off guard..

Actually I have something relevant to that statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r7VWIQCHvM

Here is a interesting comment.

QuoteLast Saturday, we held an inter-salle rapier vs longsword tournament, but in the run up to the actual contest, it was agreed that the rapier guys should be allowed to use parry dagger. This was for two reasons - firstly, the use of the offhand is very much an instinctive part of rapier, and unless one's hand was held behind one's back, the likelihood of injury to the offhand was seen as too high to warrant the risk of it getting caught up in the action without some kind of appropriate defence (we could have worn armoured gauntlets, but that would have been unrealistic....). Secondly, a longsword just plows it's way through rapier guards and parries, and a rapier on it's own has too little mass to make an opening against a two-handed sword, so it was felt that the parry daggers should be allowed in order to assist in deflecting cuts and making openings. A parry dagger was also seen as a typical (if not universally encountered) companion to the rapier.

Feints were useful, as was avoiding contact and sniping with the point. But a steel feder is also capable of being wielded with a lot of accuracy and dexterity (indeed one longsworder started to use rapier tactics against the rapiers!) and with a lot of power and control, making things considerably trickier.

In the end, the rapier guys won the contest, but those feders took a heavy toll on their equipment - one rapier blade completely cleaved in two, one parry dagger completely bent out of shape, lots of twisted and bent quillons and bent dagger blades.......

Quote from: estar;693584Actually I have something relevant to that statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r7VWIQCHvM

Interesting. Now assuming the guy with the longsword inflicted "fatigue" damage on his opponent, would you say the rapier guy inflicted significantly more, less, or no real different "fatigue" damage on his opponent?

If damage on a miss is unappealing, remove it and add a small amount to the damage when you do hit. The math is not the same but it might be a workable 'fix' for those that dislike auto damage.

Quote from: Bill;693588If damage on a miss is unappealing, remove it and add a small amount to the damage when you do hit. The math is not the same but it might be a workable 'fix' for thos ethat dislike auto damage.

Nah, I'd just amend the rules as I described in a previous post, with a simple caveat.

Quote from: Benoist;693590Nah, I'd just amend the rules as I described in a previous post, with a simple caveat.

Or something like, "If your attack misses by 5 or less, you inflict your STR mod in damage."

That accounts for really bad misses that might be wiffs.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;693599Or something like, "If your attack misses by 5 or less, you inflict your STR mod in damage."

That accounts for really bad misses that might be wiffs.

You could do 'Unless you roll a natural one' - less bookkeeping and means their is always a chance of missing even if you have a overwhelming discrepancy. It also ties into Advantage/Disadvantage quite well.