D&D 5E I just don't buy the reasoning behind "damage on a miss".

[TwoSix]

I would question whether doing damage on a miss really indicates a different play style. I would also suggest that the presence of an ability quite like that in the rules, even if I choose to not include it in my campaigns, could make elements of the rules murkier to comprehend. In this case, it undermines what meaning a "miss" or a "hit" really has.

I sort of agree here. I do think "damage on a miss" indicates a preference for a more narrative combat style, though. I would say that whatever play style Next chooses to use, it needs to be consistent with in the Core so as to present a unified play style. Veering the game in other directions can be the job of the modules. Damage on a miss is fine IF it's integrated fully within the system, and therefore presents the resolution as scaling through "success/partial success/partial failure/full failure". Then I'd like to see it integrated throughout the entire combat system. But just a piecemeal addition to one version of one class is not the way to make D&D more narrative. I can wait for the D&D Next/FATE/Dungeon World mashup that the narrative module should be.

 

[bogmad]

I know of many who are asking for that to be put back in the game. Want a link to the forum where I see that argument made a lot?

Nope.
What I'm against is adding something that ticks so many people off just because a vocal group demands it. Want to add an advanced option or houserules to rewire THAC0 back in? Good luck with that, but don't demand I use it.

In addition, we're far from consensus on finding this a bad mechanic. Indeed, WOTC says their feedback on it shows a majority like it.

I am voting against it just because my players didn't like it. But, I still don't understand why adding an additional offensive option for that big weapon fighter, instead of replacing the existing one, is the only solution. I really have trouble understanding why someone else playing with an ability you guys dislike takes something away from your enjoyment of the game, as long as you have an option that you do like. What's wrong with more options, to cover different playstyles?

Because having that option as a default in core negates how some want to play the game. I have no problem with options. But add the contentious options later, after a default playing field has been established.

A vocal group demanding something be added is different than asking something contentious be subtracted with the option to add it later for those that want it.

 

[TwoSix]

Prove it, then.

Show the power from 4e, and copy+paste the spell description of Fireball from every edition.

You'll see I'm right. 4e powers don't ever target objects or areas, they target creatures or enemies or allies in a zone. Objects are explicitly excluded / untouched by pretty much every attack power in 4e. Without taking any damage, fire damage isn't dealt. Therefore a match is not set on fire (without a houserule, obviously).

The fire keyword (and keywords in general) give explicit narrative authority to create fictional positioning based around the keyword. So a fire spell sets things on fire BECAUSE it's a fire spell. It's just like invoking an aspect in FATE. You have played FATE, right? You're not just grasping at straws as to how a narrative game works, I hope?

 

[TwoSix]

It was a joke. You know, black humour?

Where I come from, invoking Weather Report causes decades-long feuds. It's just not done!

 

[Mistwell]

4e powers don't ever target objects or areas, they target creatures or enemies or allies in a zone.

From the PHB2 Glossary: Attacking objects: With your DM’s permission, you can use a power that normally attacks creatures to attack objects. See the Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 65, for how to damage objects.

Lots of rituals also specifically target objects. Here's one of many:

SHRINK
With a final flourish, you shrink the statue down to a much smaller size. The guards will never notice it hidden in your boot.
level: 6
Category: Exploration
Time: 10 minutes
Duration: Special
Component Cost: 50 gp
Market Price: 360 gp
Key Skill: Arcana
You shrink an object. Your Arcana check result determines how small the item becomes and how long the
effect of the ritual lasts.

 

[Imaro]

From the PHB2 Glossary: Attacking objects: With your DM’s permission, you can use a power that normally attacks creatures to attack objects. See the Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 65, for how to damage objects.

Lots of rituals also specifically target objects. Here's one of many:

SHRINK
With a final flourish, you shrink the statue down to a much smaller size. The guards will never notice it hidden in your boot.
level: 6
Category: Exploration
Time: 10 minutes
Duration: Special
Component Cost: 50 gp
Market Price: 360 gp
Key Skill: Arcana
You shrink an object. Your Arcana check result determines how small the item becomes and how long the
effect of the ritual lasts.

I'm curious was this something added to 4e later or was it in the core books when they were released (as far as attacking objects with DM's permission)?? If so can you tell me where, because I was under the impression that this wasn't something that came about until after the corebooks...

EDIT I Just wonder why so many people (including myself) believe/believed this.

 

[Mistwell]

Nope.
What I'm against is adding something that ticks so many people off just because a vocal group demands it. Want to add an advanced option or houserules to rewire THAC0 back in? Good luck with that, but don't demand I use it.

Weird. Nobody in this thread is demanding you use this feature. Indeed, my entire goal in this and the two other threads is to find a way to add in an additional offensive feature for big weapon fighters that satisfies the people objecting, without removing the damage on a miss option. That appears to be the goal of others who support this feature as well in this thread - find a way to satisfy the people objecting, without removing this feature as an option for those who like it. The only group I see that wants to force people to play a certain way, are the ones saying they want this out of the game even as a potential option.

This idea that it "ticks so many people off" because "a vocal group demands it" doesn't seem to meet with the evidence at hand. It's the opposite. WOTC says they got GOOD feedback on this ability, that people LIKE this ability in their feedback. That tells me it's a vocal (but smaller) group of people who do NOT like the ability, not the other way around.

Because having that option as a default in core negates how some want to play the game. I have no problem with options. But add the contentious options later, after a default playing field has been established.

And if there are many options for the big weapon fighter, and of which you can choose from, with multiple offensive options in addition to multiple defensive ones, and only one of them is this option?

A vocal group demanding something be added is different than asking something contentious be subtracted with the option to add it later for those that want it.

LOL it's contentious because the vocal group is making it contentious, even though that vocal group seems to be in the minority! So let me get this straight - if 10 loud people dislike something, the default should be to remove it from the game? What's the threshold here for a vocal minority demanding something that the majority likes be removed from the game?

 

[Ahnehnois]

From the PHB2 Glossary: Attacking objects: With your DM’s permission

Gasp! It's Mother May I, the bane of all gaming! Run for your lives!

 

[Mistwell]

The fire keyword (and keywords in general) give explicit narrative authority to create fictional positioning based around the keyword. So a fire spell sets things on fire BECAUSE it's a fire spell. It's just like invoking an aspect in FATE. You have played FATE, right? You're not just grasping at straws as to how a narrative game works, I hope?

Now you lost me. This rule has nothing at all to do with FATE, or anyone's experience playing that other non-D&D game. He's asking if the rules of D&D 4e say spells with the fire keyword set things on fire, not whether it does so in another game entirely.

 

[Mistwell]

Gasp! It's Mother May I, the bane of all gaming! Run for your lives!

I am a huge fan of DM permission style gaming, and I think calling it "mother may I" is a load of baloney. YMMV.