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

[urLordy]

That's how I'd look at it as well (because the to-hit roll missed). I'm specifically looking at narration of the events in the game world: How is what we've described in the game world not appropriate for damage on a miss?

My point is that you don't know - and can't say - what happened in the game world until you get the damage result. (Like your mention of how the orc in my example would have been decapitated if the damage exceeded his HP.) The PC misses, but still deals damage, so you can simply narrate that as any other attack that deals damage.

Got confused, so I went back to your original post. Here's the premise I was looking at:

I'd argue that the independent reality of D&D melee is very abstract, so much so that "hit" and "miss" don't have any real meaning.

Then followed the confusing example of the head being cut off but not actually being cut off, let's just put that aside.

I'd argue that, in any of these cases, you miss your intended target. However, since the to-hit roll indicates a hit, you still do damage. Since you can miss but still hit, the to-hit roll only determines whether or not you deal damage.

IME the target is the creature. You can't miss the intended target on a hit, because the target is always the creature, and a hit always hits the target, which is the creature. So you can't miss but still hit.

The player can declare intent to cut the neck off or whatever, but the target is always the creature.

So no matter what the player says, or what the character intends, then in my games from 3 editions, a "hit" has meaning. If you "hit", you hit the creature. If your hit kills the creature, then you found out that the player/character intent (ie beheading) leads to what actually happens.

This is completely natural too. In real life fights, you often intend to poke the eyes, jab to the kindey, punch to the jaw, whatever. You try to do it, and you find out soon enough if it success or fails. No fortune in the middle required there.

Anyway, that is my games, and many other people too. So in that case, hit and miss have a meaning. YMMV but I just have to show that it does have meaning in some people's games to show otherwise, no?

 

[Mistwell]

Dude it wasn't about "cutting slack" I was wondering why so many people assume that objects couldn't be hit by spells, powers, etc. unless it was listed as a target... and if it's not in the first 3 core books for 4e then it makes alot of sense doesn't it... Now show me where I argued for whatever the rule you're talking about in 3e being core and not popping up in a supplement?

If you take a prestige class in 3e, are you multiclassing into that prestige class?

 

[Imaro]

If you take a prestige class in 3e, are you multiclassing into that prestige class?

Who cares? For me it's irrelevant to my point.

 

[Mistwell]

What if the sub-class feature were worded this way?

Great Weapon Fighting: When you attack with a melee weapon you are wielding with two hands which has the two-handed or versatile property, the huge sweep of your weapon causes you to automatically make at least glancing contact with one target you can see, dealing damage equal to your strength modifier. In addition, make an attack roll as normal, and if your attack roll hits, you do damage as normal less your strength bonus (which was already applied).

 

[Mistwell]

Who cares? For me it's irrelevant to my point.

It's a rule everyone assumes was in the 3e core, but it was not, and was instead in a later book in the 3e line which retroactively altered the core rules. Same thing that happened with the "attacking an object with a power" rule in 4e.

 

[Imaro]

It's a rule everyone assumes was in the 3e core, but it was not, and was instead in a later book in the 3e line which retroactively altered the core rules. Same thing that happened with the "attacking an object with a power" rule in 4e.

And...

 

[Burninator]

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

Yeah, those guys love "mother may I set this match on fire", especially when they're casting fireballs.

Next's fireball doesn't need any such thing. It doesn't target creatures in a zone. It has an area of effect, and explicitly states that it sets flammable objects in it on fire.

It's AWESOME

//Burninator

ps asking your DM for special permission is basically the same thing as a house rule. And until PHB 2 came out, you did need to use an actual house rule to even be able to ask your DM to set a match on fire, because by RAW, it couldn't alter the Target: line from a power, which was a crunch modification which is outside the player's power to change, ever. Makes you wonder how they let that through the testing, I guess no one tested the game in non-combat situations where powers might be of more use than just killing orcs. Setting the orc camp on fire would be great, but strictly speaking unless there are actual valid targets in the zone, no damage is dealt, and is of no net effect whatsoever, and the power is wasted.

It's quite obvious they put zero thought or support into using powers for non-combat use, since most of the cool stuff you could do with spells was pushed into a separate mini-game, rituals. Meaning powers were basically just damage or sliding or conditions on living creatures, which was a massive change in design focus from all previous editions. Combat centricity of the game design could easily be measured, by the amount of stuff a wizard could do with his powers that weren't proscribed by the intent of the designers (to kill stuff and move on to the next room, and do the same thing again 5 minutes later. The 5 minute max duration on all sustained powers assured that)

 

[Mistwell]

And...

And while your point might be "I am trying to understand why people thought that was the 4e rule when it was not, due to it not being in the first three books of 4e", I think others are very clearly arguing it was never the rule period. So It's useful to clarify that was in fact the rule, just like it was in fact the rule that prestige classes were exempt from multiclassing restrictions in 3e, even though that rule came outside the first three books of 3e. "Not in the first three books" isn't the same as "not the rule". It wasn't the same for 3e, and it wasn't the same for 4e.

 

[Mistwell]

ps asking your DM for special permission is basically the same thing as a house rule. And until PHB 2 came out, you did need to use an actual house rule to even be able to ask your DM to set a match on fire, because by RAW, it couldn't alter the Target: line from a power, which was a crunch modification which is outside the player's power to change, ever.

So in 3e, you felt it was a house rule to exempt prestige classes from the multiclassing restrictions, because that rule was not in the first three core books?

 

[Imaro]

And while your point might be "I am trying to understand why people thought that was the 4e rule when it was not, due to it not being in the first three books of 4e", I think others are very clearly arguing it was never the rule period. So It's useful to clarify that was in fact the rule, just like it was in fact the rule that prestige classes were exempt from multiclassing restrictions in 3e, even though that rule came outside the first three books of 3e. "Not in the first three books" isn't the same as "not the rule". It wasn't the same for 3e, and it wasn't the same for 4e.

Then why is object specifically listed for some spells/powers/etc.?? Answer that if the ability to attack objects was always the rule??

EDIT: In other words if that was the intended rule then listing object as a specific target for any powers/spells/etc. would have been redundant.

And again what does 3e and prestige classes have to do with anything?? You're rambling.