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

[Wicht]

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?

So what book was it in?

 

[LostSoul]

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

You were confused because I was confusing! I think I was substituting "hit" for "success" and "miss" for "failure" in my mind. That's the way I tend to run things.

So "hit" and "miss" do have meaning in D&D melee combat (I was wrong when I asserted that they did not); and treating a miss as a hit (in that it does damage) becomes jarring, because it strips the meaning of "hit" and "miss" away.

That makes sense to me. Cool, thanks for the discussion.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I am not sure where you're losing the line of thought here. I'll break it down as simple as I can:

1) If it specifies that objects are targets, then an object can always be a target for that spell;
2) If it does not specify objects as a target, then as the glossary explains, "With your DM’s permission, you can use a power that normally attacks creatures to attack objects."

Is that clear? It's the difference between always applying to objects, and only sometimes applying if the DM deems the circumstances warrant such application.

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

I am not rambling at all, you're just not understanding why I raised that. I assure you, others do recall how a "core-level" rule came from an expansion book during 3e, which is what happened in 4e with this "objects being targeted" rule.

For example, Burninator just repeated the argument which is in my view entirely defeated by that mutliclassing issue from 3e. It's a proper analogy. In both cases, a "core rule" was accidentally not put in the first three books WOTC released, and they had to correct that by putting the rule in a later book and then retroactively applying it.

In other words, if you're not getting the prestige class issue, don't worry about it. I think others do, and it is relevant to some of what's being said here.

 

[Mistwell]

So what book was it in?

One of the first four expansion books. I don't recall which one. I am sure someone else does. It was quite the debate here at the time. The rules as written in the DMG and PHB stated that multiclassing incurred the XP penalty, and prestige classes were multiclassing. Then one of the expansion books said whoops, prestige classes are exempt from that multiclassing XP penalty. And then WOTC went back and retroactively changed the rule in future reprints of the core books (and they included it in the FAQ as well).

 

[urLordy]

I think I was substituting "hit" for "success" and "miss" for "failure" in my mind. That's the way I tend to run things.

Ya, I've started to realize on this thread that this, or something like that, is true for many ("4e-ish"?) games. I honestly didn't know before.

 

[Celebrim]

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).

Now at least the fiction is consistent - you are literally saying that the attack 'never misses'. Ok, so we can narrate that. But the problem is, why would we want to give 'never misses' fiction to guys wielding big clumsy weapons? Do great big two handed weapons really convey 'elegant and precise attacks' to you? Maybe this power should be called, "Delicate Butterfly Style" or "Machinelike Precision" or "Devil's Own Luck"? Maybe it should apply to finesse weapons instead?

The original power's fluff is clear: "This guy with the big sword hits so hard, that even his glancing blows do damage." There is nothing at all wrong with that fluff but the problem is that they people who wrote the mechanic have a really dumb definition of "glancing blow" so that they equate "all misses = glancing blows". A more fitting mechanic might be, "If the attack misses by 4 or less, you do strength damage to the target." Or, in 3e, if you are going for high process simulation, you might write, "If an attack misses, but still would hit the target's touch AC, you do damage to the target equal to your Strength bonus."

From a gamist perspective on what it means to be balanced, the "never misses" power (of your suggested reframing) is problematic because it implies that a first level Great Weapon Fighter always manages to connect with the God of Dodging Stuff every single time. So you lose some of the ability to make a character - PC or NPC - around the idea, "I'm hard to hit." Absolute powers like that should be avoided in your mechanics on several grounds, and not the least of which is that they make future extension of your rules more difficult.

 

[Imaro]

I am not sure where you're losing the line of thought here. I'll break it down as simple as I can:

1) If it specifies that objects are targets, then an object can always be a target for that spell;
2) If it does not specify objects as a target, then as the glossary explains, "With your DM’s permission, you can use a power that normally attacks creatures to attack objects."

Is that clear? It's the difference between always applying to objects, and only sometimes applying if the DM deems the circumstances warrant such application.

Dude I had no problem understanding this... what I'm not getting is what your rambling posts have to do with my original point. Your "line of thought" doesn't really have anything to do with my point which was that the rule wasn't in the 1st three core books and that could account for the fact that many believe you can't target objects with the lion share of powers, spells, etc. in 4e... is that stated simply enough for you to grasp?

I am not rambling at all, you're just not understanding why I raised that. I assure you, others do recall how a "core-level" rule came from an expansion book during 3e, which is what happened in 4e with this "objects being targeted" rule.

Yeah you are. Who cares, about 3e, what does it have to do with my point, which even with the example you keep harping on from 3e holds true?

For example, Burninator just repeated the argument which is in my view entirely defeated by that mutliclassing issue from 3e. It's a proper analogy. In both cases, a "core rule" was accidentally not put in the first three books WOTC released, and they had to correct that by putting the rule in a later book and then retroactively applying it.

First... then quote Burninator and focus your point on what it is supposed to be addressing. Second, you have no insight into the "why" this rule wasn't in the core so stop stating it like it's fact. you don't know whether the object rule was intentionally left out or an accidentally left out.

In other words, if you're not getting the prestige class issue, don't worry about it. I think others do, and it is relevant to some of what's being said here.

You're the one not getting it, first you're asking why 3.x gets a "free pass" and 4e doesn't... then you're stating conjecture on why these rules were left out the core, as if you were part of the design team or telepathic (which one is it exactly)... and now you're stating pointless information about prestige classes that in no way changes my point... So maybe I am having a hard time following what exactly your point is since you're quoting me in all of your statements yet not really addressing the actual point I made.

 

[Imaro]

One of the first four expansion books. I don't recall which one. I am sure someone else does. It was quite the debate here at the time. The rules as written in the DMG and PHB stated that multiclassing incurred the XP penalty, and prestige classes were multiclassing. Then one of the expansion books said whoops, prestige classes are exempt from that multiclassing XP penalty. And then WOTC went back and retroactively changed the rule in future reprints of the core books (and they included it in the FAQ as well).

Did 4e ever go back and add the rule to reprints of it's core?

 

[Campbell]

Did 4e ever go back and add the rule to reprints of it's core?

I don't know one way or another. I don't believe they ever reprinted the core books with their accumulated rules updates, but it does appear in the errata/updates file and was included in the rules compendium.

 

[Imaro]

I don't know one way or another. I don't believe they ever reprinted the core books with their accumulated rules updates, but it does appear in the errata/updates file and was included in the rules compendium.

I was just wondering if there was a way someone who had only bought the core rule books would have seen it.