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

[Campbell]

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

Totally understandable. Honestly I'm not a fan of the way WotC handled revising material in 4e. I really wanted to see a revised 4e core that incorporated the rules updates and what WotC had learned about class and monster design in 4e. If wishes were fishes of course.

 

[CleverNickName]

For me, the lion's share of a game's excitement and reward comes from consequences and risk. So in general, I tend to dislike game elements that reduce or remove risk. Damage on a miss, for example, lessens the consequences of a missed attack roll, and makes repeating the same melee attack a little bit less risky for the player. Eventually the player might try to Take 10 on his attack rolls.

This isn't a new thing for me; I've always disliked auto-damage effects like Magic Missile, or auto-successes like Improved Evasion.

 

[Ahnehnois]

For me, the lion's share of a game's excitement and reward comes from consequences and risk. So in general, I tend to dislike game elements that reduce or remove risk. Damage on a miss, for example, lessens the consequences of a missed attack roll, and makes repeating the same melee attack a little bit less risky for the player. Eventually the player might try to Take 10 on his attack rolls.

This isn't a new thing for me; I've always disliked auto-damage effects like Magic Missile, or auto-successes like Improved Evasion.

That's an interesting take on it. Games aren't much fun if you can't lose. In a microcosm, an attack roll isn't much fun if you can't (really) miss.

Magic Missile I think is somewhat different because it's a limited resource. When they tried to make it usable at will in the early 5e playtest there was something of an uproar.

Also, I actually think taking 10 on an attack roll is an interesting paradigm for certain situations wherein you really don't want to roll.

 

[Wicht]

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).

I must have missed that. I think I always ran them as incurring the penalty. I bought the 3e books on the first printing and never upgraded to 3.5; I ran a hybrid 3.0 and 3.5 game using the SRD towards the end. But I don't remember that particular rule, so this is one who didn't assume it was core anyway.

 

[Mistwell]

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?

Hey buddy, I already answered that question. You then raised it again, saying you didn't understand, so I explained it again.

To be clear NOBODY CARES THAT YOU THOUGHT A RULE THAT WAS NOT IN THE FIRST THREE BOOKS DIDN'T EXIST BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN THE FIRST THREE BOOKS. There is no "firs three books" rule. There is no magic number three for books. Nor do I care WHY PEOPLE MISTOOK IT FOR THE WRONG RULE. Who cares why they were mistaken five years ago into thinking a rule didn't exist when it did? What he heck does that have to do with anything?

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?

Burninator raised the issue of 3e earlier, and then said the 4e rule doesn't work well because it was not in the first three core books. I reminded him that 3e had this same issue with a different rule. That you don't see the connection is meaningless. I get it - you don't see the connection. OK, great for you, can the rest of us have a conversation now without you seeing the connection?

First... then quote Burninator and focus your point on what it is supposed to be addressing.

I'm checking to see if you are a mod. Nope! So...how about no. Is no good for you?

It's not? OK, this is me not caring.

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.

For 3e I know why the rule was left out because they explained it later. I am indeed assuming it's the same reason for 4e. Unless you have insight that differs, I think it's a fair assumption. Do you have insight that differs?

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)...

You're on to me. I am telepathic. Happy now? I gotta go change my secret identity and everything now.

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.

We all understand that you don't understand the connection. We get it - you don't understand. Crystal clear on that. No doubts at all.

 

[Mistwell]

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

Interesting. So you DO understand why I raised the 3e issue, as this aspect of changing it in reprints comes directly from that 3e rule I was mentioning. Were you lying when you said you didn't get it, or did you just now get it, or what?

As for your question, Imaro, 4e had no core. You can not accept this all you want. You can call the sky pink color all you want. That doesn't change the fact 4e had no core. There was no magic number 3 books for 4e. Players were much more concerned about what was in the PHB 1 and PHB 2 than they were with what was in the DMG or Monster Manual. They added a clarification in the glossary of the PHB 2, which pretty much every 4e player used (it had "core" player races in it like the gnome for example, and "core" classes too) and that was the rule. That's it, that's how they dealt with it, it went automatically into core by doing that, was freely available on the DDI for all to see when they looked up the rule thereafter, that was it and done with the issue.

 

[Morrus]

OK, calm the hell down please people. You're talking about a game. If you're feeling angry, step away from the thread for a while.

 

[Imaro]

Hey buddy, I already answered that question. You then raised it again, saying you didn't understand, so I explained it again.

To be clear NOBODY CARES THAT YOU THOUGHT A RULE THAT WAS NOT IN THE FIRST THREE BOOKS DIDN'T EXIST BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN THE FIRST THREE BOOKS. There is no "firs three books" rule. There is no magic number three for books. Nor do I care WHY PEOPLE MISTOOK IT FOR THE WRONG RULE. Who cares why they were mistaken five years ago into thinking a rule didn't exist when it did? What he heck does that have to do with anything?

First... you don't speak for everybody so I'll chalk that part of this post up to hyperbole... Second, if you don't care why do you keep quoting me and posting nonsensical (as far as them pertaining to what I am speaking about) replies... you don't care about my observation then don't engage me.

Burninator raised the issue of 3e earlier, and then said the 4e rule doesn't work well because it was not in the first three core books. I reminded him that 3e had this same issue with a different rule. That you don't see the connection is meaningless. I get it - you don't see the connection. OK, great for you, can the rest of us have a conversation now without you seeing the connection?

So again, quote Burninator so we know who and what you are addressing. Apparently the connection is Burninator's post... But I'm not Burninator, so why do you keep quoting me if you're trying to show him something? It would seem more logical to speak directly to who you are trying to correct or make your point to... wouldn't it?

I'm checking to see if you are a mod. Nope! So...how about no. Is no good for you?

I'm not trying to be a mod, but you keep claiming you are addressing a mistaken assumption by another poster... yet you are quoting me, I'm trying to help you focus your replies and direct them at who you are addressing as opposed to making random, rambling comments after quoting mine.

It's not? OK, this is me not caring.

*sigh* And yet here you are replying...again... yeah that's showing me how much you don't care.

For 3e I know why the rule was left out because they explained it later. I am indeed assuming it's the same reason for 4e. Unless you have insight that differs, I think it's a fair assumption. Do you have insight that differs?

Concerning 4e I have the same insight as you... none. But then I'm not claiming to know why the rule was left out the book, am I?

You're on to me. I am telepathic. Happy now? I gotta go change my secret identity and everything now.

Well it would be a better answer than I'm just pulling it out of thin air...

We all understand that you don't understand the connection. We get it - you don't understand. Crystal clear on that. No doubts at all.

No again you don't get it... what is the connection between this and my posts that you've been quoting, (and remember I'm not Burninator... I'm Imaro so please don't tell me again about a point you are trying to make to him because that is irrelevant to the posts of mine you quoted and replied to.)? Seriously, you've proclaimed you don't care about my conjecture on the reasons some people may think that objects can't be targeted in 4e... and that was what my posts have been about... so why are you quoting me and replying??

 

[Imaro]

Interesting. So you DO understand why I raised the 3e issue, as this aspect of changing it in reprints comes directly from that 3e rule I was mentioning. Were you lying when you said you didn't get it, or did you just now get it, or what?

No, I don't... not in relation to my posts you were quoting...

As for your question, Imaro, 4e had no core. You can not accept this all you want. You can call the sky pink color all you want. That doesn't change the fact 4e had no core. There was no magic number 3 books for 4e. Players were much more concerned about what was in the PHB 1 and PHB 2 than they were with what was in the DMG or Monster Manual. They added a clarification in the glossary of the PHB 2, which pretty much every 4e player used (it had "core" player races in it like the gnome for example, and "core" classes too) and that was the rule. That's it, that's how they dealt with it, it went automatically into core by doing that, was freely available on the DDI for all to see when they looked up the rule thereafter, that was it and done with the issue.

Uhm, okay... so you know for a fact nearly every 4e player used the PHB 2... Here we go again, an opinion is not a fact (I wonder if the PHB2 had the exact same number of sales as the PHB1... I doubt it in fact wasn't that the book involved in the piracy lawsuit? If so it sold magnitudes less than the PHB1). Second I've revised my statement to the 3 main core books in previous posts... sorry if that doesn't cut it for you but I don't think anyone in this thread is having an issue (with the exception of you) of understanding my observation and my point. Oh, and DDI isn't free and those using DDI are only a subset of 4e players... those are facts.

 

[Mistwell]

Seriously, you've proclaimed you don't care about my conjecture on the reasons some people may think that objects can't be targeted in 4e... and that was what my posts have been about...

Why is it important for you, or anyone, to know the reasons why people mistakenly thought that objects can't be targeted in 4e?