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

[I'm A Banana]

I'm interested to meet this hypothetical 4e players who say that fireball can't set anything on fire. Not just people who read 4e and asserted it without playing the game.

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] plays the game this way, and then complains about the "wrought iron fence made of tigers".

It's true! That scenario (or an effect substantially similar) has totally happened at more than one 4e table that I've been a part of -- the mechanical effect of the power is the only thing that happens as a result of the power's use. See also Chris Perkins's "Doors aren't creatures, so you can't use a creature-targeted power on them" logic.

I wouldn't want to suggest that the issue is clear-cut. In the first case, there's the phenomenon that a skilled DM runs the game according to DM Instinct, which supersedes all the explicit rules and makes the game good regardless of what the rules say -- Monte Cook probably runs a good game of FATAL, if he wants. So there's probably plenty of 4e players and DMs (especially here on ENWorld, where skilled DMs are pretty common!) who have never hit the issue.

It's also something of a trade-off 4e makes. The fact that the rules only support fireball dealing fire damage to the creatures in the area makes the thing highly customizable in terms of re-skinning. A ball of fire, a swarm of summoned fire elementals, a sudden whirlwind of flame, a sudden lashing of hot iron, a fountain of molten magma, a sexy dance that makes the targets all "hot and bothered"....because the rules don't interact much with the story, it doesn't really matter what story you tell, there.

But it looks like something 5e is tacking away from, with a clear focus on "what happens in the world" when you do a thing. I think this is a very good idea, because I don't like the fence that separates story from mechanics, personally. If in my imagination I'm hurling a ball of fire, and the rules don't describe that story, or describe it so loosely that it could be substituted with any other story or requires extensive DM intervention to fix, the game system isn't really doing what I need it to do.

I think that Damage-on-a-miss is actually OK in that regard. Because the miss wasn't a really a "you didn't connect at all," it was more of a "you didn't connect as deeply as you would have on a hit, but because you're mighty, your enemy still feels the blow." It tells the story of a warrior whose attacks are inescapable, where if you are in a melee with her, she will make you feel it the next day. While I don't particularly see it as a "big weapon" thing (in fact, I think it would make more sense for an accurate light weapon build -- think of a warrior so skilled with a rapier that no armor is truly safe against her; or maybe a two-weapon build, with it representing the off-hand attack slicing in where the main attack didn't hit), it doesn't really bother me there since I think "always hits" is fine for any fighter. That's totally fine with me. It makes sense that someone who knows how to fight with a blade would be able to damage whoever they wanted basically by declaring it, and it makes sense that someone who is strong and powerful would watch goblins fall beneath their blade like wheat before the scythe. I'm pretty cool with players having powers that really shape what they're capable of, and the strategies against them. Meet someone so well-trained at fighting that they don't miss with their swords? You attack them at range. Or you charm them into attacking their allies. Or whatever.

I can't say I'm so invested in the option that I'd miss it if it were to be gone (or relegated to a feat or a level 3 option or somesuch), but I really don't have a problem with it myself, because it tells a story that I think is well within the wheelhouse of a fighter via the mechanics of it.

So it's an example of how 5e is taking a solid 4e idea (damage on a miss is similar to "save for half" mechanically) and making steps to have it make sense in the context of the story. I mean, it could be better, but it's not bad.

 

[Mistwell]

Because people (including you) are choosing to discuss it.

LOLWut? Imaro, I am responding to you raising this issue. I didn't raise this issue. I am asking you what your point is. And you're responding "because you choose to discuss it"? No, that doesn't answer what your point is.

if you feel it is unimportant to this thread, why do you keep choosing to engage in the conversation?

Imaro, you raised the issue, you obviousy think it is relevant in some way to this topic, so WHAT IS YOUR POINT IN RAISING THIS ISSUE?

There is no burden on me to figure out on your behalf why the issue you raised is relevant to the topic at hand...that's all on you baby. If you had no point, just say that. If your point was different from this topic, then just say that. But - say what your point is.

 

[bogmad]

I agree for the most part with what KM said above, except I'm still not convinced Great Weapon Fighting as described is able to accurately tell the story of what's happening in the world. Or it does most of the time, but it breaks down in some situations.
One problem I haven't seen addressed yet is what's been referred to as the "pixie dodge" problem. What is it about a mundane weapon attack makes it inescapable by anything?

I keep imagining that scene where a guy keeps taking a swing at the Flash and every blow flits by without anything connecting.
This isn't a superhero game, but we do fight supernatural beings pretty regularly so this analogy isn't totally irrelevant.

Maybe you add a mention in the statblock of exceptionally "dodgy" monsters that they don't take any damage on a miss?
That still seems an inelegant solution, as it infers that it takes some supernatural or gamist magic for a guy with a big two handed weapon to actually miss on an attack. It's better than nothing though I guess.

If it makes it into the game as is I'll probably just houserule a "miss less than 5" be inserted into the rules text and wonder why the designers didn't think of such a small elegant solution.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

It's more trouble than it's worth to be honest.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's true! That scenario (or an effect substantially similar) has totally happened at more than one 4e table that I've been a part of -- the mechanical effect of the power is the only thing that happens as a result of the power's use. See also Chris Perkins's "Doors aren't creatures, so you can't use a creature-targeted power on them" logic.

I wouldn't want to suggest that the issue is clear-cut. In the first case, there's the phenomenon that a skilled DM runs the game according to DM Instinct, which supersedes all the explicit rules and makes the game good regardless of what the rules say -- Monte Cook probably runs a good game of FATAL, if he wants. So there's probably plenty of 4e players and DMs (especially here on ENWorld, where skilled DMs are pretty common!) who have never hit the issue.

It's also something of a trade-off 4e makes. The fact that the rules only support fireball dealing fire damage to the creatures in the area makes the thing highly customizable in terms of re-skinning. A ball of fire, a swarm of summoned fire elementals, a sudden whirlwind of flame, a sudden lashing of hot iron, a fountain of molten magma, a sexy dance that makes the targets all "hot and bothered"....because the rules don't interact much with the story, it doesn't really matter what story you tell, there.

But it looks like something 5e is tacking away from, with a clear focus on "what happens in the world" when you do a thing. I think this is a very good idea, because I don't like the fence that separates story from mechanics, personally. If in my imagination I'm hurling a ball of fire, and the rules don't describe that story, or describe it so loosely that it could be substituted with any other story or requires extensive DM intervention to fix, the game system isn't really doing what I need it to do.

I think that Damage-on-a-miss is actually OK in that regard. Because the miss wasn't a really a "you didn't connect at all," it was more of a "you didn't connect as deeply as you would have on a hit, but because you're mighty, your enemy still feels the blow." It tells the story of a warrior whose attacks are inescapable, where if you are in a melee with her, she will make you feel it the next day. While I don't particularly see it as a "big weapon" thing (in fact, I think it would make more sense for an accurate light weapon build -- think of a warrior so skilled with a rapier that no armor is truly safe against her; or maybe a two-weapon build, with it representing the off-hand attack slicing in where the main attack didn't hit), it doesn't really bother me there since I think "always hits" is fine for any fighter. That's totally fine with me. It makes sense that someone who knows how to fight with a blade would be able to damage whoever they wanted basically by declaring it, and it makes sense that someone who is strong and powerful would watch goblins fall beneath their blade like wheat before the scythe. I'm pretty cool with players having powers that really shape what they're capable of, and the strategies against them. Meet someone so well-trained at fighting that they don't miss with their swords? You attack them at range. Or you charm them into attacking their allies. Or whatever.

I can't say I'm so invested in the option that I'd miss it if it were to be gone (or relegated to a feat or a level 3 option or somesuch), but I really don't have a problem with it myself, because it tells a story that I think is well within the wheelhouse of a fighter via the mechanics of it.

So it's an example of how 5e is taking a solid 4e idea (damage on a miss is similar to "save for half" mechanically) and making steps to have it make sense in the context of the story. I mean, it could be better, but it's not bad.

I just want to point out, that short of dry brush or explosive materials, it's actually fairly difficult to light something on fire. I mean think back to the last time you made a fire in a pit or a hearth(in real life). The wood doesn't just catch flame as soon as it's exposed to new fire unless it's very very dry and fragile wood. Metal(such as armor) is not going to begin with and make lighting the cloth underneath on fire more difficult. Human skin is not an easily flammable substance. Further, explosions tend to blow themselves out, the rapid expansion and contraction of air within the blast radius don't lean towards good conditions for starting fires. Most fires after explosions are due to the presence of blamable fuels.

The problem with Fireball is the misconception based based on that it does "fire" damage. If fireball is an explosion it doesn't, honestly the damage from an explosion is more due to the shockwave from the blast than the actual fire. So really, it's more likely that a Fireball does thunder damage.

 

[pemerton]

It's also something of a trade-off 4e makes. The fact that the rules only support fireball dealing fire damage to the creatures in the area

Other than the rules in the DMG pp 42, 65 and 66.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

it's actually fairly difficult to light something on fire.

...when you're trying to. It's amazingly easy when you're not. I call it "the perversity of the inflammable."

 

[Bluenose]

I agree for the most part with what KM said above, except I'm still not convinced Great Weapon Fighting as described is able to accurately tell the story of what's happening in the world. Or it does most of the time, but it breaks down in some situations.

So rather like hit points in general? Until there's agreement on what they are, deciding what happens when you lose them would seem difficult.

This is not an invitation to anyone to start another hit point debate, btw.

 

[Imaro]

Yes. I am arguing that rules for the effect of attacks upon objects count as rules for attacking objects. I don't know what you thought those rules were for - maybe they just had a few blank pages they needed to fill?

This isn't the problem... yes there are rules for attacking objects, however powers have their valid targets listed... so the problem is how you made the jump from objects can be attacked to... specific powers without objects as a valid target can be used to attack them? How does one correlate with the other, especially since object is used by some as a valid target?

There was also p 42, just in case anyone was in doubt as to whether the GM has authority to adjudicate fictional positioning:

DMG p 42
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.
​

I can pretty easily imagine setting things alight with a spell that causes explostive bursts, fiery rays and/or simple ignition! And the GM even has some additional guidelines besides p 42, namely those I quoted from pp 65-66.

Good for you but you still haven't shown where in the rules powers without "object" as a valid target should, (barring DM fiat or houseruling until PHB2/DMG2 came out) be assumed to have an effect on an object. You're citing general rules but the specific rules of powers over ride those general rules of the game. I could kind of see your point if there weren't any powers with object listed as a valid target... but there are and some have even been listed earlier in the thread.

How much discussion is there of damaging objects in Moldvay Basic? That's right, none. People still managed to adjudicate it and I have never heard it argued that in Basic you cannot damage objects or set them on fire. The difference with 4e - 4e actually has a page or more devoted to the topic! That's a strange form of "no rules".

The difference with 4e is that it specified, rules wise, what targets were valid and (by exclusion) which were not for certain spells. You keep dancing around this issue, so can you address it. Were valid targets for powers specifically listed in 4e? Do the rules of a power, when using it supersede the general rules of the game? Is there anywhere before PHB2/DMG2 that powers without "object" as a target are noted as generally affecting objects?

 

[Imaro]

Except for the bits that @Mistwell and I have quoted, which say that creatures take damage.

Yes but since the spell in question doesn't specifically exclude the "object" category, like so many spells and powers in 4e it doesn't comment on objects either way. 4e can't have it both ways, it can't create a format where it lists specific targets for clarity, designate "object" as one of those valid targets and then not list it but expect it to be assumed as a valid target. What's the point of listing valid targets then?

Except for page 42, which says:

Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.​

And then goes on to give rules for adjudicating this. I don't know about you, but I can imagine a fireball setting things on fire.

Again good for you and what you can imagine... but in doing this your are also ignoring the rules that are specific to powers (which IMO is house ruling). That is a choice the DM can make but the game itself is pretty clear on how powers work and nowhere does it say in the first 3 corebooks that objects are a valid target for spells and powers that don't list them as such. In essence you are house ruling it in and since other posters, including myself have given examples of DM's who actually followed the rules for powers to the letter, if you're assuming every DM house ruled this stuff in you are wrong, and that's still not an argument supporting that the rule was included in the first place, instead it seems you are arguing that 4e gave a DM the tools to house rule damage on objects even if they aren't listed as a valid target... that's not what I am arguing against..