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

[Imaro]

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.



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.

Woah, tone down the angry internet caps...lol!!

So let me get this straight, you've been arguing over multiple pages... without understanding what you are posting about? Then earlier when I said your posts came of as rambling, incoherent and pointless you deny it and claim I'm the one that doesn't understand... Are you serious?

I'm not your personal note-taker and I'm not responsible for whether you can follow a thread or not. Plenty of posters are involved in this branch of the conversation happening in this thread and are following along just fine... you want to know what my original point is? Go back and read it you jumped in quick enough with a response (and posted numerous follow ups) to it that I would have assumed you understood the issue and point being discussed.

 

[Cyberen]

Sooooooo....
Folks, you've been arguing for 15+ pages for an EDITING problem 4e had at launch... This problem is very well known, and very well documented.
Those who find incoherences, loopholes and inconsistencies in 4e "holy trinity" are right : editing was poor.
Those who claim the DESIGN of the rules supports classical gameplay are also right. The errata is there to make sure the RAW match unambiguously the RAI.
I think this was the original point of Imaro, who was trying to post mortem the place where the disconnect between the intention of the rules and the actual unsatisfactory feeling about those rules took place. Rushed pre-launch editing, I would guess.

By the way, KM's post should replace the official Q&A about damage on a miss !

 

[TwoSix]

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..

So what are you ultimately arguing about? Is 4e screwed up or is it not screwed up? Should fireball set the papers on fire or shouldn't it?

The personal jist of my argument is that since it's unspecified whether or not area effects affect objects, that leaves the narration up to the player, which is IMO the best place for it. The real point of difference in 4e targeting is whether or not a power affects "creatures", or whether it affects "enemies" (or "allies). Targeting creatures tells you that the player lacks the authority to specify targets, thus the effect must be a generalized area effect. If it targets enemies, though, that means the player has the authority to narrate targets, which would include specifying an object to be a target.

Thus, in the generalized "creature" case, I would say that the DM has the authority to include objects as affected if it fits within his conception of the power effect, while still subject to the rules constraints on damaging objects. (No psychic damage on the door). In the "enemies" case, the player has the ability to frame his power to affect objects as fits his conception of the power effect. Maybe his fireball are seeking fiery rays, or maybe it's just a shockwave blast of heat.

And yes, if you want the rules to model a story (as [MENTION=10021]kamikaze[/MENTION]midget said), this probably doesn't work for you. But I've had enough of Wall of Thorns type stories to last me a long while, thanks.

 

[pemerton]

there are rules for attacking objects, however powers have their valid targets listed

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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?

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?

<snip>

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

There is no [fire] spell in the PHB that includes "object" as a target. From which it follows that either (i) the rules on p 66 of the DMG about setting paper alight are pointless, or (ii) the DMG assumes that a GM can adjudicate the effect of a fireball upon a pile of paper. If people infact played with GMs who didn't read and apply p 42 I don't know what you want me (or the 4e designers) to do about that. I guess some people think it's "house ruling" to read and apply the rule book, and is "following the rules to the letter" to ignore the bit of the rulebook that says "Here are the charts, tables and guidelnes you will need as a GM to adjudicate actions that the rules don't otherwise cover".

As to the purporse of the targetting rules: it seems to me that they differentiate between those targets where the player does not need the GM to adjudicate fictional positioning - because by default 4e the creatures in an AoE will be marked by tokens on a map - and those which the GM does adjudicate pursuant to pp 42 and 66. (It's also fairly obvious that the main function of the target line for melee and ranged attacks is to tell you how many targets in the case of multiple attacks; and for AoE is to allow the creatures/enemies distinction to be drawn.)

Seriously, anyone who reads the rules for a system that (i) tells you that [fire] effects include explosive bursts and ignition, (ii) has rules for the vulnerability of paper to [fire] effects, (iii) has rules for resolving actions that the rules don't otherwise cover, and (iv) uses the "creature" designation primarily to distinguish indiscriminate attacks from "enemies" only ally-friendly attacks, yet concludes that a fireball can't set paper alight, isn't someone I want to game with. Is this the same sort of person who assumes that PCs can't whistle because there's no whistling skill?

EDIT:

The personal jist of my argument is that since it's unspecified whether or not area effects affect objects, that leaves the narration up to the player

<snip>

Thus, in the generalized "creature" case, I would say that the DM has the authority to include objects as affected if it fits within his conception of the power effect, while still subject to the rules constraints on damaging objects. (No psychic damage on the door). In the "enemies" case, the player has the ability to frame his power to affect objects as fits his conception of the power effect.

I think the default 4e approach - judging from both the p 42 guidelines and the description of the DM role in the PHB - is that it is the GM who gets to adjudicate rather than the player, but having regard to the spell description.

So I agree that fireball clearly targets everything in the area - as you say, that is the point of the "creatures" rather than "enemies" in the target line.

In the case of an "enemies only" fire attack, I think the GM would be within his/her rights to (say) ask for an Arcana check to hit an enemy without striking the pile of paper on which s/he is sitting. (And when one of the PCs in my game used Fire Shroud (? low-level enemies-only wizard burst attack) to take out some undead spiders running across the shelves of a library, I did ask for an Arcana check to save the books.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perform: Whistle

 

[TwoSix]

I think the default 4e approach - judging from both the p 42 guidelines and the description of the DM role in the PHB - is that it is the GM who gets to adjudicate rather than the player, but having regard to the spell description.

So I agree that fireball clearly targets everything in the area - as you say, that is the point of the "creatures" rather than "enemies" in the target line.

In the case of an "enemies only" fire attack, I think the GM would be within his/her rights to (say) ask for an Arcana check to hit an enemy without striking the pile of paper on which s/he is sitting. (And when one of the PCs in my game used Fire Shroud (? low-level enemies-only wizard burst attack) to take out some undead spiders running across the shelves of a library, I did ask for an Arcana check to save the books.)

That's fair. Since there's a lot of assumed narrative embedded within power names and flavor text (most especially the weight of tradition within arcane spells!), I don't see an issue with tighter enforcement of genre playing 4e; certainly more adjudication than I would do within games like FATE. Plus fire spells setting spiders on fire but not setting the books they're standing on just totally breaks my verisimiltudes!

 

[Umbran]

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.

Well, there's "explosion" like modern high explosives, and there's "explosion" like the Hollywood fireball that is basically taking a gallon jug of gasoline and making it go *whoomp!*. A human being doesn't want to be within the blast radius of either.

Maybe magical fireballs are like C4, but maybe they're like the Hollywood explosion. Maybe "magical fire" is like spraying a cloud of droplets or dust of magic, each little particle of which combusts, like aerosolized gasoline does. It burns as it flies through the air, if you get it on you, you burn.

Which is to say, there's no "more likely" - it is *magic*, and you can have it work however you want.

 

[TwoSix]

Perform: Whistle

Can you blow my whistle baby, whistle baby
Let me know
Girl I'm know you've got it cross-class
And your ranks are low
You just put your dice together
Roll a saving throw
Can you blow my whistle baby, whistle baby
Don't roll low

 

[Imaro]

There is no [fire] spell in the PHB that includes "object" as a target. From which it follows that either (i) the rules on p 66 of the DMG about setting paper alight are pointless, or (ii) the DMG assumes that a GM can adjudicate the effect of a fireball upon a pile of paper. If people infact played with GMs who didn't read and apply p 42 I don't know what you want me (or the 4e designers) to do about that. I guess some people think it's "house ruling" to read and apply the rule book, and is "following the rules to the letter" to ignore the bit of the rulebook that says "Here are the charts, tables and guidelnes you will need as a GM to adjudicate actions that the rules don't otherwise cover".

I'm sorry but you're wrong the rules on page 66 are not made pointless because a fire spell cannot set things on fire. Again, powers and spells have their own rules... something like lighting a book on fire with a torch does not have actual rules covering it and could be what both the rules on page 66 are meant to be used for as well as those on page 42 that you cited. These are for actions not covered by the rules... a power/spell etc. is very much covered by its own set of rules and some powers/spells can target objects because it is listed as a target in their mechanical representation... others do not have it listed and thus the logical conclusion would be that is because they don't affect objects.

As to the purporse of the targetting rules: it seems to me that they differentiate between those targets where the player does not need the GM to adjudicate fictional positioning - because by default 4e the creatures in an AoE will be marked by tokens on a map - and those which the GM does adjudicate pursuant to pp 42 and 66. (It's also fairly obvious that the main function of the target line for melee and ranged attacks is to tell you how many targets in the case of multiple attacks; and for AoE is to allow the creatures/enemies distinction to be drawn.)

So you're ignoring the fact that on page 57 of the 4e PHB, one of the categories of targets listed is "One object or unoccupied square"??

"object" is a valid target for some spell/power target lines... isn't it? Why is that if your assumptions hold true? the simplest answer seems to be because these spells are allowed to target objects... others are not.

Seriously, anyone who reads the rules for a system that (i) tells you that [fire] effects include explosive bursts and ignition, (ii) has rules for the vulnerability of paper to [fire] effects, (iii) has rules for resolving actions that the rules don't otherwise cover, and (iv) uses the "creature" designation primarily to distinguish indiscriminate attacks from "enemies" only ally-friendly attacks, yet concludes that a fireball can't set paper alight, isn't someone I want to game with. Is this the same sort of person who assumes that PCs can't whistle because there's no whistling skill?

We aren't discussing the type of DM you would want to play under we are discussing the clarity, or lack of in 4e as far as whether powers/spells/etc. can affect objects or not. If one was going strictly by the power/spell description and it did not have "object" as a target would they be wrong for ruling it didn't damage objects? Now take into consideration we've already seen some arguments as to why Fireball wouldn't ignite combustibles, as well as it's magic and doesn't necessarily work like real fire...

Either way, apparently it was a widespread enough issue that the designers felt it necessary to add the rule to the game in later books, right? Why if it was automatically assumed that people would ignore the actual rules of the spells and allow them to target objects anyway was this implemented in later versions of the rules? it's like the designers can admit they messed up in how they designated the specific targets in the core books but you can't.

EDIT:...

In the case of an "enemies only" fire attack, I think the GM would be within his/her rights to (say) ask for an Arcana check to hit an enemy without striking the pile of paper on which s/he is sitting. (And when one of the PCs in my game used Fire Shroud (? low-level enemies-only wizard burst attack) to take out some undead spiders running across the shelves of a library, I did ask for an Arcana check to save the books.)

So again, there are no actual rules for this, it's just whatever rules the DM wants it to be... which means, contrary to your play preferences a DM can adjudicate that spells don't work on objects and that is also a valid (I would argue a more valid... by the book) interpretation of how spells work.

 

[TwoSix]

So again, there are no actual rules for this, it's just whatever rules the DM wants it to be... which means, contrary to your play preferences a DM can adjudicate that spells don't work on objects and that is also a valid (I would argue a more valid... by the book) interpretation of how spells work.

Rules-valid != good idea. Just follow my golden rule of Rules Interpretation: "If there's two ways to interpret a rule, and one of them sucks, do it the other way."