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

[LostSoul]

Hit, damage, and miss, mean exactly what they mean in english. What happens as a result of those things, are what you write down on your character sheet. But the words are what allows you to imagine the action. If those words are meaningless jargon, because a hit is no longer the opposite of a miss, and a miss doesn't mean a miss, or a hit a hit, or damage results in harm done, then we're just playing a game with no independent reality.

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.

Player: "I stab the orc in the face!"
(rolls to-hit: hit; rolls damage: 5 damage)
DM: "You stab the orc in the face. He takes 5 damage. He's still up and able to act without any penalty."

OR

Player: "I cut his head off!"
(rolls to-hit: hits; rolls damage: 5 damage)
DM: "You cut his head off. He takes 5 damage. He's still up and able to act without any penalty."

OR "I shoot him in the eye" "I cut his hand off" "I stab him in the junk" "I cut his belly open" "I cut his Achilles' tendon" "I pin him to the ground with my spear" "I break his arm" etc.

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. An ability that allows you to do damage on a missed to-hit reverses that, which hasn't been done before, but the effect is the same: you miss your intended target but still do damage.

'But you still hit your target, even if you don't hit him where you wanted to.' Sounds pretty similar to hitting a guy's shield or armour, which has traditionally been a miss.

Another way to look at is that no one knows what is happening in the game world until both the to-hit roll and the damage roll have been made. You can't clearly say what your PC is trying to do until after the roll has been made. You did 3 HP damage instead of 50, so you stab the guy in the leg instead of cutting his head off. (Which is probably on the edge of associated vs. dissociated mechanics. I think this is the default/standard mode of D&D melee combat, but I could be wrong.) In this case, there's no narrative or simulation difference; you did X HP damage, so narrate what that means as you typically would.

I'm not sure I like this mechanic because I'm not sure that you should always be able to deal HP damage, but narratively I don't see any issues.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm curious was this something added to 4e later or was it in the core books when they were released (as far as attacking objects with DM's permission)?? If so can you tell me where, because I was under the impression that this wasn't something that came about until after the corebooks...

EDIT I Just wonder why so many people (including myself) believe/believed this.

4e did away with the concept of "core books". They were all "core books". This was in the PHB 2, which is called out as being labelled a "core book", and which was announced at the time of the PHB 1.

3e had a bit of this issue as well. For example, the 3e rules for multiclassing and prestige classes were covered in an expansion book that came out after the "core" books, but was implied back to the "core books" retroactively. If you didn't have the rule from the expansion book, technically under 3e core a prestige class was itself a multiclass, which triggered all sorts of other rules it was not intended to trigger.

In addition, from the PHB 1:

Close burst [number]: A close burst power allows you to target creatures or objects within the indicated number of squares from you in all directions. See page 272 for how to determine the area of a burst.
Close blast [number]: A close blast power allows you to target creatures or objects within an adjacent area that is the indicated number of squares on a side. See page 272 for how to determine the area of a blast.

Here is a spell from the PHB that targets an object:

Ghost Sound Wizard Cantrip
With a wink, you create an illusory sound that emanates from
somewhere close by.
At-Will ✦ Arcane, Illusion
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One object or unoccupied square
Effect: You cause a sound as quiet as a whisper or as loud as a yelling or fighting creature to emanate from the target. You can produce nonvocal sounds such as the ringing of a sword blow, jingling armor, or scraping stone. If you whisper, you can whisper quietly enough that only creatures adjacent to the target can hear your words.

Light spell also targets an object.

So does this spell, which is an attack spell as well:

Force Orb Wizard Attack 1
You hurl an orb of magical force at an enemy. It bursts against the target and throws off razor-sharp shards of force that cut nearby enemies to ribbons.
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Force, Implement
Standard Action Ranged 20
Primary Target: One creature or object
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 2d8 + Intelligence modifier force damage. Make a secondary attack.
Secondary Target: Each enemy adjacent to the primary target
Secondary Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d10 + Intelligence modifier force damage.

The Disintegrate spell also can target an object.

 

[urLordy]

Player: "I stab the orc in the face!"
(rolls to-hit: hit; rolls damage: 5 damage)
DM: "You stab the orc in the face. He takes 5 damage. He's still up and able to act without any penalty."

OR

Player: "I cut his head off!"
(rolls to-hit: hits; rolls damage: 5 damage)
DM: "You cut his head off. He takes 5 damage. He's still up and able to act without any penalty."

This is a really strange anectode to me. I have never heard of anything like this in D&D. In this example, does the Player have any agency to declare what WILL happen, and the DM always complied regardless of the result? Or is it just the Player declaring that the character is attempting to do so-and-so?

My D&D experience goes like so:
Player: "I cut his head off!"
(rolls to-hit: hits; rolls damage: 5 damage)
DM: "The orc shifts away, and although you fail to cut his head off, your axe does nick his shoulder. He takes 5 damage."

(If, however, the damage brought the orc to zero hp, then heads go rolling.)

 

[Imaro]

4e did away with the concept of "core books". They were all "core books". This was in the PHB 2, which is called out as being labelled a "core book", and which was announced at the time of the PHB 1.

3e had a bit of this issue as well. For example, the 3e rules for multiclassing and prestige classes were covered in an expansion book that came out after the "core" books, but was implied back to the "core books" retroactively. If you didn't have the rule from the expansion book, technically under 3e core a prestige class was itself a multiclass, which triggered all sorts of other rules it was not intended to trigger.

Ok, thanks so if you didn't buy beyond the 3 main books then this wasn't actually a rule... Which probably explains why people who weren't enamored of 4e believe this to be true (why would they buy beyond the first 3 books??), and yeah, sorry but I didn't buy the company line... IMO PHB2 was a supplement just like the DMG2. Not sure what 3e has to do with this though.

 

[TwoSix]

Now you lost me. This rule has nothing at all to do with FATE, or anyone's experience playing that other non-D&D game. He's asking if the rules of D&D 4e say spells with the fire keyword set things on fire, not whether it does so in another game entirely.

And I'm saying it's in the DMG explaining how keywords interact with the narrative. There's no "modeling" rule, so I'm assuming that Burninator will dismiss it.

It probably helps to have been involved with the massive Fighters vs Spellcasters thread, as it's been brought up there.

The FATE comment is primarily because way too many posters dismiss narrative arguments despite having no idea how a narrative game actually works. 4e runs even better if you're familiar with narrative principles, despite not being a fully narrative system.

 

[Imaro]

This is a really strange anectode to me. I have never heard of anything like this in D&D. In this example, does the Player have any agency to declare what WILL happen, and the DM always complied regardless of the result? Or is it just the Player declaring that the character is attempting to do so-and-so?

My D&D experience goes like so:
Player: "I cut his head off!"
(rolls to-hit: hits; rolls damage: 5 damage)
DM: "The orc shifts away, and although you fail to cut his head off, your axe does nick his shoulder. He takes 5 damage."

(If, however, the damage brought the orc to zero hp, then heads go rolling.)

Pretty much this.

 

[Imaro]

And I'm saying it's in the DMG explaining how keywords interact with the narrative. There's no "modeling" rule, so I'm assuming that Burninator will dismiss it.

It probably helps to have been involved with the massive Fighters vs Spellcasters thread, as it's been brought up there.

The FATE comment is primarily because way too many posters dismiss narrative arguments despite having no idea how a narrative game actually works. 4e runs even better if you're familiar with narrative principles, despite not being a fully narrative system.

Yes but if a spell can only target specific things... how can it affect things that it can't target?? Does 4e "core" allow an object to be targeted by a spell or power without explicitly listing it as a target in the write up?

 

[Mistwell]

Ok, thanks so if you didn't buy beyond the 3 main books then this wasn't actually a rule... Which probably explains why people who weren't enamored of 4e believe this to be true (why would they buy beyond the first 3 books??), and yeah, sorry but I didn't buy the company line... IMO PHB2 was a supplement just like the DMG2. Not sure what 3e has to do with this though.

I also edited my comment to include some spells from the PHB 1 that targeted objects, including two attack spells (force orb, and disintegrate).

 

[Imaro]

I also edited my comment to include some spells from the PHB 1 that targeted objects, including two attack spells (force orb, and disintegrate).

Right those are specifically listed as targeting objects... does Fireball, which was the spell mentioned? Moreso there's a pretty big difference between saying because of keywords objects can be damaged by spells or powers and then changing the argument to say well when object is listed as a target it can be damaged... well yeah, duh but that's a different argument.

EDIT: In fact listing object as a specific target would seem to go against a "objects can generally be damaged by spells/powers/etc. interpretation and seems to speak to it only taking place if they are listed as targets.

 

[Mistwell]

And I'm saying it's in the DMG explaining how keywords interact with the narrative.

Show me where in the DMG it explains how keywords interact with the narrative in that way. I am not seeing what you're referring to, and I felt your referene to FATE confused the issue a lot.

The FATE comment is primarily because way too many posters dismiss narrative arguments despite having no idea how a narrative game actually works. 4e runs even better if you're familiar with narrative principles, despite not being a fully narrative system.

Yeah, if I need to read a non-D&D game to grok how a D&D game is supposed to function well, I think you're not making the case you think you are making on behalf of 4e (and I like 4e - I just think you're not making a wise argument in it's favor).