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

[Imaro]

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.

Now I remember what I was thinking of, wasn't there something like a silver cover limited edition or special edition that was supposed to incorporate errata? I wonder if the rule was added in those...

 

[Imaro]

Here is why you said something about those classes (which, again, you'd know if you knew much about 4e). When arguing if the PHB2 was, or was not, a core product of the 4e system, you have to know what's in PHB 1 and PHB 2, and how they were set to address "core" issues. Which includes knowing, at least on some basic level, the fact that four "core" level classes were held back to be in the PHB 2. Those four "core" level classes were the four I mentioned. So to argue that PHB 2 is not a "core" product of 4e, you are inherently by-definition arguing that those four classes were not core classes for 4e. There is no escaping that fact - PHB 2 being non-core is the same as saying those four classes are non-core. Which is why I said that.

And now, due to your utter lack of knowledge concerning 4e, you don't even understand why I mentioned those core classes. Which is ridiculous given you voluntarily engaged in a discussion concerning 4e and what was or was not "core" for it.

That's your own doing. That you dislike the result of foolishly diving into a discussion for which you did not know the first thing is an expected result.

Once you nitpicked about the core thing I stated that I didn't buy into the company line about every book being "core", I then revised my usage of core in the next couple of posts, as seen here

And again, was this stated explicitly in the first 3 core books that came out for D&D 4e... I'm going to assume not since we're now going in circles.

Dude it wasn't about "cutting slack" I was wondering why so many people assume that objects couldn't be hit by spells, powers, etc. unless it was listed as a target... and if it's not in the first 3 core books for 4e then it makes alot of sense doesn't it... Now show me where I argued for whatever the rule you're talking about in 3e being core and not popping up in a supplement?

... Now considering, like I stated earlier, that most people here had no confusion about which books I was talking about when I said "3 core" and that I further clarified with "first 3 core" just for you... why have you spent numerous posts rambling on about something that was cleared up early on and a non-issue? Seriously, your posts have ranged the gamut from 3e getting cut slack...

And again, 3e ran into this same problem of a "core" type rule being in a "non-core" type book. Why are folks not willing to cut 4e slack on an important later retroactive rule like that when 3e committed a similar "sin" with another important rule?

to the rules for prestige classes in 3e...

If you take a prestige class in 3e, are you multiclassing into that prestige class?

to whether four classes are core in the PHB2

Are you trying to argue that the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, and Sorcerer, were non-core classes?

to your own make believe knowledge and data about the number of 4e players who bought the PHB2 or subscribed to DDI...

it's fair to say that yes, nearly everyone used PHB2.

... and feed it into the DDI (which WOTC has stated most of their players accessed)...

Quick note... for someone so caught up in my distinction between stating the first 3 corebooks and just stating corebooks for 4e... it seems the above statement should have it's veracity examined just as rigorously... personally I have never seen anything where WotC claimed most of their players accessed DDI (or PHB 2 for that matter) but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt... Please cite the source for this information, we'd all love to view the wider context in which something like this was claimed

I don't think you even know what your point is anymore...it's ok to admit that somewhere among these nonsensical posts you lost what your point was. It's better than continually posting about random things and digging a deeper hole.

Yes, that's exactly what I said, I speak for everyone on EnWorld now

.

Nobody got your point.

You claimed it, not me...

Yeah I speak for you too. That's definitely not a mischaracterization of what I said, not at all. You're engaging in a very honest discussion. That's you, all honesty and wholesomeness.

You have no point anymore.

Is it a mischaracterization??

This is the point where I think it's safe for me to exit the conversation. I think we all know where you're coming at this from, at this point. You go ahead and take the last word - we both know you will.

Why thank you, don't mind if I do take the last word.

 

[Abraxas]

I thought that when Mearls tweeted this over two weeks ago the issue would slow down not escalate, the designers have spoken. Play test feedback from the surveys shows great support for the idea a little larger sample size then the posters on any forum.

Did the playtest surveys ask about this particular mechanic specifically? (I've had a bunch of RL stuff to deal with and didn't get a chance to fill out the last survey).

 

[Paraxis]

Did the playtest surveys ask about this particular mechanic specifically? (I've had a bunch of RL stuff to deal with and didn't get a chance to fill out the last survey).

I don't think so just because of the timing, I assume he is referring to older things like the reaper feat/talent what ever it was in one of the older packets. So damage on a miss as an idea, I will admit being a core ability of three core classes is a bit different then a subclass choice or a feat.

But I don't think most people on the pro damage on a miss side or steadfast in where it is located, I just want it as an option. Make it a part of a feat or something for a subclass gets would be fine with my just so that my players who like it have it as a published option.

 

[mlund]

Make it a part of a feat or something for a subclass gets would be fine with my just so that my players who like it have it as a published option.

That's probably where it should be, a player option in the core. If you don't like it you don't give it to your character. If, however, someone is really that upset over the prospect of someone else's character using it because it "ruins the simulation" they can put forward a gentleman's agreement at the table not to take it.

- Marty Lund

 

[pemerton]

Where's pemerton when you need him?

At your service!

A 4e fireball didn't even set matches on fire, since it couldn't damage objects with fire damage.

Prove it, then.

Show the power from 4e, and copy+paste the spell description of Fireball from every edition.

Here is the fireball text from Moldvay Basic:

This spell creates a missile of fire that explodes into a ball of fire 40' diamter when it strikes a target. The fire ball will case 1-6 (1d6) points of fire damage per evel of the caster to all creatures within this area. If a victim of a fireball spell saves vs Spells, the spell will only do 1/2 damage.​

Here is the fireball text from the 4e PHB:

Standard Action
Area burst 3 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex
Hit: 3d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage.
Miss: Half damage.​

That is basically indistinguishable from the Moldvay text, other than format. Neither talks about damage to objects. Both assume that the participants at the table can work out that a great honking ball of fire (40' d in Moldvay Basic, 7sq x 7 sq in 4e) is capable of setting flammable material alight.

so if you didn't buy beyond the 3 main books then this wasn't actually a rule

From the 4e DMG pp 65-66:

Damaging Objects
Like characters, objects have hit points and defense scores (except for Will defense; see Object Immunities and Vulnerabilities, below). . .

Object Immunities and Vulnerabilities
Usually, it doesn’t matter what kind of attack you make against an object: Damage is damage. However, there are a few exceptions.

All objects are immune to poison damage, psychic damage, and necrotic damage.

Objects don’t have a Will defense and are immune to attacks that target Will defense.

Some unusual materials might be particularly resistant to some or all kinds of damage. In addition, you might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against certain objects and grant the object vulnerability to that damage type. For example, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerability 5 to fire because any spark is likely to destroy it.​

I think this is pretty clear.

Gasp! It's Mother May I, the bane of all gaming!

What is the GM being asked to adjudicate? I think it's pretty clear that it is the fictional positioning of the objects, and of the PC in relation to the objects if that is in doubt. That a [fire] power can set things alight is pretty unambiguous. That's what fire does:

(From PHB p 55): Fire: Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition.​

The player doesn't need the GM's permission to establish that, in the game, when fireball is cast, the area is filled with an explosive burst!

 

[Sunseeker]

Because it's essentially redegining what a "miss" means.

A "hit" is now a sure-fire connect, and your damage is the quality of that connection. A "miss" is no longer "not a hit" and therefore doesn't mean that it's no longer not a connection. It is, as some games have used the term, a "glancing blow", which as 5E models, does low damage. It is the tip of your blade barely cutting your opponent's cheek. It's your arrow grazing along their arm.

I'm not sure it's necessary, but I do like the granular ideas of "there's more to attacking than a magic number".

 

[Campbell]

For me this debate is not really about the particular ability in question. I'm not particularly attached to the mechanic in question. I don't like that it is yet another passive ability which obviates the need for player choice. What I am concerned with is 5e's support for tight thematic play with a more narrative take on hp.

If options like this need to be explicitly called out as optional and placed in a module the rest of the game assumes you won't be using it does little to instill confidence that a more drastic Story Now oriented module will be included in the core rules. It does little to instill confidence that 5e will support a variety of play styles.

 

[pemerton]

asking your DM for special permission is basically the same thing as a house rule.

<snip>

It's quite obvious they put zero thought or support into using powers for non-combat use

GM adjudicaiton is not the same as a house rule - it's pretty basic to most mainstream tabletop RPGs.

As for the claim that "they put zero thought or support into using powers for non-combat use" - what about this, from the PHB (pp 54, 259):

Every class has access to a mix of attack powers (used to harm your enemies in combat, more or less directly) and utility powers (used to overcome a variety of obstacles both in and out of combat). . .

Noncombat encounters focus on skills, utility powers, and your own wits (not your character’s), although sometimes attack powers can come in handy as well. . .

Chapter 5 describes the sorts of things you can attempt with your skills in a skill challenge. You can use a wide variety of skills, from Acrobatics and Athletics to Nature and Stealth. You might also use combat powers and ability checks.​

The DMG2 elaborates on the use of combat powers in skill challenges - but as the quotes just provided show, the PHB is fully cognisant of the possibility.

 

[pemerton]

If you were 'damaged on a miss', but we resolve this a Stormbringer whiffing because your soul wasn't sucked out, why did you need to make a Fortitude based body save instead of a Relfex based evasion save? Surely if it whiffed (but still did damage!) and that's the reason your draining attack failed, a Reflex save is the appropriate color of what happened and not Fortitude.

This is why not everyone regards the change in saving throw methodology from AD&D to 3E as an improvement.