• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emmmmm no. You should go back and read up on the previous rules again.

They weren't at the DM's discretion.

This is why I said "It's almost always". If you look at my quote, I say all the way back to Basic/Expert. Even OD&D. Almost every version of the game did it this way - they just assumed the players of the game were not such martinets that they could figure out that exploding fire might set things on fire without being told, and the DM's going to make the call not the player.

I don't know why you think it's a positive thing that DM's discretion was taken out of the game for one version, but in my opinion it's not. Indeed all the polling for 5e indicates that players of the game want more DM's discretion put back into the game, and not "a rule for everything".
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

This is why I said "It's almost always". If you look at my quote, I say all the way back to Basic/Expert. Even OD&D. Almost every version of the game did it this way - they just assumed the players of the game were not such martinets that they could figure out that exploding fire might set things on fire without being told, and the DM's going to make the call not the player.

I don't know why you think it's a positive thing that DM's discretion was taken out of the game for one version, but in my opinion it's not.

I wonder if its such a big deal because 3e magic users are not used to having to ask a gm for things. So naturally they take it as proof that they cannot do things.
 

This is why I said "It's almost always". If you look at my quote, I say all the way back to Basic/Expert. Even OD&D. Almost every version of the game did it this way - they just assumed the players of the game were not such martinets that they could figure out that exploding fire might set things on fire without being told, and the DM's going to make the call not the player.

I don't know why you think it's a positive thing that DM's discretion was taken out of the game for one version, but in my opinion it's not. Indeed all the polling for 5e indicates that players of the game want more DM's discretion put back into the game, and not "a rule for everything".

Fireball (Evocation)
Level: 3 Components: V, S
Range: 10" + I"/level
Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: !4
Area of Effect: 2"radius sphere
Explanation/Description: A fireball is an explosive burst of flame, which
detonates with a low roar, and delivers damage proportionate to the level
of the magic-user who cast it, i.e. 1 six-sided die (d6) for each level of
experience of the spell caster. Exception: Magic fireball wands deliver 6
die fireballs (6d6), magic staves with this capability deliver 8 die fireballs,
and scroll spells of this type deliver a fireball of from 5 to 10 dice (d6 + 4)
of damage. The burst of the fireball does not expend a considerable
amount of pressure, and the burst will generally conform to the shape of
the area in which it occurs, thus covering an area equal to its normal
spherical volume. [The area which is covered by the fireball is a total
volume of roughly 33,000 cubic feet (or yards)]. Besides causing damage
to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst
radius, and the heat of the fireball will melt soft metals such as gold,
copper, silver, etc. Items exposed to the spell's effects must be rolled for to
determine if they are affected. Items with a creature which makes its
saving throw are considered as unaffected.
The magic-u,ser points his or
her finger and speaks the range (distance and height) at which the fireball
is to borst. A streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts
upon a material body prior to attaining the prescribed range, flowers into
the fireball If creatures fail their saving throws, they all take full hit point
damage frqm the blast. Those who make saving throws manage to dodge,
fall flat or roll aside, taking '/1 the full hit point damage - each and every
one within the blast area. The material component of this spell is a tiny
ball composed of bat guano and sulphur.

Holy 1st edition Batman! Looks like objects are effected here as well.

Shall we continue?
 

Depending on the edition you are playing, items :
- had to save or were destroyed
OR
- like above if unattended, but owned items had a free pass if their owner saved
OR
- whatever the DM decided, because those rules are a mess !
Fireballs interacting with items are IMHO not the acme of TTRPG rule design. Whatever the design, it's going to be fastidious/inconsistent/arbitrary/broken. Finally, I am with Moldvay and Mearls (?) here : leave it up to the DM !
 

I wonder if its such a big deal because 3e magic users are not used to having to ask a gm for things. So naturally they take it as proof that they cannot do things.

Why paint it as a 3e thing? You realize it was the same way in 1e and 2e... Mistwell's claim of "almost always"... isn't exactly true. I think OD&D and basic D&D were the previous editions where it wasn't included in the spell description... while 1e, 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 were the editions where it was included. If you count 4e, it's more like a 50/50 split edition wise as opposed to "almost always". The other difference I see is that 4e has a very precise target line, whereas OD&D and basic D&D don't specify "cresature" as the target that the spell could affect.

EDIT: It is exactly this precise listing of valid targets in 4e which sets it apart... especially since "object" was a valid target and not included in numerous powers thus implying by exclusion that an object was not a valid target for those powers.
 



Holy 1st edition Batman! Looks like objects are effected here as well.

Shall we continue?

Didn't have my 1e PHB handy, but I did have my Expert edition handy...and it just mentions creatures being targeted. Yet, nobody had trouble understanding a big ball of fire might set objects on fire.

I am trying to understand what exactly your point is. Do you think, unless it's mentioned, it cannot be done? Is this your perspective on how the game works? I didn't understand your comment about it being a DM decision as being irrelevant. What's the heart of your point here? Why do you think it's important that it be mentioned specifically and not be a DM's call?
 

Why paint it as a 3e thing? You realize it was the same way in 1e and 2e... Mistwell's claim of "almost always"... isn't exactly true. I think OD&D and basic D&D were the previous editions where it wasn't included in the spell description... while 1e, 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 were the editions where it was included. If you count 4e, it's more like a 50/50 split edition wise as opposed to "almost always". The other difference I see is that 4e has a very precise target line, whereas OD&D and basic D&D don't specify "cresature" as the target that the spell could affect.

I used 3e because it's arguably the largest. The idea still stands though. 4e with its standardized power block would have had been a lot more bloated with lines on what each and every power could or couldn't do. So they fixed it with the line about creature targets can also be objects.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top