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

[bogmad]

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.

Exactly. Part of what I don't like about the whole GWF debate is that partly demands that we agree what hit points mean. If we leave damage on a miss out we don't have to say a great weapon always breaks through to do some strength damage by hitting every time.
As far as I can tell, if we leave it out and don't dictate how it saps hp you can have your hp as meat or other ways of looking at it; it's easier then to define HP however you want. I say let everyone keep their ideas of what hp are. We can argue (and already have so let's not again) how much the rules do define hp, but it's easier for everyone if the rules don't go out of their way to force you into a definition more than the nebulous (or distinct) one you already have.

And I agree; I want to see another 15 pages of hit point debate about as much as I want to see an argument about 4e rules text.

 

[Imaro]

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?

Good question isn't it... In 1e, 2e, and 3.x we know. In OD&D and Basic it's not commented on, so it can go either way... in 4e we have an "object" category for targets which is absent from the spell, and it is not commented on... until the later errata... that seems to confuse the matter.

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.

Is it unspecified? Again, there is an "object" category for spell targets (it feels like every pro argument is just disregarding this fact), doesn't leaving that off the target line mean something (otherwise why have it?)? Now granted it has been cleared up since then and regulated to DM fiat by errata... but I don't think the book is as clear in any one direction of how to handle this as you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] keep trying to argue. in fact I'd argue out of all the editions listed it handles it in the most contradictory manner because of the precise language and format used by 4e for powers and spells.

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.

This is a fine interpretation for your game, but a player would be just as valid if he argued his spell that stated "creatures" shouldn't affect "objects" as they aren't listed in the target line. Wouldn't he or she? When he picked the spell there was no note about DM's adjudicating whether it did or didn't affect objects, all the player sees is that it targets creatures. So would you rule the player is wrong in this instance (speaking about pre-errata)?

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I re-read it, you never did link it to the topic at hand. What happened was Burninator raised the side issue, but only in his off-hand way of saying 5e is actually better than 4e in that respect. But you eventually picked up the torch, as it were. I assumed your point was coming at some point in the conversation so I humored you...but after pages of you arguing the point without ever tying it back to the topic I am finally asking. And as you're dodging, it seems it had no connection whatsoever to the topic. So, I guess it was a random drive-by attack on 4th edition and it's fans, which you inserted into a 5e thread for the fun of it?

That is, unless you're saying you're Burninator, who is the only one who had an even vague link to the topic at hand, a point which hasn't been mentioned since and which is not furthered in any way by this current argument?

You know, it's fair for me to ask, Imaro. EnWorld has few rules, but this is actually one of them.

So, what does this have to do with the topic?

 

[TwoSix]

This is a fine interpretation for your game, but a player would be just as valid if he argued his spell that stated "creatures" shouldn't affect "objects" as they aren't listed in the target line. Wouldn't he or she? When he picked the spell there was no note about DM's adjudicating whether it did or didn't affect objects, all the player sees is that it targets creatures. So would you rule the player is wrong in this instance (speaking about pre-errata)?

If the player pushed it, and I hadn't specified, I'd probably go along with it. I'd probably make sure to indicate my caveats by next session, though. Like a lot of things, it depends on the players involved. If it is a player I trust who's trying to create a good dramatic movement, I'm less inclined to assert authority. If it's a player I don't trust to play in that manner, I'm much more likely to play purely by the rules, and worry less about the narrative implications. As always, I adapt my sensibilities to my players.

 

[Imaro]

I re-read it, you never did link it to the topic at hand. I assumed it was coming at some point in the conversation so I humored you...but after pages of you arguing the point without ever tying it back to the topic I am finally asking. And as you're dodging, it seems it had no connection whatsoever to the topic. So, I guess it was a random drive-by attack on 4th edition and it's fans, which you inserted into a 5e thread for the fun of it?

An attack??? Seriously, me stating my thoughts about why some people viewed objects as invalid targets in 4e... is a drive-by attack on not only the game but on the fans as well... Uhm, sure [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] whatever helps you sleep at night... and thanks for that piece of insightful information since you're apparently the head of the 4e police and protection force...

 

[Lwaxy]

So, I guess it was a random drive-by attack on 4th edition and it's fans, which you inserted into a 5e thread for the fun of it?

Don't assign motives to other poster's comments.

Uhm, sure @Mistwell whatever helps you sleep at night...

Don't snark.

If you two can't discuss productively, use the ignore function, thank you.

 

[Umbran]

Back on page 46, I noted folks shouldn't make this personal.

This is the second reminder.

There will not be a third. Anyone else making this about the people, rather than the topic, is apt to not like the result. In general, we now expect folks to be on best behavior in this thread.

Is that clear enough? If not, please PM or e-mail a moderator to discuss the matter. Thank you.

Ooh. Simulmod!

 

[bogmad]

I don't really want to wade into the 4e rules debate, I'm more concerned about 5e, but
Here's my attempt to create clear, concise terms (a la 4e) that let you narrate any way you want within a purely "gamist" construct:

Hit (on an attack roll): Anything that causes hp damage.
Miss: doesn't cause damage.
near-miss: doesn't cause full dice of damage, but might inflict dmg equal to an ability modifier or other effect

Now I'm not against auto damage, just auto damage on a "complete" miss.
In this case, saving throws work better than the different defenses of 4e. In 4e you almost had to have damage on a miss to keep the game interesting and to replicate certain spells from previous editions within the 4e framework.

A saving throw isn't a way for an attack to miss though; it's a way to mitigate auto-damage.

Notice I didn't put any fluff description in there. You can describe whatever you want to fit into the mechanics.

 

[Mistwell]

Would people be more comfortable if GWF used the Balance and Climb mechanics? IE:

Miss target AC by more than 5, you fail entirely.
Miss target AC by 1 to 5, you partially succeed and partially fail (strength damage).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Better.