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

[ForeverSlayer]

It is a ranger class feature and a paladin one. In fact for colossus slayer favored enemy rangers it is amazing. Because the slayer's momentum triggers on damage so the first attack can miss, then all other missed attacks still get to add +1d6 because that damage is "extra damage" not "extra damage on a hit".
It also stacks with the ranger spell hunter's mark for another +1d6 on a miss.

So a 5th level ranger using a polearm with polearm master feat gets 4 swings all of the counting as two handed weapon attacks a round all but the first doing str mod+2d6 damage on a miss.

Don't forget to add 2d6 if that ranger is wielding a flametongue.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'm interested to meet this hypothetical 4e players who say that fireball can't set anything on fire. Not just people who read 4e and asserted it without playing the game.

Show me somewhere in the PHB or DM's Guide about being able to target objects with spells such as Fireball.

I can't stand 4th edition but I have played it for years. I'm calling you out right now to prove me wrong.

Also, "well it doesn't say you can't do it" is not proof.

 

[Abraxas]

Show me somewhere in the PHB or DM's Guide about being able to target objects with spells such as Fireball.

I can't stand 4th edition but I have played it for years. I'm calling you out right now to prove me wrong.

Also, "well it doesn't say you can't do it" is not proof.

The July 2009 Player's Handbook update has the following...

Target [Addition]
Player’s Handbook, page 57
Add the following sentences to the end of the first paragraph: “Some powers include objects as
targets. At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object, whether
or not the power lists an object as a potential target.”


So at least in 2009 WoTC had added language about targeting objects, even if it wasn't "in print" in the hardcopies of the PHB and DMG. Later, when they put out the rules compendium it was included. Before that time - I don't think they had any language to this effect other than the few powers that actually listed "Object" as a valid target. Also, while I'm pretty sure the updates were always free for everyone, I'm am sure that not everyone got them.

I do know that before this update my DM at the time was on a "the powers only do exactly what they say they do kick" - probably cause he was running some encounter games at our FLGS and had to deal with some "interesting" players

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The July 2009 Player's Handbook update has the following...

Target [Addition]
Player’s Handbook, page 57
Add the following sentences to the end of the first paragraph: “Some powers include objects as
targets. At the DM’s discretion, a power that targets a creature can also target an object, whether
or not the power lists an object as a potential target.”


So at least in 2009 WoTC had added language about targeting objects, even if it wasn't "in print" in the hardcopies of the PHB and DMG. Later, when they put out the rules compendium it was included. Before that time - I don't think they had any language to this effect other than the few powers that actually listed "Object" as a valid target. Also, while I'm pretty sure the updates were always free for everyone, I'm am sure that not everyone got them.

I do know that before this update my DM at the time was on a "the powers only do exactly what they say they do kick" - probably cause he was running some encounter games at our FLGS and had to deal with some "interesting" players

Which was subject to DM discretion so using it as an argument is pretty much invalid.

 

[Abraxas]

That's not what you asked tho.

I'm not defending 4E here - it's not my favorite system by a long shot, but it did, eventually, have targeting objects language and then included stuff like

"Objects don’t have any universal resistances or vulnerabilities, but the DM might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against a certain object—the object has vulnerability to that damage. For instance, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerable 5 fire because any spark is likely to destroy it.
Similarly, the DM might occasionally decide that an unusual material resists a type of damage, typically having resist 5 or 10 to that damage."

So it's not invalid - it just required DM adjudication - which was a good thing.

 

[The Human Target]

Show me somewhere in the PHB or DM's Guide about being able to target objects with spells such as Fireball.

I can't stand 4th edition but I have played it for years. I'm calling you out right now to prove me wrong.

Also, "well it doesn't say you can't do it" is not proof.

You are willfully obstinate, hostile, and rude.

Always a great way to get your point across.

 

[TwoSix]

Which was subject to DM discretion so using it as an argument is pretty much invalid.

According to a lot of people, every rule in the game is the DM's discretion. I think they would object to being excluded from rules arguments!

 

[Cyberen]

In every edition before 4e, especially AD&D,EVERYTHING was subject to DM discretion, so your point is moot.
Concerning the power level of this SFX, I think there is effectively interaction problems with some other (badly written) part of the rules, which is easy to solve (basically, replace "attack that deals damage" by "attack that hits"). But people tend to underestimate the cost of an action in a combat system where fights last less than 5 rounds.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That's not what you asked tho.

I'm not defending 4E here - it's not my favorite system by a long shot, but it did, eventually, have targeting objects language and then included stuff like

"Objects don’t have any universal resistances or vulnerabilities, but the DM might rule that some kinds of damage are particularly effective against a certain object—the object has vulnerability to that damage. For instance, a gauzy curtain or a pile of dry papers might have vulnerable 5 fire because any spark is likely to destroy it.
Similarly, the DM might occasionally decide that an unusual material resists a type of damage, typically having resist 5 or 10 to that damage."

So it's not invalid - it just required DM adjudication - which was a good thing.

When something is being discussed then we go by the RAW. Since the book specifically says that it's at the DM's discretion and "if the DM says so". This is not considered RAW unless the DM gives the okay and like you pointed out, it was added later to the game. If you never purchased the Rules Compendium or checked online then you wouldn't have known so it wasn't common knowledge like some people here try and point out.

 

[herrozerro]

When something is being discussed then we go by the RAW. Since the book specifically says that it's at the DM's discretion and "if the DM says so". This is not considered RAW unless the DM gives the okay and like you pointed out, it was added later to the game. If you never purchased the Rules Compendium or checked online then you wouldn't have known so it wasn't common knowledge like some people here try and point out.

Ah, well it's an argument of your own designs and terms, I guess it's only right that you get to choose what counts and what doesn't. I guess all errata for any other game doesn't count as fixing any rules as well right? 3rd edition is one gigantic mess because 3.0's books were never recalled and replaced with 3.5 right? Hell, just because pathfinder exists to "fix" some 3.5 issues still means that 3.5 is a trash game right?