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

[Mistwell]

As to your other point... Yes they did fix it... eventually. Like I said some posters (@pemerton, [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], etc.) are arguing that the rules of 4e from the beginning allowed this, but my contention is that they didn't, and that it was actual errata, added later, that fixed it... I don't think anyone is claiming they didn't get around to fixing it later, but some of us have a problem with the revisionist history being presented that claims the game always allowed this.

Why is this an important issue, for this 5e thread? What's the point of focusing on this 4e thing?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

You can play the game with nothing but the PHB1 even. That said, your level of ignorance about the system is at a level that you either don't even know the PHB1 or you're willfully not acknowledging what it says.

LOL!

I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing about to be honest.

You do realize that the optional rule for damaging objects is not in the PHB1? Apparently, it was later added online and then it was published in the Rules Compendium. Now seeing as you don't need the compendium to play the game, it is something that was easily missed. What does levels of ignorance have to do with this? I know the rules and I know how to play the game. Because I don't own every optional book out there doesn't mean I don't know the rules.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Wait, you need an explicit rule to tell you that a giant ball of flame can set combustable items on fire?

LOL!

Jesus you make me laugh till my stomach aches. I don't need anything, but when you are discussing rules then you have to stick with the RAW. You can't argue over homebrew so that is why we argue RAW.

If there was no stated rule or option then I as a player could argue that my items do not catch fire because it is not stated in the rules like it was in previous editions.

If it was so clear then they wouldn't have needed to remind everyone that it is okay for the DM to rule it as an option.

 

[herrozerro]

LOL!

I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing about to be honest.

You do realize that the optional rule for damaging objects is not in the PHB1? Apparently, it was later added online and then it was published in the Rules Compendium. Now seeing as you don't need the compendium to play the game, it is something that was easily missed. What does levels of ignorance have to do with this? I know the rules and I know how to play the game. Because I don't own every optional book out there doesn't mean I don't know the rules.

It's not an optional rule, it's a rule that was clarified in errata.

 

[Herschel]

LOL!

Jesus you make me laugh till my stomach aches. I don't need anything, but when you are discussing rules then you have to stick with the RAW. You can't argue over homebrew so that is why we argue RAW.

If there was no stated rule or option then I as a player could argue that my items do not catch fire because it is not stated in the rules like it was in previous editions.

If it was so clear then they wouldn't have needed to remind everyone that it is okay for the DM to rule it as an option.

Again, if you need a rule to tell you a giant ball of flame sets extraneous objects on fire, that says more about you than the rule. The fact they used errata because people wanted clarification is ridiculous. Unless you have armored toilet paper with wards, it's burning when a fireball hits it.

 

[Herschel]

LOL!

I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing about to be honest.

You do realize that the optional rule for damaging objects is not in the PHB1? Apparently, it was later added online and then it was published in the Rules Compendium. Now seeing as you don't need the compendium to play the game, it is something that was easily missed. What does levels of ignorance have to do with this? I know the rules and I know how to play the game. Because I don't own every optional book out there doesn't mean I don't know the rules.

No, your not knowing the rules means you don't know the rules. The Fireball "rule" you are hinging your argument on is stupid, buut then what else should I expect.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

No, your not knowing the rules means you don't know the rules. The Fireball "rule" you are hinging your argument on is stupid, buut then what else should I expect.

Wut?

 

[Imaro]

Again, if you need a rule to tell you a giant ball of flame sets extraneous objects on fire, that says more about you than the rule. The fact they used errata because people wanted clarification is ridiculous. Unless you have armored toilet paper with wards, it's burning when a fireball hits it.

Who is "you"? Actually a player per 4e can't declare whether something did or did not catch fire and is taking fire damage... he needs DM permission to tell him whether a giant ball of flame sets extraneous objects on fire and how much said fire does in damage to the object.

 

[Herschel]

You're hinging your entire argument on a goofy, corner premise, a good sign you read something somewhere and are being disingenuous about your knowledge of the system.

 

[Imaro]

It's not an optional rule, it's a rule that was clarified in errata.

We are not speaking to the rule change after errata, except in so far as people are claiming it's not up to the DM but instead some inherent property to the "fire" keyword (which it isn't) or inherent that things hit by a fireball will catch fire due to the damaging objects rules from the DMG (again, which it isn't).