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

[Herschel]

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.

Just like every other edition.

 

[Imaro]

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

Because people (including you) are choosing to discuss it. No one forces anyone to participate in a conversation so I guess if people weren't interested in discussing it it wouldn't be getting discussed would it? Now my question is this... if you feel it is unimportant to this thread, why do you keep choosing to engage in the conversation?

 

[Imaro]

Just like every other edition.

Uhm... no in certain editions it is a specific characteristic of the spell that it lights fire to flammable objects. If you go back a few pages you will see examples from 1e, 2e, and 3.x.

 

[Wicht]

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.

I get so confused sometimes.

Having just finished (well fairly recently finished) a massive thread in which 4e "pro-indie" fans argued that 4e freed players from having to ask DM permission to do things,and put more power in the hands of the players, as compared to 3e, where "DM force" was the assumed style of play,especially in regards to magic, I now find that, no, in fact it is 3e where the players are free to do whatever they want and carve the narration, and 4e is the game that relies on "DM force" to make magic work.

 

[herrozerro]

I get so confused sometimes.

Having just finished (well fairly recently finished) a massive thread in which 4e "pro-indie" fans argued that 4e freed players from having to ask DM permission to do things,and put more power in the hands of the players, as compared to 3e, where "DM force" was the assumed style of play,especially in regards to magic, I now find that, no, in fact it is 3e where the players are free to do whatever they want and carve the narration, and 4e is the game that relies on "DM force" to make magic work.

You are right, the game is not one thing to many people, it is in fact many things. 4e narratively freed up people IMO with fluff being mutable. But in this instance with how the universal system worked, adding the lines about being able to combust object in every single power with the fire keyword would have been unnecessary bloat.

Personally, I would have loved to see 4e go more the savage worlds route with trappings.

 

[Wicht]

You are right, the game is not one thing to many people, it is in fact many things.

While it is possible for a ruleset to support a variety of styles, it is not possible for it to be true that 4e intrinsically reduces the need for "DM force" and for it to simultaneously be true that 4e intrinsically increases the need for "DM force." One of those must, of necessity, be false. The first was argued rather forcefully in the recent fighters vs. wizards thread. The second is what you claimed in your not-so-subtle swipe at 3e and its players.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Just like every other edition.

Shh, don't tell [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] you said that.

 

[pemerton]

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

I (and others) quoted it upthread:

PHB p 55
Fire: Explosive bursts, fiery rays, or simple ignition.

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.​

the argument was that as originally written a player could not choose to target objects in D&D 4e unless object was listed as a valid target.

<snip>

Some posters <snip> appear to be arguing that one has always been able to attack and damage objects in the original rules as published (without errata) because of various reasosn including... the fire keyword or the damaging objects rules in the DMG.

Yes. I am arguing that rules for the effect of attacks upon objects count as rules for attacking objects. I don't know what you thought those rules were for - maybe they just had a few blank pages they needed to fill?

There was also p 42, just in case anyone was in doubt as to whether the GM has authority to adjudicate fictional positioning:

DMG p 42
Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.
​

I can pretty easily imagine setting things alight with a spell that causes explostive bursts, fiery rays and/or simple ignition! And the GM even has some additional guidelines besides p 42, namely those I quoted from pp 65-66.

How much discussion is there of damaging objects in Moldvay Basic? That's right, none. People still managed to adjudicate it and I have never heard it argued that in Basic you cannot damage objects or set them on fire. The difference with 4e - 4e actually has a page or more devoted to the topic! That's a strange form of "no rules".

 

[pemerton]

OD&D and basic D&D don't specify "cresature" as the target that the spell could affect.

Except for the bits that [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] and I have quoted, which say that creatures take damage.

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.

Except for page 42, which says:

Your presence as the Dungeon Master is what makes D&D such a great game. You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine. That means it’s your job to resolve unusual actions when the players try them.​

And then goes on to give rules for adjudicating this. I don't know about you, but I can imagine a fireball setting things on fire.

I get so confused sometimes.

Having just finished (well fairly recently finished) a massive thread in which 4e "pro-indie" fans argued that 4e freed players from having to ask DM permission to do things,and put more power in the hands of the players, as compared to 3e, where "DM force" was the assumed style of play,especially in regards to magic, I now find that, no, in fact it is 3e where the players are free to do whatever they want and carve the narration, and 4e is the game that relies on "DM force" to make magic work.

The GM adjudicates fictional position, where that is in doubt. That was discussed in some detail in the thread you referred to.

The player does not need GM permission for a fireball to create a 7 sq x 7 sq ball of flame. That is inherent in the spell.

As far as I can tell, neither you nor [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] distinguishes between authority over background (incuding fictional positioning and whether or not that is secret from the players), authority over situation, authority over plot, authority over mechanics (which in the case of 4e are set out, in their basics, in a series of charts, the best known of which are on p 42 of the DMG), etc. That makes it hard to discuss differing dimensions of GM force (such as, say, the Glabrezu example which is all about secret GM backstory that establishes the fictional positioning that negates the attempt to get a wish; contrasting with the GM's call over whether or not the forest in which the fireball is cast is too damp to catch on fire, which is non-secret backstory that the player can learn via a simple Perception or Nature check at specified DCs).

 

[Ahnehnois]

As far as I can tell, neither you nor [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] distinguishes between authority over background (incuding fictional positioning and whether or not that is secret from the players), authority over situation, authority over plot, authority over mechanics (which in the case of 4e are set out, in their basics, in a series of charts, the best known of which are on p 42 of the DMG), etc.

Those delineations are pretty arbitrary. No, I don't attach any significance to them in this context.

And there are no qualifications on who is the "final arbiter"; it doesn't matter whether we're talking about past or present, PC or NPC, written rules, canonized events in the game world, anything. It doesn't matter.