Quote from: JRR;694118There is no range requirement for this. It's shitty work, typical for WOTC.

You can't miss a target if you can't attack the target. You can't attack a target that isn't in range.

It doesn't need to specify a range, because it can't be a TARGET if it isn't within range.

"1. Choose a target. Before you attack, pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location."

Quote from: JRR;694118Don't be a smartass.  It doesn't matter that no dm would ever let that happen, that's no excuse for shoddy rules writing.  

"When you miss a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals  your Strength modifier.  The weapon must have the two-*‐handed or versatile property to gain this benefit."

There is no range requirement for this. It's shitty work, typical for WOTC.

Are you saying this with a straight face?

Quote from: Old One Eye;694133Are you saying this with a straight face?

I took it straight, but only because I've seen that stupid on this forum can reach amazing levels.

Quote from: JRR;694118Don't be a smartass.  It doesn't matter that no dm would ever let that happen, that's no excuse for shoddy rules writing.  

"When you miss a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals  your Strength modifier.  The weapon must have the two-*‐handed or versatile property to gain this benefit."

There is no range requirement for this. It's shitty work, typical for WOTC.

Don't go full retard JRR.  Never go full retard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAKG-kbKeIo

Quote from: JRR;694118Don't be a smartass.  It doesn't matter that no dm would ever let that happen, that's no excuse for shoddy rules writing.  

"When you miss a target with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals  your Strength modifier.  The weapon must have the two-*‐handed or versatile property to gain this benefit."

There is no range requirement for this. It's shitty work, typical for WOTC.

wait....

I don't want to make a mistake.  Are you saying it's shoddy work on WOTC by not specifying a range requirement for a melee attack?  Because that seems...well...a waster of ink to be honest.

No damge on a miss is a shit rule end of.

You can blah blah it as much as you like its still a shit rule

Imagine the following situations ....

Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.

Also got to pity 1st level wizards

Wizzy gets cornered by a barbarian with sword. Wizzy casts shield. The barbarian swings the sword 2 handed, (doesn't need to be a two handed weapon just a weapon that can be weilded 2 handed) misses and Wizzy goes down taking 1 point of damage.

Quote from: jibbajibba;694163No damge on a miss is a shit rule end of.

You can blah blah it as much as you like its still a shit rule

Imagine the following situations ....

Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.

Also got to pity 1st level wizards

Wizzy gets cornered by a barbarian with sword. Wizzy casts shield. The barbarian swings the sword 2 handed, (doesn't need to be a two handed weapon just a weapon that can be weilded 2 handed) misses and Wizzy goes down taking 1 point of damage.

Fun right? (said much the same thing over at TBP concerning at will spells vs. bullshit daggers/x-bows or whatever...again when is it where I have time to be a fighter? (Unless I am an Elf or multiclass? Both have serious drawbacks btw) personally I work past them but not EVERYONE is wired like myself. Hence I dig the direction 5e is going. Ben called it last year, this is Jo's Dnd.

Quote from: JonWake;694016Poison is triggered on a hit that causes damage. Problem solved.

Thats already the case. Hence the problem with a weapon that causes damage even if you miss.

My solution by the by: exchange the auto- damage with " may , on a miss, move opponent d6 feet away". An ability I'd extend to Great Battleaxes as well.

Quote from: jibbajibba;694163No damge on a miss is a shit rule end of.

You can blah blah it as much as you like its still a shit rule

Imagine the following situations ....

Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.  While hitting him with the head of their halberd and cleaving him is pretty hard, the fact that they don't hit with their blade doesn't mean they don't hit at all.  The shaft swings through Kredfar's space and he takes a couple of small bruises.  

If it knocks him unconscious, he's still invisible.  There's a good chance the Bugbears fail to locate him.  

This is very much like Bilbo's experience during the Battle of Five Armies.

Quote from: jibbajibba;694163Also got to pity 1st level wizards

Wizzy gets cornered by a barbarian with sword. Wizzy casts shield. The barbarian swings the sword 2 handed, (doesn't need to be a two handed weapon just a weapon that can be weilded 2 handed) misses and Wizzy goes down taking 1 point of damage.

I've always been told that we shouldn't feel pity for the wizard because his job is to avoid standing next to a barbarian.  

Keep in mind that this is only applying if the character took a particular combat ability that makes this happen.

Quote from: jibbajibba;694163Imagine the following situations ....

Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.

Then he should have snuck better, or found a less risky way out.

If the combat roll represents a length of time spent fighting, rather than "a blow", damage on a "miss" makes sense, if you're doing well enough to wear your opponent down even without landing a telling blow... although making it a weapon property isn't the best way of handling it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;694163Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.

No damage on a miss is perfectly fine. You might as well rewrite the rule as: You encounter something, it magically loses x-HPs by being in your presence (be that 5ft or one square or whatever), roll to see if you damage it further.

Quote from: jibbajibba;694163No damge on a miss is a shit rule end of.

You can blah blah it as much as you like its still a shit rule

Imagine the following situations ....

Kredfar the thief had been cornered. He took a load of damage but slipped on his ring of invisibility and fled. At the gates to the castle stand 2 bugbears. halberds in hand.
Kredfar tires to sneak past but fails a move silently, he is still invisible. the Bugbears who are alert cry "someone is there" and swing their halberds.
Kredfar has some defence feat he uses gviing him +4 ac, +4 from the invisibility so an AC of -2 (he is a dexy little fucker). the Bugbears need a 20 to hit. One rolls a 5 one a 4 .... but doesn't matter Kredfar still takes 2 damage from each and goes unconscious and turns visible as he has been engaged in combat.

Also got to pity 1st level wizards

Wizzy gets cornered by a barbarian with sword. Wizzy casts shield. The barbarian swings the sword 2 handed, (doesn't need to be a two handed weapon just a weapon that can be weilded 2 handed) misses and Wizzy goes down taking 1 point of damage.

To play devil's advocate here:

DM can easily decree no auto damage vs invisible enemies, especially invisible enemies you have not been melleing with. Regardless, that example you gave of Bugbears is simply not how I would gm.

Also, bubbears don't normally do autodamage; if they do, its because the gm decided to make them 'full barbarians like a pc'

Monsters have simple stat blocks.


Wizard: Don't get pinned down by a Barbarian? Also, the auto damage is far less than what a regular hit would do.


I really think experiencing the system in play would be advised before trashing it.

It looks fantastic to me.

Still reading through the book though.


Uh oh....

Oh man am I an idiot!!!!   I am talking about 13th Age (that also has auto damage) not 5E dnd.

I feel stupid.

My reply probaby still stands, but I was clueless and must have 13th Age on the brain disease.

Quote from: Bill;694230To play devil's advocate here:

DM can easily decree no auto damage vs invisible enemies, especially invisible enemies you have not been melleing with. Regardless, that example you gave of Bugbears is simply not how I would gm.

Also, bubbears don't normally do autodamage; if they do, its because the gm decided to make them 'full barbarians like a pc'

Monsters have simple stat blocks.


Wizard: Don't get pinned down by a Barbarian? Also, the auto damage is far less than what a regular hit would do.


I really think experiencing the system in play would be advised before trashing it.

It looks fantastic to me.

Still reading through the book though.


Uh oh....

Oh man am I an idiot!!!!   I am talking about 13th Age (that also has auto damage) not 5E dnd.

I feel stupid.

My reply probaby still stands, but I was clueless and must have 13th Age on the brain disease.

Okay you all agree fine.

Wiggling my sword in the general direction of an invisble opponent will miss, deal damage but not make them visible becuae even though they have definitely been engaged in combat we will waive the other rule.

The D&D paradigm of a combat round as an exchange of blows has been dropped by all the players unless they are arguing for these sorts of corner cases. Read the thread on how do you describe combat, no one not even Old Geezer says "I engage in a back and forth of parry and thrust before rolling to hit...." everyone envisages it as a single attack. Just check the thread.
So if no one uses it as an abstract exchange of blows lets drop that idea shall we?
If D&D had a separation of fatigue from Hit Points then there may be some mileage in making defence against some weapons drain fatigue, but when we discussed Hit points and some of us suggested such as difference and kind of suggested maybe fatigue could heal fast and be ablative where as wounds were more serious real damage the majority of folks said that was ridiculous ... and yet.....
So if wielding a weapon 2 handed does damage due to 'fatigue' then you should take HP damage for running in armour, climbing a wall, not sleeping, walking a long way etc etc ....
Is it possible that if I swing my axe at you you can move and it misses you? Not a big move a short step to the side perhaps?
This rule is coming from the same place as a "sand in your eyes" power that needs no sand nor for the target to have actual eyes....

Give a 2 handed weapon a wider critical range, additional damage, make the opponent make a save not to be knocked back etc etc but only do it if the thing actually hits something.....

Rant over

Quote from: jibbajibba;694240Okay you all agree fine.

Wiggling my sword in the general direction of an invisble opponent will miss, deal damage but not make them visible becuae even though they have definitely been engaged in combat we will waive the other rule.

The D&D paradigm of a combat round as an exchange of blows has been dropped by all the players unless they are arguing for these sorts of corner cases. Read the thread on how do you describe combat, no one not even Old Geezer says "I engage in a back and forth of parry and thrust before rolling to hit...." everyone envisages it as a single attack. Just check the thread.
So if no one uses it as an abstract exchange of blows lets drop that idea shall we?
If D&D had a separation of fatigue from Hit Points then there may be some mileage in making defence against some weapons drain fatigue, but when we discussed Hit points and some of us suggested such as difference and kind of suggested maybe fatigue could heal fast and be ablative where as wounds were more serious real damage the majority of folks said that was ridiculous ... and yet.....
So if wielding a weapon 2 handed does damage due to 'fatigue' then you should take HP damage for running in armour, climbing a wall, not sleeping, walking a long way etc etc ....
Is it possible that if I swing my axe at you you can move and it misses you? Not a big move a short step to the side perhaps?
This rule is coming from the same place as a "sand in your eyes" power that needs no sand nor for the target to have actual eyes....

Give a 2 handed weapon a wider critical range, additional damage, make the opponent make a save not to be knocked back etc etc but only do it if the thing actually hits something.....

Rant over

Don't get me wrong, I actually prefer, if it is an option, to have a game system have clearly defned 'Hit/miss', how 'dodgy/how armored', wounds are wounds and stun is stun, etc...  (like HERO)

But, I am also comfortable with dnd's VERY abstract concepts like Hit Points.

The low auto damage on a miss, policed by the gm, is absrtact like HP.

Quote from: jibbajibba;694240Wiggling my sword in the general direction of an invisble opponent will miss, deal damage but not make them visible becuae even though they have definitely been engaged in combat we will waive the other rule.

If you are attacked while invisible, you don't become visible.  It's only if you attack back.  So this wouldn't involve ignoring any rules.