Creature Takes How Much Damage on a Miss?

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
Found a neat little critter in the Adventure Tools, but I'm not sure how it's supposed to work by RAW. I think I can guess at RAI, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

The creature power says, "Burst 1, Deal x damage. Miss: Creature takes y damage."

A power like this makes me think RAI is suppose to be, "Misses all targets: Creature takes y damage." But I can also see an argument, for the way it's worded, for it to read, "Miss: Creature takes y damage for each target in the burst missed."

(I'm not using the creature's name because I'm going to drop this in tomorrow's game, if I can get a ruling, and my players sometimes visit the forums. Don't want to spoil them before they see it on the table.)

58286228 wrote:
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?

 

An insightful observation about the nature of 4e, and why it hasn't succeeded as well as other editions. (from the DDN General Discussions, 2014-05-07)

Rundell wrote:

   

Emerikol wrote:

       

Foxface wrote:

        4e was the "modern" D&D, right?  The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games.  I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.

       
        D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different".  That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.

    This is a brilliant insight.  I was thinking along those lines myself.  

 

    There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder.   If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game.  Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.

 

Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?

 

Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.

Takes damage for each miss. That is the RAW. Not sure why you'd think it was anything else.
So in other words, each creature that is missed takes y damage.
I realize I failed to be properly explicit. My fault for using the word "creature." Let me attempt this a second time.


Creature A's power says, "Burst 1, Deal x damage [understood: to enemy targets in burst - RI]. Miss: Creature A takes y damage [understood: enemy targets take 0 damage - RI]."

58286228 wrote:
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?

 

An insightful observation about the nature of 4e, and why it hasn't succeeded as well as other editions. (from the DDN General Discussions, 2014-05-07)

Rundell wrote:

   

Emerikol wrote:

       

Foxface wrote:

        4e was the "modern" D&D, right?  The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games.  I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.

       
        D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different".  That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.

    This is a brilliant insight.  I was thinking along those lines myself.  

 

    There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder.   If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game.  Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.

 

Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?

 

Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.

So that would be cumulative damage, then. Each time the power misses, the attacker would take y damage. I misunderstood both the question and the reply. Woops.
Which monster it is ?

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I understood you the first time. The monster takes damage each time it misses.

@Plague: He doesn't want to say, so I won't say it either...
I'm curious now Wink

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Lesser Berbalang, for anyone still curious that did not figure it out on their own.

58286228 wrote:
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?

 

An insightful observation about the nature of 4e, and why it hasn't succeeded as well as other editions. (from the DDN General Discussions, 2014-05-07)

Rundell wrote:

   

Emerikol wrote:

       

Foxface wrote:

        4e was the "modern" D&D, right?  The one that had design notes that drew from more modern games, and generally appealed to those who preferred the design priorities of modern games.  I'm only speculating, but I'd hazard a guess that those same 4e players are the ones running the wide gamut of other games at Origins.

       
        D&D 4e players are pretty much by definition the players who didn't mind, and often embraced, D&D being "different".  That willingness to embrace the different might also mean they are less attached to 4e itself, and are willing to go elsewhere.

    This is a brilliant insight.  I was thinking along those lines myself.  

 

    There are so many tiny indie games that if you added them all together they would definitely rival Pathfinder.   If there were a dominant game for those people it would do better but there is no dominant game.  Until 4e, the indie people were ignored by the makers of D&D.

 

Yep. 4E was embraced by the 'system matters' crowd who love analyzing and innovating systems. That crowd had turned its back on D&D as a clunky anachronism. But with 4E, their design values were embraced and validated. 4E was D&D for system-wonks. And with support for 4E pulled, the system-wonks have moved on to other systems. The tropes and traditions of D&D never had much appeal for them anyway. Now there are other systems to learn and study. It's like boardgamegeeks - always a new system on the horizon. Why play an ancient games that's seven years old?

 

Of course, not all people who play and enjoy 4E fit that mould. I'm running a 4E campaign right now, and my long-time D&D players are enjoying it fine. But with the system-wonks decamping, the 4E players-base lost the wind in its sails.

Ha here it is!  Thanks Rood.Inverse

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

As a non-rules answer, I would highly recommend rewriting Sacrifice so that the self-damage is 15 per use, rather than 15 per target.  2d8+5 is 14 average damage, which is only slightly below the 15 damage that the creature inflicts to itself for every target it attacks - hit or miss.  That's simply too much self-damage, and no reasonably intelligent berbalang (this one has 14 Int, so plenty enough) would ever use the power if it worked according to its RAW.

The berbalang should be rewarded for hitting a bunch of targets with Sacrifice, to the point where it is a good tactic to send a duplicate into the middle of enemies and then explode it.

It'd also probably be a good idea to indicate that the duplicate is destroyed in the process.  It seems that all duplicates are destroyed when you choose one for Sacrifice, and that's probably not the intent.


All in all a fun monster, but probably better if you make some slight adjustments.  The responses in this thread are correct as far as how the RAW tells you to run it, however.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I agree with Mand, it seems clear the RAI is that the Hit or Miss: Berbalang takes X damage part of sacrifice should simply be an "Effect" which would apply once regardless of any number of hits or misses.
  Especially when you consider it must spend 25% of its HP to create a duplicate and as written, if Sacrifice  hits 4-5 targets it would lose about another 20-25% of its hit points.