D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

[Alzrius]

Different purpose.

D&D 5E - A Brief History of Saving Throws, the Original Plot Armor

There has been a recent thread discussing the original (1e, OD&D) saving throws, and I thought it would be helpful to examine the ways in which saving throws (and the conception of saving throws) have changed over time. As a general concept, I would say that the original conception of saving...

www.enworld.org

TLDR; the saving throw used to be explicitly a form of "plot armor." Now, it's more of an active defense and part of the regular balancing of the game.

Hit points, on the other hand, are passive defense. While hit points are an abstraction, they have always represented the defender's ability to turn a hit into a glancing blow, etc. as they gain in expertise.

So while a lot of people talk about how it "feels wrong" in terms of the idea of "meat hit points," the discomfort is often a manifestation of the idea that hit points are a defense against attacks that hit the person, and the reason it feels wrong is that you aren't supposed to lose hit points when an attack misses you.

I'd add to this that part of it also stems from how Armor Class is a blending of two different defense mechanisms, those being avoiding a blow entirely and receiving a blow without being injured by it. The conflation of these two methods means that, when you lose hit points, it's understood that both conditions have been overcome, i.e. that the blow has not only connected, but done so in a manner that has injured you (at least somewhat). To say that damage has been dealt "on a miss" not only undermines this idea, but also causes some confusion as to whether or not the failed attack roll did "miss" you entirely, or landed a damaging hit despite not breaking the threshold to injure you through your armor.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'd add to this that part of it also stems from how Armor Class is a blending of two different defense mechanisms, those being avoiding a blow entirely and receiving a blow without being injured by it. The conflation of these two methods means that, when you lose hit points, it's understood that both conditions have been overcome, i.e. that the blow has not only connected, but done so in a manner that has injured you (at least somewhat). To say that damage has been dealt "on a miss" not only undermines this idea, but also causes some confusion as to whether or not the failed attack roll did "miss" you entirely, or landed a damaging hit despite not breaking the threshold to injure you through your armor.

Great addition. It really goes to the whole idea of why certain things, within mechanics, feel wrong.

Just to point out something-

If a D&D game provided the ability to do damage on a miss, that would feel wrong to me.
On the other hand, if the same game gave a martial character some ability to (Call it "Snarf's Awesome Strike") to choose to bypass the "to hit" roll and auto-hit the opponent (proficiency times per day), with the opponent getting a save for half damage? That would be fine.

How these various mechanics (armor class, hit points, saving throws) interact and function within the game, even as abstractions .... it makes a difference. That is more of an issue for some people than others, but that feel is something that can make a difference.

 

[Composer99]

I'd add to this that part of it also stems from how Armor Class is a blending of two different defense mechanisms, those being avoiding a blow entirely and receiving a blow without being injured by it. The conflation of these two methods means that, when you lose hit points, it's understood that both conditions have been overcome, i.e. that the blow has not only connected, but done so in a manner that has injured you (at least somewhat). To say that damage has been dealt "on a miss" not only undermines this idea, but also causes some confusion as to whether or not the failed attack roll did "miss" you entirely, or landed a damaging hit despite not breaking the threshold to injure you through your armor.

Hit points in any edition of D&D are far too abstract to actually say that losing hit points counts as "being injured" in any physical sense, save for three specific contexts:
(1) The minimal amount of hp possessed by a low-level/low-CR/low-HD creature (depending on edition);
(2) A certain proportion of hp possessed by a very large creature (that has a lot of "meat" to cut through to inflict a mortal wound);
(3) The last few hp of a PC/NPC/monster that has a lot of them.

As such, this reading of AC doesn't make sense by my reckoning beyond those contexts.

In fact, given what hit points have varyingly been said to represent across the editions, "damage on a miss" is entirely sensible within the fiction.

And indeed, at least one OSR game - Worlds Without Number - has a mechanic that is very close to "damage on a miss" as implemented in 4e, in the form of Shock (free edition pg. 43), which to me suggests that "damage on a miss" feeling incongruous to a player is not the result of some genuine fact about what is going on in the fiction, but instead the result of how that player conceives of the goings-on in the fiction - which is fine as far as it goes, but it also means (a) that they could just conceive of those goings-on in a way that reconciles with the mechanics instead of in a way that doesn't; and (b) if they do not that is a choice they have made. (It's their choice to make, sure, but it still is what it is.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And indeed, at least one OSR game - Worlds Without Number - has a mechanic that is very close to "damage on a miss" as implemented in 4e, in the form of Shock (free edition pg. 43), which to me suggests that "damage on a miss" feeling incongruous to a player is not the result of some genuine fact about what is going on in the fiction, but instead the result of how that player conceives of the goings-on in the fiction - which is fine as far as it goes, but it also means (a) that they could just conceive of those goings-on in a way that reconciles with the mechanics instead of in a way that doesn't; and (b) if they do not that is a choice they have made. (It's their choice to make, sure, but it still is what it is.)

As a general rule, feel differently is not good advice to give to other people when it comes to discussing games.

 

[James Gasik]

And yet, there are mechanics that require attack roll and a saving throw...but I guess that's the point. Some things feel fine to some people and not to others.

As an aside, I just tripped over this video, and it really addresses a few points made in this thread, and why we keep seeing the pendulum swing with D&D from leaning into it's narrative roleplaying half and it's tactical wargaming half.

Cursed Game Design

 

[Alzrius]

Hit points in any edition of D&D are far too abstract to actually say that losing hit points counts as "being injured" in any physical sense, save for three specific contexts:
(1) The minimal amount of hp possessed by a low-level/low-CR/low-HD creature (depending on edition);
(2) A certain proportion of hp possessed by a very large creature (that has a lot of "meat" to cut through to inflict a mortal wound);
(3) The last few hp of a PC/NPC/monster that has a lot of them.

I'll counter this by pointing to an instance of an attacker coating their weapon with an injury-type poison, i.e. it only poisons the target if they're damaged by the attack.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'd add to this that part of it also stems from how Armor Class is a blending of two different defense mechanisms, those being avoiding a blow entirely and receiving a blow without being injured by it. The conflation of these two methods means that, when you lose hit points, it's understood that both conditions have been overcome, i.e. that the blow has not only connected, but done so in a manner that has injured you (at least somewhat). To say that damage has been dealt "on a miss" not only undermines this idea, but also causes some confusion as to whether or not the failed attack roll did "miss" you entirely, or landed a damaging hit despite not breaking the threshold to injure you through your armor.

To me this seems like a "feel" limitation that could be pretty easily bypassed with a tiny bit of narrative justification.

Something along the lines of:

Heavy blows - yoyr character's strikes are so forceful, even the most well-defended creatures cannot fully protect themselves from your blade..do x damage on a miss

..or something

 

[James Gasik]

Hit points in any edition of D&D are far too abstract to actually say that losing hit points counts as "being injured" in any physical sense, save for three specific contexts:
(1) The minimal amount of hp possessed by a low-level/low-CR/low-HD creature (depending on edition);
(2) A certain proportion of hp possessed by a very large creature (that has a lot of "meat" to cut through to inflict a mortal wound);
(3) The last few hp of a PC/NPC/monster that has a lot of them.

As such, this reading of AC doesn't make sense by my reckoning beyond those contexts.

In fact, given what hit points have varyingly been said to represent across the editions, "damage on a miss" is entirely sensible within the fiction.

And indeed, at least one OSR game - Worlds Without Number - has a mechanic that is very close to "damage on a miss" as implemented in 4e, in the form of Shock (free edition pg. 43), which to me suggests that "damage on a miss" feeling incongruous to a player is not the result of some genuine fact about what is going on in the fiction, but instead the result of how that player conceives of the goings-on in the fiction - which is fine as far as it goes, but it also means (a) that they could just conceive of those goings-on in a way that reconciles with the mechanics instead of in a way that doesn't; and (b) if they do not that is a choice they have made. (It's their choice to make, sure, but it still is what it is.)

Indeed, hit points are said to include factors such as minimizing or avoiding the effect of blows! So if what's happening is "a hit is a meaningful attack that can cause damage" and part of your hit points is "luckily avoiding a serious injury", then "an attack so powerful that you can't easily avoid injury" should be logical- like say a giant hitting you with a club as big as you are!

I mean, you can see this sort of thinking, because every few months, someone has the idea of "maybe armor should provide damage reduction instead of a miss chance"- because even though that's what AC and hit points are modeling, the terms "hit" and "miss" make it seem very counterintuitive to some people; ie, if you say it's a "miss", then it should really be a "miss", not "an attack that hit and failed to deal damage". The fact that AC is derived from two very different factors, either Dexterity (avoiding blows through physical effort) and/or armor (avoiding blows due to protective gear) doesn't help.

Indeed, we're perfectly ok with layers of damage avoidance; to defeat an Arcane Trickster, you might have to get past their AC, Shield spells, hit points, and Uncanny Dodge. And we're ok with some methods of bypassing defenses- magic missile vs. AC, counterspell vs. shield, and so on, but somehow partially bypassing AC is more strange and exotic than completely bypassing it.

 

[Alzrius]

To me this seems like a "feel" limitation that could be pretty easily bypassed with a tiny bit of narrative justification.

Something along the lines of:

Heavy blows - yoyr character's strikes are so forceful, even the most well-defended creatures cannot fully protect themselves from your blade..do x damage on a miss

..or something

So how does that interact with the idea of AC including the concept of not making contact with the target at all?

 

[darjr]

To me this seems like a "feel" limitation that could be pretty easily bypassed with a tiny bit of narrative justification.

Something along the lines of:

Heavy blows - yoyr character's strikes are so forceful, even the most well-defended creatures cannot fully protect themselves from your blade..do x damage on a miss

..or something

Really, remove miss and say it does a minimum damage upon an attack.

And make sure it works that way.

Cause I can “miss” someone with a punch from several miles away and there is only One Punch Man and he def doesn’t miss.