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

[Alzrius]

As a concept, AC is not well-constructed as you illustrated in your description of it. It does too much. Were I to attempt a finer hand at it, maybe I'd split out evasion based defense from armor based defense and treat those differently.

Sort of like touch AC and flat-footed AC?

But in the interest of avoiding additional crunch, maybe I'd describe the force of the wind moving past as being harmful even if the blade did not connect.

Leaving aside instances of that damaging an air elemental (which is nothing but forceful winds), or a ghost (which is incorporeal, presuming that the weapon could otherwise damage it normally), you're now introducing fluff that the crunch doesn't account for, which I know a lot of people think isn't a big deal, but if we take it as axiomatic that the crunch and the fluff are supposed to work in tandem, weakens the overall presentation.

If the PC is capable of generating gusts of wind so powerful that they can damage an enemy simply from the passage of their blade through the air, why can they only do that on a missed attack? Why isn't that air-blade (or whatever it is) kicking in for attacks that actually hit?

 

[Zaukrie]

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.

I've toyed with auto damage as rounds go on, because the combatants are getting tired..... It speeds up combat, and simulates reality.

I like damage in every round, frankly. So I always explained that it wasn't a miss, just a less effective blow same that it was about just getting tired from the fight.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So to start with, I don't believe that I have told anyone to feel differently yet.

However, I also do not believe that feelings should be immutable or outside the scope of available levers to pull to increase your net enjoyment of the hobby.

As you say, it is completely fine to feel however you want about a thing. But if that thing bothers you, your options to maximize your satisfaction are:

1. Don't engage with it
2. Change the thing so you're satisfied with it
3. Change how you feel about it.

Feelings aren't immutable. Stuff you like now, your past self would hate, and vice versa. We teach ourselves to like things all the time. I didn't always drink coffee. I didn't always appreciate baseball.

It doesn't always work. I still don't like mayonnaise or pineapple on pizzas.

But it can be a perfectly viable strategy for getting to enjoy something you don't currently.

But I will point you to the context of this conversation.

People have repeatedly explained to you (and to the person I originally explained this to) why they feel the way that they do. In excruciating detail, and in multiple posts. They've given a cogent explanation as to why something doesn't feel correct to them. They have a reason for their preferences.

You have a reason for your preferences. Which is great! But repeatedly telling people that they need to feel differently ... that's not a good way to go about it, or a "viable strategy." Any more than having one of us repeatedly tell you that you need to feel differently, despite your apparent preferences.

You can get people to try something. You can explain to people why you love something. But you can't get people to like the same things you do. We are not all the same, and we have different preferences; at the end of the day, telling people to feel differently about something is never, ever an acceptable way to discuss games.

IMO.

 

[darjr]

I've toyed with auto damage as rounds go on, because the combatants are getting tired..... It speeds up combat, and simulates reality.

I like damage in every round, frankly. So I always explained that it wasn't a miss, just a less effective blow same that it was about just getting tired from the fight.

Like the impending doom mechanics… from 13th age?

Where a count up die notes a bonus to everyone’s attack as the rounds go buy.

But I like this idea, I might make it a bonus to everyone’s damage thiugh.

 

[Zaukrie]

Like the impending doom mechanics… from 13th age?

Where a count up die notes a bonus to everyone’s attack as the rounds go buy.

But I like this idea, I might make it a bonus to everyone’s damage thiugh.

Yes. Just like that. So many good ideas in that game.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I hit the enter key by mistake. Stand by.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Sort of like touch AC and flat-footed AC?

Leaving aside instances of that damaging an air elemental (which is nothing but forceful winds), or a ghost (which is incorporeal, presuming that the weapon could otherwise damage it normally), you're now introducing things fluff that the crunch doesn't account for, which I know a lot of people think isn't a big deal, but if we take it as axiomatic that the crunch and the fluff are supposed to work in tandem, weakens the overall presentation.

If the PC is capable of generating gusts of wind so powerful that they can damage an enemy simply from the passage of their blade through the air, why can they only do that on a missed attack? Why isn't that air-blade (or whatever it is) kicking in for attacks that actually hit?

1. It might also kick in on hit. I'm not trying to design a specific power, just illustrating that there isn't a thematic impossibility here.

That said...

2. If it didn't, it's could be because the flesh of your enemies slowed you down enough that you did not to generate those forceful gusts.

Or something..
Again, not trying to design anything specific. Just pointing out that the problem seems eminently handle-able with a very small bit of narrative.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

For those who forgot, or just don't know, DMG2 had an entire chapter devoted to Skill Challenges. Let's see if it has any interesting tidbits and/or advice to help.

Introduction (pg 78)
They (skill challenges) should never replace the roleplaying, puzzling, and ingenuity that go into players’ approach to those situations, but they place that effort into a defined rules structure so you can more easily adjudicate them and players can more easily understand the options available to them.

Skills in a Challenge (pg 80)
A good skill challenge also allows for other actions outside the framework of the skill system to contribute to the party’s success. Spending money, using powers or action points, combat encounters, rituals, and the simple passage of time can contribute successes or do any of the things that secondary skill checks can accomplish.

Consequences (pg 80)
Whether characters succeed or fail at the skill challenge, the adventure must go on. Of course, there should be consequences for failing the challenge, but those consequences can’t bring the adventure to a halt. Penalties for failure in a skill challenge might include the loss of healing surges or some other lingering penalty, making a later encounter more difficult.

In addition to XP, characters might earn rewards specific to the challenge (which might simply boil down to the adventure continuing smoothly). They could also gain one or more treasure parcels, bonuses or advantages in future encounters, or information useful later in the campaign.

Ground Rules (pg 82-83)
Like combat encounters, skill challenges work best when you and the players want one to happen.
D&D is a game about creativity and imagination. If there’s only one specific, scripted path to success, you’ve lost what makes D&D fun. When you build a skill challenge, be prepared for it to head in a direction you didn’t anticipate or for the party to fail utterly. That way, the game moves on regardless of what happens with the challenge.

As in a combat encounter, if standing in one place and doing the same thing over and over again is the best plan, you need to go back to the drawing board.
A skill challenge is a lot more than a fancy extended skill check. The best ones embrace improvisation and a broad range of skills and abilities.

As in a combat encounter, a variety of options makes a skill challenge compelling.
It isn’t enough to pick a wide variety of skills. You need to create a broad range of subchallenges and obstacles within a challenge. A good skill challenge consists of a number of different incremental tasks that combine for a fun encounter. It isn’t enough to pull different skills into the challenge. The players should feel as though their characters have a lot of options and important decisions. Otherwise, a skill challenge turns into a boring series of die rolls.
Unlike a combat encounter, a skill challenge can cover hours or even days of progress.
Think about how long it should take the party to resolve the skill challenge. If your answer can be measured in minutes, you might be looking at a simple skill check. When you design a skill challenge to cover a day or a week of effort, you open it up to a wide variety of individual hurdles within the challenge as a whole and a broader range of skills.

Extending a skill challenge over a span of time has an important benefit: It lets you plausibly impose radical changes to the challenge without straining the players’ suspension of disbelief.
Each skill check in a challenge should accomplish one of the following goals:

• Introduce a new option that the PCs can pursue, a path to success they didn’t know existed.
• Change the situation, such as by sending the PCs to a new location, introducing a new NPC, or adding a complication.
• Grant the players a tangible consequence for the check’s success or failure (as appropriate), one that influences their subsequent decisions.

The characters should always be the active party in a skill challenge.
Placing characters in the active role has an important effect on your design, your presentation, and the players’ engagement. It forces the players to step up and make plans rather than sit back and react to your NPCs. It also compels you to create multiple paths and options. When the PCs are the passive group in a challenge, it’s too easy to allow logic to dictate that one repeated skill check is the best way to plow through the challenge.

And then the book goes more in depth over the next 5-1/2 pages, and continues to give various examples from pages 89-101.

 

[Alzrius]

1. It might also kick in on hit. I'm not trying to design a specific power, just illustrating that there isn't a thematic impossibility here.

That said...

2. If it didn't, it's could be because the flesh of your enemies slowed you down enough that you did not to generate those forceful gusts.

Or something..
Again, not trying to design anything specific. Just pointing out that the problem seems eminently handle-able with a very small bit of narrative.

The problem is that introducing that narrative creates expectations that the mechanics will reflect that narrative operation under the game engine. Again, a lot of people don't mind when this doesn't happen, but the ideal is for the fluff and the crunch to operate as two sides of the same coin, so an instance where that doesn't work is (ideally) an instance where things can be further refined (though in point of fact, there are some areas where a better method has yet to be found, despite decades of innovating).

If a "wind blade" power kicks in on a miss, for instance, we'd expect it to also kick in on a hit. Coming up with mechanical explanations for why it doesn't then adds a further narrative burden. For instance, the idea that the swing needs to be uninterrupted in order to generate that wind ignores what happens when/if you're fighting a foe with no corporeal substance, such as the aforementioned ghost/air elemental. Moreover, it begets questions of why the character isn't simply winding up with a larger swing before trying to strike their enemy?

To reiterate, the problem isn't coming up with a narrative justification for damaging someone with a missed attack; it's coming up with narrative justification that doesn't disrupt the immersive experience of play. Obviously, that threshold will be different for different people, but there seems to be a lot of people for whom the extant justifications fall short (myself among them).

 

[Cruentus]

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.

I played a historical RPG set in post-Roman Britain, which was pretty much a DnD chassis, similar combat, etc. In it, you had your traditional attack roll in combat, which did damage. However, each weapon had its own Shock value, and AC target. You did shock damage on a miss if the if the attack roll failed, and the target has equal to or less AC than listed for the weapon.

I liked the mechanic as it added another layer to combat, made armor (or lack thereof) a consideration, differentiated weapons, and also pretty much meant you were going to take damage in combat (potentially ending the combat much earlier), and so really thought hard about engaging in fighting, or worked to stack things in your favor.

In DnD, HP being luck, meat, endurance, magic fairy dust, or whatever, or all of it, it does make some sense to me that the "miss" also eats up your luck, or endurance as you're getting out of the way, or beginning to tire, even if the blade never touched you.