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

[pemerton]

I'm not sure what a "fundamental" breakdown would be, short of the entire game engine somehow crashing, but I'm saying that the consistent ability to damage an opponent on a missed attack – literally, with every missed attack – requires a narrative justification for how that's happening (particularly if it means that you're always connecting somehow, negating the "don't connect with the enemy at all" part of AC, at least if we accept that hit point loss means an injury is dealt). Moreover, that this justification is no small thing, since otherwise it can introduce a disconnect between the flavor text and the mechanics that some players find unpleasant because it brings them out of the immersive aspect of play.

It's completely trivial, though. This combatant is so implacable that they always wear down their foe in any 6 seconds of melee. But they have a chance (reflected by the roll to hit) to wear down their foe even more quickly.

 

[pemerton]

Right, but one of those factors is dodging. Even in plate mail, you can conceivably avoid an attack to the extent that if the opponent rolls a 2 on the die, you can say that it's a clumsy swing which you easily sidestep...except they still damaged you.

But why would you narrate the expert fighter as having made a clumsy swing? Or a damaging attack as being one that was easily sidestepped?

Of course if you narrate stuff that makes no sense, it'll make no sense.

But if you narrate it as "the implacable warrior presses their attack without remorse, and your armour barely protects you" then losing 4 hp make sense. You're being worn down.

Not when the attacker is a guy with 8 Strength, using a weapon he's not proficient with.

In 4e, this character does not do damage on a miss. It's a fighter ability, or a paragon tier feat that has a minimum CON requirement and buffs hammer and mace attacks.

 

[Alzrius]

It's completely trivial, though. This combatant is so implacable that they always wear down their foe in any 6 seconds of melee. But they have a chance (reflected by the roll to hit) to wear down their foe even more quickly.

It's trivial to you. Other people, quite clearly, feel differently.

For instance, attaching that italicized text of yours to a 1st-level fighter with a Strength of 8 who's using an improvised weapon that he isn't proficient with sort of undercuts the "always wears down their foe" part. Moreover, if that's a standard aspect of what 1st-level fighters do, then that means that what you've written there is true for an astoundingly large part of the game world, which for some people hurts verisimilitude.

 

[Alzrius]

But why would you narrate the expert fighter as having made a clumsy swing? Or a damaging attack as being one that was easily sidestepped?

Because that's what a natural 2 on the dice tell us happens. The narration doesn't occur in a vacuum.

But if you narrate it as "the implacable warrior presses their attack without remorse, and your armour barely protects you" then losing 4 hp make sense. You're being worn down.

If you're going to narrate a near-miss (e.g. by only a single point on the attack roll) as being the same as rolling a natural 1, well...that strikes me as decoupling the narrative from the mechanics (or at least pulling them in opposite directions), which is the opposite direction of how I think things should work.

 

[pemerton]

Healing is definitely a problem, agreed. I suggest re-working it into a percentage of the target's total hp, modified by how powerful the healing effect is.

Yes. This is what 4e does. It's one of the reasons I like it.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes. This is what 4e does. It's one of the reasons I like it.

4E uses percentage-based healing for its curative spells/abilities, rather than flat numbers of hit points?

 

[pemerton]

It's trivial to you. Other people, quite clearly, feel differently.

For instance, attaching that italicized text of yours to a 1st-level fighter with a Strength of 8 who's using an improvised weapon that he isn't proficient with sort of undercuts the "always wears down their foe" part. Moreover, if that's a standard aspect of what 1st-level fighters do, then that means that what you've written there is true for an astoundingly large part of the game world, which for some people hurts verisimilitude.

There are no first level fighters with 8 STR in 4e D&D, at least in my experience.

And if someone is absolutely determined to build a mechanically unviable fighter, for whatever reason, then why would they take or use the Reaping Strike power that contradicts their vision of their PC?

As far as the comment about the "astoundingly large part of the gameworld", the gameworld is not full of 1st level fighters. And low-level minion warrior types aren't generally statted to do damage on a miss.

 

[Nikosandros]

4E uses percentage-based healing for its curative spells/abilities, rather than flat numbers of hit points?

Yes, healing surges are 1/4 of your total HP.

 

[pemerton]

Because that's what a natural 2 on the dice tell us happens. The narration doesn't occur in a vacuum.

This rule is not stated anywhere in any edition of D&D. All rolling a natural 2 does is tell us that the attack roll failed.

If you're going to narrate a near-miss (e.g. by only a single point on the attack roll) as being the same as rolling a natural 1, well...that strikes me as decoupling the narrative from the mechanics (or at least pulling them in opposite directions), which is the opposite direction of how I think things should work.

No version of D&D has this concept of a "near miss" based on margin of failure of a roll to hit. At least in any of the rulebooks I've read (B/X, AD&D, 3E, 4e, 5e Basic PDF). Where is it coming from?

 

[Alzrius]

There are no first level fighters with 8 STR in 4e D&D, at least in my experience.

And if someone is absolutely determined to build a mechanically unviable fighter, for whatever reason, then why would they take or use the Reaping Strike power that contradicts their vision of their PC?

As far as the comment about the "astoundingly large part of the gameworld", the gameworld is not full of 1st level fighters. And low-level minion warrior types aren't generally statted to do damage on a miss.

Which gets into issues of the PCs operating under different rules than NPCs, which is another can of worms with regards to preferred game design. I personally like it when the PCs and NPCs are built under the same guidelines, with little-to-no differences between the former and the latter (save perhaps for PCs using slightly more beneficial ability score generation methods, and slightly more generous wealth-by-level tables...and even then, those are somewhat begrudging on my part). "PC exceptionalism" isn't an outlook which I subscribe to, and so the game world is full of 1st-level fighters, operating under the same auspices as a PC 1st-level fighter.