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

[pemerton]

I've never once read a rulebook that explicitly states that a missed attack roll, regardless of margin, is completely open to interpretation regarding how it failed to connect. Can you cite a passage in that regard?

Here is Gygax on p 61 of his DMG:

hit points are not actually a measure of physical damage, by and large, as far as characters (and some other creatures as well) are concerned. Therefore, the location of hits and the type of damage caused are not germane to them. While this is not true with respect to most monsters, it is neither necessary nor particularly useful . . .

One-minute rounds are devised to offer the maximum of choice with a minimum of complication. This allows the DM and the players the best of both worlds. The system assumes much activity during the course of each round. Envision, if you will, a fencing, boxing, or karate match. During the course of one minute of such competition there are numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth. During a one minute melee round many attacks are made, but some ore mere feints, while some are blocked or parried. One, or possibly several, have the chance to actually score damage. For such chances, the dice are rolled, and if the "to hit" number is equalled or exceeded, the attack was successful, but otherwise it too was avoided, blocked, parried, or whatever. Damage scored to characters or certain monsters is actually not substantially physical - a mere nick or scratch until the last handful of hit points are considered - it is a matter of wearing away the endurance, the luck, the magical protections. With respect to most monsters such damage is, in fact, more physically substantial although as with adjustments in armor class rating for speed and agility, there are also similar additions in hit points. So while a round of combat is not a continuous series of attacks, it is neither just a single blow and counter-blow affair. The opponents spar and move, seeking the opportunity to engage when on opening, in the enemy's guard presents itself.​

I've bolded the bit - "avoided, blocked, parried or whatever" - which shows that there is no particular prescription of the narration of a missed attack.

Here is the 4e PHB, p 276:

You resolve an attack by comparing the total of your attack roll (1d20 + base attack bonus + attack modifiers) to the appropriate defense score. If your roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, you hit. Otherwise, you miss.

When you hit, you usually deal damage and sometimes produce some other effect. When you’re using a power, the power description tells you what happens when you hit. Some descriptions also say what happens when you miss or when you score a critical hit. . . .

If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both. . . .

If your attack roll is lower than the defense score, the attack misses. Usually, there’s no effect. Some powers have an effect on a miss, such as dealing half damage.​

And this is from p 55:

A power’s flavor text helps you understand what happens when you use a power and how you might describe it when you use it. You can alter this description as you like, to fit your own idea of what your power looks like. . . . When you need to know the exact effect, look at the rules text that follows.​

Taken together, I think these make it pretty clear what the rules are, and otherwise indicate that (within the parameters of the rules) the player is free to narrate what their power looks like when they use it.

 

[pemerton]

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 doesn't say that anywhere though, and such an idea shouldn't be assumed to be understood by a fan base heretofore unfamiliar with the concept. 4e fell down there IMO.

The first level fighter power that deals damage on a miss is called Reaping Strike - which evokes the stalks falling before the scythe of the reaper- and has this flavour text:

You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy’s defenses.​

I really don't think it's unclear what is going on. I can report that my group, which had never encountered damage on a miss until we started playing 4e D&D in early 2009, had no problem with it.

 

[Alzrius]

Taken together, I think these make it pretty clear what the rules are, and otherwise indicate that (within the parameters of the rules) the player is free to narrate what their power looks like when they use it.

"Taken together" and "pretty clear" are not "explicitly stated." Which is to say, my asking for a quote saying that the degree of failure is not tied to the narration was meant to show the futility of your asking for a quote that says there is one: nowhere does any version of the game say either; the best you can find is some quotes that are generously interpreted one way or the other.

 

[Lanefan]

This is not at all clear: AD&D has rules for evasion and extracting oneself from melee; so does 5e D&D.

The stakes of the skill challenge are (I'm assuming) can the PCs persuade the Baron? The GM is not at liberty just to declare that the players lose, any more than the GM is at liberty, when adjudicating a combat, to just decide that the Orc ducks (because that's what the Orc would really do), that the Orc runs the PC through with its spear (because that's what would really happen), etc.

To elaborate: in D&D combat, the GM is not at liberty to decide that really the Orc would have ducked even though the to hit die shows that the Orc was struck. Rather, the dice tell us whether or not the Orc is able to duck.

On an individual attack or to-hit attempt, no. However, a single attack roll is not the entire combat.

In a skill challenge, the GM is not at liberty to decide that the Baron would really walk away from the PCs who are trying to extract a concession from him, even though the players have not yet failed the skill challenge. Rather, the dice tell us whether or not the Baron has the will and/or inclination to walk away.

If a skill challenge truly maps to combat, isn't each individual roll in a skill challenge kinda like a to-hit roll in a combat? If yes, then anyone involved ought to be able to see how the situation is developing and, if desired, choose to end the scene* between rolls, just like a combatant can choose to end a combat* between attacks.

Further, what about the PCs? Can the players have the PCs abandon the skill challenge* partway through?

* - if possible, in knowledge that it isn't always possible for some or all participants to easily end some combats or challenges. The Baron example, though, is one where it is possible for anyone involved to end things at any time simply by walking away.

 

[Alzrius]

The first level fighter power that deals damage on a miss is called Reaping Strike - which evokes the stalks falling before the scythe of the reaper- and has this flavour text:

You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy’s defenses.​

I really don't think it's unclear what is going on. I can report that my group, which had never encountered damage on a miss until we started playing 4e D&D in early 2009, had no problem with it.

Again, it's not a question of clarity. It's a question of verisimilitude. If you're literally always getting a hit in on an enemy, regardless of the die roll (i.e. removing any aspect of the value of the die roll influencing the narrative interpretation of the attack result beyond a binary pass/fail), and necessarily ignoring any possibility of them ever avoiding your attack altogether/you ever completely missing them, that's a bridge too far for some people. Especially if the only way to cover that up is to say that your character is literally the only person in the entire world who can do this; what makes them so special?

 

[Nikosandros]

Backing up, can you cite which 4E healing powers are explicitly based on percentages of total hit points recovered, rather than flat numbers? That is, what page of what book says that?

Page 293 of the PHB for general rules about healing and then look for the description of specific healing powers, for example healing word is on page 62.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

(4) The infliction of any weapon-borne poison (including stings), which requires physical injury at least to the point of breaking the skin.

EDIT: ninja'ed by @Alzrius several hours ago...

 

[pemerton]

Backing up, can you cite which 4E healing powers are explicitly based on percentages of total hit points recovered, rather than flat numbers? That is, what page of what book says that?

Are you serious?

This is from p 293 of the 4e PHB:

When you create your character, you determine your maximum hit points. From this number, you derive your bloodied and healing surge values. . . .

Most healing requires you to spend a healing surge. When you spend a healing surge, you restore lost hit points to your current hit point total. . . .

Healing Surge Value: When you spend a healing surge, you regain one-quarter of your maximum hit points (rounded down). This number is called your healing surge value. You use it often, so note it on your character sheet.​

I'm not going to write out any healing powers. The game is rife with them. If you're not familiar with these most basic rules of 4e, I infer you've never played it or even read it. In which case I find it hard to take your criticisms of it seriously.

No, we're talking about preferences, simply with regards to what that particular edition of the game did. If you follow the rules of the game, all it does is obfuscate the damage on a miss issue (imperfectly, since it still comes up that so many missed attacks keep just-so-happening to inflict injuries) with an even larger narrative disconnect re: the PCs are inherently special.

First, it seems that you don't actually know what the game did.

Second, there is no "narrative disconnect" in one person being an implacable warrior among a sea of predominantly mediocre warriors. Aragorn, Eomer, Conan, Lancelot, etc are all of this nature. ("And there are names among us that are worth more than one thousand mail-clad knights apiece.") It may not be to your taste, but it's not absurd.

It's more that the rules of 4E D&D are in-and-of themselves absurd. The PCs are literally the only fighters in the entire game world? The only ones who can gain XP and advance? I suppose that makes the damage on a miss problem trivial, but only with regard to how these individual people are somehow exempt from the physical laws that bind everyone else!

Character classes, levels, XP, the fact about who in the real world owns and controls a game element - none of these are part of the gameworld. (Unless you're playing something absurdist and fourth-wall breaking, as Over the Edge can be.) They are not "physical laws" of the imagined reality.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Where possible, my approach is #2 on this list unless #1 makes more sense.

 

[Alzrius]

Page 293 of the PHB for general rules about healing and the look for the description of specific healing powers, for example healing word is on page 62.

Okay, I think you're referring to healing surges restoring a quarter of the PC's maximum hp value. That's certainly a more intuitive way of doing things with regard to the issue of flat numbers being a smaller percentage as PCs level.