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

[Echohawk]

But we absolutely cannot do this with fighters.

I don't think it is particularly an issue of fighters not being permitted to do damage on a miss. The impression I get is that it is a purity-of-game-mechanic preference. For some people, making an attack roll is a mechanic to determine whether something hits (100% damage) or misses (0% damage), while a save is a mechanic to pick between two (or more) levels of impact (fail means a bad thing happens, success makes it less bad). I can see why an attack roll which works more like a save (i.e. damage on a miss) might feel wrong to some people.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't think it is particularly an issue of fighters not being permitted to do damage on a miss. The impression I get is that it is a purity-of-game-mechanic preference. For some people, making an attack roll is a mechanic to determine whether something hits (100% damage) or misses (0% damage), while a save is a mechanic to pick between two (or more) levels of impact (fail means a bad thing happens, success makes it less bad). I can see why an attack roll which works more like a save (i.e. damage on a miss) might feel wrong to some people.

So ok, give Fighters a "Massive Attack" that automatically hits, but gives people a save for half damage! Surely there's nothing wrong with that?

 

[Hussar]

I don't think it is particularly an issue of fighters not being permitted to do damage on a miss. The impression I get is that it is a purity-of-game-mechanic preference. For some people, making an attack roll is a mechanic to determine whether something hits (100% damage) or misses (0% damage), while a save is a mechanic to pick between two (or more) levels of impact (fail means a bad thing happens, success makes it less bad). I can see why an attack roll which works more like a save (i.e. damage on a miss) might feel wrong to some people.

It basically only feels wrong because it wasn't introduced in 1980.

Again, we've had half damage effects since the very early days. And, it had nothing to do with verisimilitude or simulation. It was half damage because it was too harsh when a caster who had such limited resources could blow those resources to no effect. A 5th level MU only had 1 3rd level spell. If you cast a fireball and did zero damage, that would be too harsh. So, we got 1/2 damage on a save.

The problem is, people tied that to the notion of verisimilitude and simulation, as if the saving throw was somehow being reflected in the action of the game. Something people added entirely on their own, without any real evidence and in fact quite contrary to what the game actually said. But, it got ingrained into the minds of some gamers to the point where it became impossible to even imagine the game any other way.

So, because Gygax didn't do it - it wasn't needed back in 1e when your fighters could obliterate virtually any monster in a couple of rounds anyway, particularly by 2e, we must never do it now.

 

[Hussar]

So ok, give Fighters a "Massive Attack" that automatically hits, but gives people a save for half damage! Surely there's nothing wrong with that?

Oh, no no, no, no. That's off the table too. You must not do that because such an attack would be tied to some sort of uses/period mechanic and that's totally invalid for any sort of fighter type. You must only get that if you're magical.

Heck, rangers BARELY get that - one specific subclass of ranger - at 11th level, higher than most campaigns are played at.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh, no no, no, no. That's off the table too. You must not do that because such an attack would be tied to some sort of uses/period mechanic and that's totally invalid for any sort of fighter type. You must only get that if you're magical.

Heck, rangers BARELY get that - one specific subclass of ranger - at 11th level, higher than most campaigns are played at.

Well unless you count Lightning Arrow, I guess (I know, I should stop mentioning it, right?).

 

[Zardnaar]

Those effects fall under magic.

 

[James Gasik]

Those effects fall under magic.

Sure but why is that an exception? Why are we ok with magic saying "ok, so your arrow deals bonus lightning damage, and even if it misses, it can still deal that damage", but "oh man, you can shoot an arrow that still does some damage if you miss" is rediculous?

Heck, why can't you have, I don't know, a non-magical fire arrow that can do the same thing? After all, a miss doesn't mean you aren't struck at all, it just means your various protections defended you. So you could totally have a fire arrow stick in your cloak and now your cloak is on fire!

 

[Hussar]

Sure but why is that an exception? Why are we ok with magic saying "ok, so your arrow deals bonus lightning damage, and even if it misses, it can still deal that damage", but "oh man, you can shoot an arrow that still does some damage if you miss" is rediculous?

Heck, why can't you have, I don't know, a non-magical fire arrow that can do the same thing? After all, a miss doesn't mean you aren't struck at all, it just means your various protections defended you. So you could totally have a fire arrow stick in your cloak and now your cloak is on fire!

Again, absolutely, 100% no. You are not allowed to have that in D&D. Having anything like that in D&D makes it "not D&D" anymore.

If you want that, you should go play a different game.

At least, that's what I've been told over and over again for the past 15 years or so.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm honestly not bothered by damage-on-a-miss. A number of spells already have it. Plus, it keeps the game moving forward. It's no more reality-breaking than all attacks automatically dealing damage which is a feature in a number of OSR games. 4e's damage-on-a-miss is the same principle really: all attacks deal damage.

Similarly, damage on a miss is a part of OSR games like Kevin Crawford's Worlds Without Number. The major difference is that the "shock value" of damage only transpires if the attack is made against an opponent with less than a certain AC.

I could also see a modified 4e have something more like Pathfinder 2's critical miss, miss, hit, and critical hit system, as determined by a range around the opponent's AC. So within a certain lower range, damage on a miss happens, but below that, then it's a full miss.

 

[pemerton]

No no no.

You misunderstand.

Thanks for clearing up my confusion!