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

[Red Castle]

Damage on a miss from blast type spells I can get behind. It loses me with a weapon attack though.

Unless you believe that Hit Point is only physical damage and nothing else, it's very easy to get behind the idea that while the enemy dodged or parry the attack, it was so perfect that it still exhausted him.

But even if you think that Hit Point is only physical damage, it's easy to get behind the idea that the attack was not just a strike but a sequence of attacks so fast and precise that it was just impossible to parry and dodge them all. Like it says in the description of Reaping Strike, a 1st level fighter at will, for example:

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

Damage on a miss should not be harder to justify than say getting hit by a giant attack that would instantly kill any firsts levels adventurer and survive. Like it or not, there is something else at work with damage than just physical damage.

Damage on a miss on a non magical attack is a way to represent that your character is so good at what he does that sometimes the opponent just have no chance to not let pass a strike.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

getting hit by a giant attack that would instantly kill any firsts levels adventurer and survive. Like it or not, there is something else at work with damage than just physical damage.

I dunno, part of the charm for me is people walking around while pierced by 3 scythes and an arrow in their neck. Then they take a breather and feel better again. You just get more solid with levels, clearly - like putty!

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not ignoring anything. Remember, damage on a miss is typically only a couple of points. I don't think there's any damage on a miss effects that dealt more than about 5 points of damage. So, again, it's not like it's this massive advantage for the fighter. Because, that wizard is potentially killing OGRES automatically. Never mind orcs or kobolds.

And, if we're going to stick with 4th or 5th edition, where orcs 15 hp (5e) or considerably more in 4e, it's not like any of these damage on a miss effects are outright killing anything. You need to hit that orc a few times and THEN you get to automatically kill.

By the same token, if their hit points are that high it's unlikely the fireball's killing them outright either.

Question: does DoaM take into account the opponent's AC or other defenses? As in, if a 4e Fighter comes up against something it can't hit (or can hit, say, only on a 20), can that foe still slowly be worn down and killed by the Fighter constantly missing?

See, this gets back to presentation. It's totally believable when you think about it. The big honking fighter smacks the orc a few times, then his last attack drops the orc. The only thing is, that last attack doesn't need to be rolled. It still happens. The fighter still has to use an action to attack. It's just considered an automatic success.

But we absolutely cannot do this with fighters. Ohhh no. That baddy, even though you've knocked it down to 1 HP must absolutely be hit before you can drop it. Doesn't matter that you are the greatest swordsman in the land. You MUST roll every attack.

Well, yes; particularly if in your game a) fumbles are a thing, and-or b) a natural 1 always misses to no effect.

In 4e-5e where resource and hit-point attrition (sadly) isn't much of a thing as written, I'll concede that even if that 1-h.p. Orc is lucky enough to live long enough to get another swing in, and hits on that swing, it's not going to matter very much because those lost hit points are so easy to get back.

I don't, however, like or use that model. Recovery of hit points should either take time (by which I mean longer than a single night's rest) or be a drain on other resources (spells, usually).

As for casters, houserules are your friend. Make spells interruptable a la 1e such that it becomes essentially impossible to cast while in melee. Make spells take time within a round to cast, allowing greater opportunity for interruption. And most importantly, make them roll to aim their AoE's; once they've hit their allies by mistake a few times they'll be a lot less willing to fire at will.

And when the players of said casters complain, ignore them.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Yeah, not everything in OSR appeals.

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.

This at least makes a bit more sense; in that it takes the opponent's defenses into consideration.

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.

Depending on what the average AC of the opponents would be, I could get behind this. It would allow GMs to introduce foes with stupendous ACs and yet still have them be beatable, if slowly. Done right, it could help flatten out the power curve, which IMO is always a good thing.

My only tweak would be that a natural 1 always misses outright and a natural 20 always crits (or threatens a crit, if 1-in-20 critting is too frequent for taste).

 

[Red Castle]

Question: does DoaM take into account the opponent's AC or other defenses? As in, if a 4e Fighter comes up against something it can't hit (or can hit, say, only on a 20), can that foe still slowly be worn down and killed by the Fighter constantly missing?

Technically speaking, yes. DoaM doesn't take into account the opponent's defenses. Realistically, it would never happen, the fighter would just have the satisfaction of being able to scratch the enemy before dying a horrible death. And the reason is, for the enemy to have a defense so high that the fighter could not hit it except on a crit, the monster would need to be about 15 level higher than the fighter, in which case, it has so much more HP that it will have the time to kill the fighter 10 times before it might even become slightly threatening. DoaM was mostly reserved to Daily powers so the fighter is unable to spam them. Only At-Will that do damage on a miss is Reaping Strike and it will do your strength modifier (half if you're not using a two-handed weapon), so not a lot....

But, if you think it would be a problem for whatever reason, I would refer you to your own advise: houserules are your friend. Just say that to be able to do damage on a miss you need to be able to hit the creature to begin with. And if the players complain, ignore them.

 

[Red Castle]

I dunno, part of the charm for me is people walking around while pierced by 3 scythes and an arrow in their neck. Then they take a breather and feel better again. You just get more solid with levels, clearly - like putty!

Worst part is, that's actually what the rules support, which is just really stupid.

Like I said earlier, there is absolutely no mechanic to show that you get better to dodge or parry blow as you raise in levels, a level 10 fighter will just be as easy to hit as a first level one. Only difference is that the level 10 will have much more HP.

Let's say both fighters wear no armor and have no dex modifier, both will have AC10. Let's say that the level 1 fighter have 10HP and the Level 10 has 80HP. Now imagine both fighters getting hit by the exact same hit from a two-handed sword doing 9 point of damage. The level 1 fighter will be close to death with only 1 HP left, but the level 10 fighter will still have 71HP left, so should have nothing to worry about. It would be easy to explain by saying that the hit to the level 10 was actually just a scratch, nothing to worry about... but that's not what the rules for natural healing suggest, because both wound would take 3 full days to fully recover... that looks like much more than a scratch. But the level 10 players could take 8 hits like that before going down, so it must not be that bad... but now, let's say he did got hit 8 times for 9 damage, so he has a total of 72 damage, only 8 HP left, so 10% left. Same percentage than the level 1 left to only 1 HP. The level 1 fighter will need 3 days to get back to top shape, the level 10 will need 24 days...

So, either adventurers really just get more solid with levels without bothering with learning any defense skills (why bother when you can take a hit!), or they're just big drama queens that takes more times recovering from a scratch....

 

[pemerton]

So, either adventurers really just get more solid with levels without bothering with learning any defense skills (why bother when you can take a hit!), or they're just big drama queens that takes more times recovering from a scratch....

As Gygax said, it will take them a long time to recover to their physical and metaphysical peak!

 

[Hussar]

By the same token, if their hit points are that high it's unlikely the fireball's killing them outright either.

Question: does DoaM take into account the opponent's AC or other defenses? As in, if a 4e Fighter comes up against something it can't hit (or can hit, say, only on a 20), can that foe still slowly be worn down and killed by the Fighter constantly missing?

Well, yes; particularly if in your game a) fumbles are a thing, and-or b) a natural 1 always misses to no effect.

In 4e-5e where resource and hit-point attrition (sadly) isn't much of a thing as written, I'll concede that even if that 1-h.p. Orc is lucky enough to live long enough to get another swing in, and hits on that swing, it's not going to matter very much because those lost hit points are so easy to get back.

I don't, however, like or use that model. Recovery of hit points should either take time (by which I mean longer than a single night's rest) or be a drain on other resources (spells, usually).

As for casters, houserules are your friend. Make spells interruptable a la 1e such that it becomes essentially impossible to cast while in melee. Make spells take time within a round to cast, allowing greater opportunity for interruption. And most importantly, make them roll to aim their AoE's; once they've hit their allies by mistake a few times they'll be a lot less willing to fire at will.

And when the players of said casters complain, ignore them.

There's a fair bit to unpack here, so, I'll try a numbered list.

1. What if AC is Very High?
Well, this really isn't a problem is it? In 5e, with bounded accuracy, it's virtually impossible to have this occur. And, if it did occur, DoaM is not going to make any difference to the outcome - the PC's either run away, surrender or die. And, really, that's true in any edition. Even in 1e, it's nearly impossible to have enemies that you can only hit on a 20 after 1st level or so. And, anything that you actually did need a 20 to hit is going to obliterate you anyway, so, again, DoaM would make zero difference to the outcome. This is an outlier that really, I think, we can ignore.

2. Why not Change Casters?

Well, that's an option too. But, it is a MUCH more complicated one. And, the 1e rules for spell interruption, IMO, didn't work. Your MU should never be in melee anyway and, if he was, he was as good as dead. So, the MU constantly stood back twenty or thirty feet and lobbed daggers or the occasional spell or blew through charges on his hundred charge wand. The 1e rules just never made much of a difference.

And, your last point is telling: ignore the complainers. Well, why wouldn't we just ignore those complaining about DoaM? It's no different. And it's a LOT simpler to give a new ability to a character than force house rules onto a very large swath of the game. Your house rules would impact not only a single player, but, every caster player as well as the DM too. Now the DM has to futz about with aiming breath weapons and various other AOE effects that the DM's monsters can use. Which makes those monsters weaker - after all, you might miss part of the party with that breath weapon if you badly aim.

To me, it's far, far simply just to give fighters and fighter types a minor boost (and we are talking a REALLY minor boost - probably a couple of points of damage per combat) than add in very complex house rules.

 

[pemerton]

And, your last point is telling: ignore the complainers. Well, why wouldn't we just ignore those complaining about DoaM?

Because we only ignore the other complainers! Our complaints are very important and ought not be ignored.

 

[Lanefan]

Technically speaking, yes. DoaM doesn't take into account the opponent's defenses. Realistically, it would never happen, the fighter would just have the satisfaction of being able to scratch the enemy before dying a horrible death. And the reason is, for the enemy to have a defense so high that the fighter could not hit it except on a crit, the monster would need to be about 15 level higher than the fighter, in which case, it has so much more HP that it will have the time to kill the fighter 10 times before it might even become slightly threatening.

An animated stone statue could have an AC through the roof and yet not otherwise be very good at fighting back; this was the sort of example I had in mind.

But, if you think it would be a problem for whatever reason, I would refer you to your own advise: houserules are your friend. Just say that to be able to do damage on a miss you need to be able to hit the creature to begin with. And if the players complain, ignore them.

Oh, indeed.