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

[Zardnaar]

PF1 had an online SRD which took a lot of the sting out of all the purchases. In my experience anyway. I think there was a lot of good will allowance for the fact that folks could still get use out of their 3.5 library, even if folks eventually moved on from it. It was a slow transition, as opposed to an abrupt one.

We only used a few select Pathfinder books and a few 3.5 ones in our 3.75 games.

Ultimate Magic, Combat and 1st 4 Complete books iirc.

 

[billd91]

PF1 had an online SRD which took a lot of the sting out of all the purchases. In my experience anyway. I think there was a lot of good will allowance for the fact that folks could still get use out of their 3.5 library, even if folks eventually moved on from it. It was a slow transition, as opposed to an abrupt one.

And PDFs of the rulebooks for a one-time payment of $10 per book. So again, more easing of the transition.

 

[payn]

And PDFs of the rulebooks for a one-time payment of $10 per book. So again, more easing of the transition.

Yes. I think WoTC wanted to slow the piracy and throw a bone to brick and mortar shops. Paizo had their own website with subscriptions so they were more open to the idea.

 

[Mannahnin]

I want to point out that 5e doesn't handle this any better than 4e does. If hit points are "meat" in the fiction, that still leaves completely unexplained how someone can recover from a sword wound after an hour nap, let alone how a Fighter can recover from the same wound as a bonus action with Second Wind.

Trying to map hit points into anything remotely resembling verisimilitude is utter madness, just like Gary Gygax pointed out multiple times in the AD&D DMG.

Yup. Every edition has this same issue. It's inherent to the concept of Hit Points. The ability to disregard cognitive dissonance from this is IMO MOSTLY just a matter of how well players either a) accept the ambiguity and roll with hit points representing different things at different points, or b) pretend the ambiguity doesn't exist.

This whole question got confused when they changed the unit of time measurement in combat from 1 minute to 6 seconds.

Its not like the former didn't have just as many problems, as was obvious from various issues involving archery and ammunition.

Sure, there are always issues. But the abstract nature of the D&D combat resokition system including AC and HP is way more clear when you have big chonksnof time to narrate exactly what you do based on the numbers. 6 seconds is not long.

And yet a minute is too long.

20 or 30 seconds seems about right; mechanically, 30 seconds still has the useful feature of being divisible by both 6 and 10 (for round segments), while 20 seconds maps nicely to each number on the d20 representing one second.

Or ten seconds, like in B/X, BECMI, and RC D&D. I think that's arguably the best/most playable/most verisimilitudinous version.

As Thomas and others pointed out, the rules for ammunition (missile weapons take a defined and specific number of actual shots in OD&D and AD&D, unlike melee weapons which allegedly work more abstractly) and poison (if an envenomed blade "hits" and that means there's a possibility of blood contact, there must have been a concrete hit, right?) have always run afoul of the 1 minute abstract combat round.

Disagree.

If I can buy one widely-useful thing to do jobs for which I'd otherwise have to buy (and then carry around) five specialty things, that feature alone makes the widely-useful thing about five times better.

And yet, all kinds of people including most workmen have toolkits, not one all purpose tool.

Exactly. I carried a Swiss army knife for years. Victorinox makes a lot of good multi-tools. A multi-tool will get you by fine in a lot of situations and if I need a screwdriver it's always going to be more useful to me than a chef's knife.

But when I want to cook a meal, I'm always going to want a chef's knife over a Swiss army knife. It's not an apples to apples comparison of the multi-tool or the specialized tool universally being better.

That might be so, but I was bringing it up to point out that the idea of "5E is no better than 4E in its conception of what in-character elements are mapped to hit point loss/recovery" isn't the case, as damage on a miss is an aspect of 4E's having hit points perform double duty in a way that 5E doesn't.

5E literally does, though. With HP recovery by Second Wind, by Short Rest and Long Rest, 5E uses hit points ambiguously to cover some unspecified mix of fatigue/luck running out/actual wounds like every other edition does.

I will grant that it does so a bit less than other editions in that it uses the separate Exhaustion track for travel in extremes of heat or cold, unlike, say, 1E doing that with hit points.

Damage on a miss was novel in the way that it violated the accepted status quo for the Group B folks, but it's no more "having hit points perform double duty" than the AD&D 10th level Fighter getting hit with a greatsword vs first level Fighter getting hit with a greatsword example is. Neither Fighter is apparently suffering any actual wounds (beyond maybe superficial scratches or bruising) until they drop at 0HP.

To be absolutely clear, I'm saying that having hit point loss/restoration be representative of two different things (i.e. personal stamina and bodily injuries) is a problem, because it creates confusion (for lack of a better term) by having the same mechanic represent multiple things despite only having a single operation. Mechanically, healing word and inspiring word do the same thing, but just read the descriptive text and you can see that that's not the case from an in-character perspective.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to have a stamina depletion mechanism in the game, but not when it's folded into a mechanic that already does something else. That creates burden on the mechanics insofar as representing the game world goes, because you run into a point where someone loses hit points due to an attack inflicting bodily harm on them, and then have those hit points be regained because an ally yelled at them to tough it out.

Now, plenty of people don't seem to care about that burden, but plenty more did, since the issue was one that was perennially raised with regards to criticisms of 4E. I'm suggesting that those could have been avoided if both ideas weren't tied to a single operation.

I get you. And I am familiar with the AD&D texts and I can see why you choose to disregard Gygax's explanations of what hit points actually are and represent in AD&D and OD&D.

But I still disagree. As with the 10th level vs 1st level Fighters examples (getting hit with greatswords or fighting a giant wielding a tree trunk for a club), which demonstrate that the same issue of hit points representing multiple things simultaneously has always been there.

Regarding HP and if it represents actual physical damage or not, my personal opinion is simply that it is not a Black or White matter. Thinking that there is no physical damage at all involved is absurd (to be fair, I don't think anyone is actually thinking that way), but so is thinking that it only represents physical damage. And I'll take my 5-6 years of fencing as example.

As you gain experience in fencing, you don't actually get better at taking a hit (harder! harder I say!), you get better at parrying, dodging, distance control and managing your exhaustion level. A new fencer simply has no chance against an experienced one, he'll just never hit him and exhaust himself to death while the experienced one will not even break a sweat.

So, as a fighter gain level in DnD, technically speaking, he should get better and better to dodge and parry a blow, that's how you actually survive since, again technically speaking, a sword hit ca potentially be a mortal blow. But there is no mechanic in game to represent this skill, the actual experience of the fighter (well, except in 4e where you actually add your half level to defense to represent that you are getting better to dodge and parry attacks, which makes total sense). If I take ADnD2 as example, a level 10 fighter with no armor will be just as easy to hit than a level 1 fighter with no armor, exactly the same AC. Now, by experience, the level 10 fighter should be harder to hit, because he should be better to dodge and parry. But no, since they both have AC10, they are just as easy to hit. The only difference is that one hit of a longsword can actually kill the level 1 fighter while it will be just a scratch for the level 10 fighter. But how so? A hit should be a hit. Why does it kill the level 1 fighter but is just a scratch for the level 10 one? There must be something else at play linked to fighting experience. So, not only does Hit Points represents physical damage, but it also represents actual skills to deflect blows and the ability to change a mortal blow to just a scratch.

But what about when a scratch is not really an option? Let's say our two fighters are fighting a giant swinging a tree like a mace as a weapon, something that would kill anyone with just one hit. The giant takes a swing at the level 1 fighter, hit him and do 24 damages, killing him right away. The giant takes the exact same swing at the level 10 fighter, hit him, do 24 damages, but the fighter is still on his legs as if nothing happened. So what happened? If he got hit he should now be pudding on the ground... unless he actually dodged the blow. But if he dodged, it means he was not hit, so how come he still took damage. A simple explanation is that dodging this killing blow was actually exhausting. And back to my experience from my years of fencing, exhaustion do play a big role in a fight. The more you fight, the more you get tired, and the more exhausted you are, the more difficult it is to dodge or parry a blow, because you get more and more slower, your reflex is just not there. But again, there is no mechanic in DnD that represent this level of exhaustion; fight for 20 seconds or 5 minutes and your character will still be in top shape... except probably for his HP level that will get lower and lower the longer he fight as he try to dodge and parry blow, until the fatal blow. So it is easy to tie HP to stamina level, as it is the only mechanic that can actually represent this reality (Well, except in 4e with Healing Surges, and I guess 5e with Hit Dice)

So, in my opinion, Hit point not only represent physical damage, but also the skills of the fighter and his stamina, and game mechanics support it. When you accept that it is a little bit of everything, it all makes sense. It explains why a level 10 fighter can take 10+ sword hits and live while a level 1 will be dead after 1-3 hits. It explains how a second wind work as the fighter is taking a moment to catch his breath. It explains why some encouragement words can give you the will to continue fighting instead. Why just a little rest can give you back all your HP. It also explain the value of healing surge because, again from my experience in fencing, everybody as a limit at one point where he just don't have any energy left, where he need to take a long rest to fully recover.

But at the end of the day, DnD is just a game. It is not meant to simulate real life. There is abstractions that is only there to serve the game, that you need to do some mental gymnastic to get around. HP is one of those abstraction that you need to adjust to fit your own personal narrative in this game of make belief.

Great post.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm curious how that compares with Paizo's PF1 release schedule. That honestly felt pretty aggressive as well.

A little while ago, someone mentioned in a different thread that the 3.5 release schedule was "unsustainable." I tried to point out that we had evidence to the contrary, since Paizo kept up a similar (if not even more aggressive) release schedule of 3.5 (for two years) and PF1 (for ten years) products, which hasn't slowed down much (if at all) since they went to PF2 and Starfinder. Hence, it quite clearly is sustainable to print so many products so fast, even if you have to adjust how you're releasing them (i.e. have a subscription option) and what your target sales are (i.e. if you need to be making nine figures' worth of sales per year).

But for some reason, there was major pushback on that idea, and I'm still not clear why.

 

[Mannahnin]

Exactly! So it’s easy to imagine that someone that invested a lot in 3.5 could be pissed off at the idea of « needing » to do it all over again. Especially if he was happy with 3.5, why change? That’s kinda what happened with me with 5e. I invested a lot in 4e, was (and still is) very happy with it, so I never bothered with 5e. The only reason I bought a PHB of 5e two years ago is because a friend of mine wanted to DM a 5e game so I bought the PHB to create my character… but if I DM a DnD game, I still use 4e.

Now, I’m pretty sure that some people (not everybody) that was angry about the change, fearing that everybody would move to 4e and leave them with an obsolete book collection, were actually looking for reason to hate the new edition, to convince people to keep playing 3.5, the edition they already invested a lot in. Also, if that person was the forever DM of his group (often the case with people that buy a lot of books), it’s easy to imagine him talking trash about the new edition to his players, so that they don’t want to try it and keep playing with his edition of choice.

Now, I’m really not saying that it’s the main reason of the backlash, but I’m pretty sure it’s at least a part of it. Maybe if 4e got released 2-3 years later with 3.5 book release slowing down in those 2-3 years, people might have been more open to the change, but so close to the release of 3.5, with an aggressive release schedule following another one… odds were high that it would pissed off a part of their playerbase…

100%.

I ran on that treadmill in 3rd, then again in 3.5, and if I hadn't gotten exhausted and disenchanted with 3.x (especially high level play) I can totally see how I might have said "Heck with that, I'm not restarting AGAIN so soon" with 4E.

3rd launched after a big slowdown in 2E publishing, after 2E had definitely become moribund.

4th launched after several years of a firehose of hardcover books for 3rd and 3.5.

5th launched in Sept 2014, after almost exactly two years of no new books being released for 4E. And the couple of years before that were increasingly slow in releases. Between that gap and the playtest, there was much more appetite built up. Of course, 5E had plenty more success than that, also linked to the rise of streaming play.

 

[Mannahnin]

A little while ago, someone mentioned in a different thread that the 3.5 release schedule was "unsustainable." I tried to point out that we had evidence to the contrary, since Paizo kept up a similar (if not even more aggressive) release schedule of 3.5 (for two years) and PF1 (for ten years) products, which hasn't slowed down much (if at all) since they went to PF2 and Starfinder. Hence, it quite clearly is sustainable to print so many products so fast, even if you have to adjust how you're releasing them (i.e. have a subscription option) and what your target sales are (i.e. if you need to be making nine figures' worth of sales per year).

But for some reason, there was major pushback on that idea, and I'm still not clear why.

This is a good point and a good question.

Maybe the high publishing rate was "unsustainable" for a larger audience than PF has. Maybe the more hardcore fans who go with something like Pathfinder over "mainstream"/official D&D are more likely to have the enthusiasm and willingness to spend which are necessary to keep up.

Folks also raised the issue that jumping onto Paizo's train of books after 3rd and 3.5 was more palatable because they were more directly compatible. Whereas starting over with 4E felt more onerous because it meant in at least some psychological sense like walking away from the investment I already made in 3.x books.

 

[Alzrius]

5E literally does, though. With HP recovery by Second Wind, by Short Rest and Long Rest, 5E uses hit points ambiguously to cover some unspecified mix of fatigue/luck running out/actual wounds that every other edition does.

You're misunderstanding me; 5E doesn't have damage on a miss, and so ergo it's not correct to say that 5E is "no better" than 4E in its having hit points do double duty in what they represent. "No better," as I understood it, meant that it presented all of the same ambiguities in that regard, which isn't true, since damage on a miss was one of those ambiguities, and it's not there in 5E.

I get you. And I am familiar with the AD&D texts and I can see why you choose to disregard Gygax's explanations of what hit points actually are and represent in AD&D and OD&D.

Again, the disregard is in the game system itself. Gygax wrote that section of the DMG, and then presented absolutely nothing to back up the idea that hit point loss/recovery was anything other than injuries/healing. He talks about it being divine protection and luck (among other things), but has no rules, fiction, or presentation within the body of the text for getting hit points back via prayers, tithing, good luck charms, etc. The game presentation always treats hit point loss as "damage," has a successful attack roll being a hit in combat (e.g. if you're being attacked with a poisoned weapon), etc. and likewise does the same thing for when you get hit points back.

 

[Mannahnin]

You're misunderstanding me; 5E doesn't have damage on a miss, and so ergo it's not correct to say that 5E is "no better" than 4E in its having hit points do double duty in what they represent. "No better," as I understood it, meant that it presented all of the same ambiguities in that regard, which isn't true, since damage on a miss was one of those ambiguities, and it's not there in 5E.

Again, the disregard is the game system itself. Gygax wrote that section of the DMG, and then presented absolutely nothing to back up the idea that hit point loss/recovery was anything other than injuries/healing. He talks about it being divine protection and luck (among other things), but has no rules, fiction, or presentation within the body of the text for getting hit points back via prayers, tithing, good luck charms, etc. The game presentation always treats hit point loss as "damage," has a successful attack roll being a hit in combat (e.g. if you're being attacked with a poisoned weapon), etc. and likewise does the same thing for when you get hit points back.

I disagree. I think (perhaps unconsciously, by long accustomed mental habit) you're ignoring the complete absence of any sort of wound penalties for any damage short of dropping to zero HP, and the implications of that.

And you're ignoring the apt examples of the unarmored 1st vs 10th level Fighters (in 1E or 5E, or any edition) being hit with two handed swords or by the tree-trunk club of a giant they're fighting. Which both illustrate the ambiguities of hit point loss very clearly.

I think you have a fair point re: HP recovery in AD&D, which is what I was referring to with my prior statement of "I can see why you choose to disregard Gygax's explanations of what hit points actually are and represent in AD&D and OD&D." The rules for healing and recovering in TSR D&D seem to all support the premise that it's some kind of physical damage.

Though even those have problems we already talked about. Like it taking longer for a skilled Fighter with 30 HP dropped to 5 HP to recover than it does for a Magic-User with 12 HP to recover from being reduced to 2 HP. The same degree of "injury" in proportion to their max HP, the same degree of impingement to their actions, but the skilled hero inured to physical combat heals slower than the bookworm wizard.

Second Wind, the use of Hit Dice to heal fully during a 1hr short rest, and full healing on a Long Rest all mean that the day to day play of 5E is also full of this same kind of ambiguous damage.

You can argue (and have) that the absence of "damage on a miss" means 5E has a lower number of absolute instances of this dissonance/ambiguity, but I think that's straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

 

[Alzrius]

I disagree. I think (perhaps unconsciously, by long accustomed mental habit) you're ignoring the complete absence of any sort of wound penalties for any damage short of dropping to zero HP, and the implications of that.

No, see, this is where you lose me. I've heard (many, many times over) that hit point loss isn't/can't be/shouldn't be physical damage because there's no associated loss of combat prowess. This argument has never struck me as sound, because it presumes that if X is absent, Y must be as well, because it's concomitant.

The problem is that this relies on a realism argument that D&D has never been party to. D&D is not a reality simulator, and hasn't ever tried to be. Its presentation of combat, including the wounds taken therein, is more in line with myths and legends, pulp fiction, and action shows/movies. Even in the low(er)-fantasy iterations of the game, your character was much more John Rambo than John Average, able to take severe wounds and keep going until they finished their mission, at which point they might need to spend some time in a hospital, but would still be fine after a few weeks.

And really, you can see this if you take the "there's rarely serious injury, except when someone's killed, because realism is otherwise absent" argument to its logical extension. When someone is dealt a serious blow under the fiction (such as, again, if they're hit with a poisoned weapon, since that has to be a hit in order for the poison to be delivered), the game has no real modeling for permanent injuries that never (magic notwithstanding) heal. So because there's no way to model irreparable head trauma, perforated organs that never function at full capacity, nerve damage, etc. are we then to say that the game has no serious injuries at all, anywhere?

I've said many times that hit points are an area of unhappy consensus, where verisimilitude is set aside in favor of playability. Saying that hit point loss/recovery can't be the case because it lacks verisimilitude ignores that, and in so doing doesn't (to my mind) accurately examine D&D as it is.