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

[Gammadoodler]

I want to be clear that I'm not the one who's been calling other people's arguments fallacious (save to note the irony in someone else saying that mine is, and then falling victim to Hitchens's razor when they said I hadn't disproven their unproven assertion).

That said, in an effort to be clear as possible: the issue that I'm arguing against is presentations of hit point depletion (being itself a single operation, i.e. that hit points are lost) representing two different things, those being physical injury and loss of stamina/luck/divine protection, etc. If we accept that the mechanics of an RPG (or at least D&D) inform us as to what's happening in the game world, then having a single operation potentially be two different things leads to a hindrance of understanding with regard to what that operation is telling us (since it could be one or the other).

Some people are saying that they don't see that hindrance as a problem, whether because they don't care, can manually separate out the one presentation (i.e. injury) from the other (i.e. stamina), or because they can narratively bridge the gap between being injured and being slightly less combat-capable, etc. Those are all fine ways of resolving the issue, but it doesn't mean it isn't an issue to begin with.

In this instance, at least, it appears that you were describing an argument fallacious, in that there is no need to 'reconcile a fallacy' if none exist. Perhaps this was a poorly chosen word?

In either case, as near as I understand, the argument historically has been that hp represent some combination of physical durability and other intangibles which combined with that durability, represent a character's ability to withstand hazards (and that there is no explicit delineation of the proportions between physical durability and the intangibles).

Further it would seem that the argument is that damage from a miss and damage on a save symmetrically represent a reduction in a character's overall ability to withstand hazards without having any specific or necessary tie to physical injury.

Your point seems to be that all hit point depletion must represent only physical damage? Even assuming I agree, I guess I'm not seeing where we encounter a problem in-game?

 

[Alzrius]

Your "argument" for why you weren't engaging in special pleading was to link me to a Wikipedia page about special pleading. Please tell me how your "argument" deserved a substantial rebuttal again?

Again, when you make the assertion ("that's a fallacy"), you are the one who then has to demonstrate why your assertion was so. I did you the favor of skipping over that, and instead noting how nothing in your assertion matched the definition of the fallacy you were saying I'd made. So at this point, your argument is failing to measure up on two different fronts.

I don't think that Hitchen's Razor applies.

It does.

That said, the evidence for your special pleading seemed pretty apparent with your prior posts and others have brought up reasons why that is the case.

So apparent that you can't even seem to summarize it, or acknowledge that other posters have actually engaged in a discussion on the merits of the points being brought up, instead of throwing (groundless) fallacy assertions.

The reasons why I believe that you are engaging in special pleading has been the double-standard that you apply with regards damage saves and damage-on-a-miss.

See above. I'm not the one applying a double standard; the double standard comes from saying that hit point loss is sometimes injury, and sometimes a loss of stamina.

You also seem to apply a willingness to read the mechanics in a way that flows from the fiction for one while refusing to do so with the other.

Incorrect. I'm reading the mechanics in terms of what the mechanics actually say. The 1st-level cleric spell that restores hit points is not called restore stamina or renew luck or replenish divine protection. It's called cure light wounds. Are you going to say that isn't meant to inform us as to what's happening in the game world from that name (especially if you presume that the characters know the name of the spell)?

And when others say that it is a consistent understanding of HP between both mechanics, you insist that it isn't for some reason.

Not "some" reason; I've said very consistently that it's all well and good if they can resolve the issue, but that doesn't make it not an issue.

So yes, your argument regarding saves for half damage being different from damage-on-a-miss does ring a lot like special pleading.

No, it really doesn't. It's more correct to say that you've (badly) misunderstood what's being said here.

It's fine if you don't like damage-on-a-miss, but it's not alien to D&D outside of 4e, including partial damage on saves.

"Alien to D&D" is an entirely new term being bandied about, and certainly not one germane to what's being discussed here.

Which is equally as true for damage-on-a-miss and saves for half-damage. This is choosing to read the mechanics in a manner that is entirely consistent with the game fiction.

That's self-evidently not the case, for the reasons pointed out above.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In this instance, at least, it appears that you were describing an argument fallacious, in that there is no need to 'reconcile a fallacy' if none exist. Perhaps this was a poorly chosen word?

No. @Alzrius did not introduce the term, another poster did. Saying that what he was doing was a fallacy. Which was incorrect.

In either case, as near as I understand, the argument historically has been that hp represent some combination of physical durability and other intangibles which combined with that durability, represent a character's ability to withstand hazards (and that there is no explicit delineation of the proportions between physical durability and the intangibles).

Further it would seem that the argument is that damage from a miss and damage on a save symmetrically represent a reduction in a character's overall ability to withstand hazards without having any specific or necessary tie to physical injury.

Your point seems to be that all hit point depletion must represent only physical damage? Even assuming I agree, I guess I'm not seeing where we encounter a problem in-game?

Very briefly, given that I have written multiple articles on the history of saving throws and hit points.

In D&D as first published (OD&D) and from then on, saving throws have always represented something completely different. In other words, arguing that a "saving throw" represents the "same thing" as damage on a miss completely, um, misses the point.

A saving throw was an original form ... distinct from hit points ... of plot armor. It arose in wargaming, and it represented the chance to avoid the cruel vagaries of fate. Period. In other words, something occurs, and then you have a chance to "save" your miniature. Over time (and into 5e) it has morphed into a kind of "active resistance" that is part of the game balance.

Notably, this is entirely different than hit points as a mechanic. Hit points have never resembled saving throws- in fact, as I recently wrote, Gary Gyax explicitly eschewed any use of saving throws in regular combat and replaced them with increasing hit points.

So regardless of the underlying merits of the conversation, damage on a miss is categorically different in form and in history than saving throws (for fireballs, for example).

 

[Mannahnin]

See above. I'm not the one applying a double standard; the double standard comes from saying that hit point loss is sometimes injury, and sometimes a loss of stamina.

How on Earth is that a double standard? That's just how HP work and have always worked.

The double standard is in treating "damage despite a successful save" as categorically different from "damage despite missing your attack roll".

Incorrect. I'm reading the mechanics in terms of what the mechanics actually say. The 1st-level cleric spell that restores hit points is not called restore stamina or renew luck or replenish divine protection. It's called cure light wounds. Are you going to say that isn't meant to inform us as to what's happening in the game world from that name (especially if you presume that the characters know the name of the spell)?

Yes, we've talked about how the nomenclature is misleading. 5E updating it to just "Cure Wounds" usefully adds greater ambiguity compared to the old CLW.

 

[Alzrius]

In this instance, at least, it appears that you were describing an argument fallacious, in that there is no need to 'reconcile a fallacy' if none exist. Perhaps this was a poorly chosen word?

I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here; I flat-out said that the only time I called someone's argument a fallacy was when I pointed out their fallacy in calling my argument fallacious and then purporting that they didn't need to prove their assertion. Which is a fallacy.

In either case, as near as I understand, the argument historically has been that hp represent some combination of physical durability and other intangibles which combined with that durability, represent a character's ability to withstand hazards (and that there is no explicit delineation of the proportions between physical durability and the intangibles).

Further it would seem that the argument is that damage from a miss and damage on a save symmetrically represent a reduction in a character's overall ability to withstand hazards without having any specific or necessary tie to physical injury.

Your point seems to be that all hit point depletion must represent only physical damage? Even assuming I agree, I guess I'm not seeing where we encounter a problem in-game?

I'm not sure what you mean by "historically," unless it's with regard to Gygax purporting that in the AD&D 1E DMG, which has been addressed before. To recap, he makes that assertion in that single section of the book, but everything else in the game operates under the idea that hit point loss is injury, from how you regain them non-magically (days or weeks of bed rest) to the names of curative spells (cure light wounds) to what happens when you're hit by a psionic attack after you've lost all of your power points.

Now, as for not seeing that as a problem, that's fine! A lot of people don't. But a lot of other people do, which is why that charge was held against 4E to the extent that it was, since it actually tried to put that idea into practice instead of just paying lip service to the idea.

 

[Red Castle]

Well, area effect saves are pretty clearly a cinematic conceit. You see similar things in certain kinds of action movies all the time with explosions. They just can't be much pushed into anything else (though there's some real-world benefit to throwing yourself flat to get a limited cross-section, but that only works with things that really behave like explosions which few area effects in games do).

I agree, and that's why I have no problem with it, even though I still find it funny. But I also I have no problem with Damage on a Miss in 4e so...

Although technically speaking, if the character is throwing himself flat on the ground to 'dodge' the fireball, shouldn't he get the prone condition for it?

 

[Mannahnin]

In D&D as first published (OD&D) and from then on, saving throws have always represented something completely different. In other words, arguing that a "saving throw" represents the "same thing" as damage on a miss completely, um, misses the point.

A saving throw was an original form ... distinct from hit points ... of plot armor. It arose in wargaming, and it represented the chance to avoid the cruel vagaries of fate. Period. In other words, something occurs, and then you have a chance to "save" your miniature. Over time (and into 5e) it has morphed into a kind of "active resistance" that is part of the game balance.

They are certainly separate mechanics, but starting at least as early as 1974, saving throws did not always completely mitigate damage or necessarily save the character. From the beginning they were also a mechanic which determined how much HP damage you took in certain circumstances, as does armor class.

As on page 20 of Men & Magic, where OD&D instructs us that saving throws are frequently to determine whether you take half damage:

Failure to make the total indicated above results in the weapon having full effect, i.e. you are turned to stone, take full damage from dragon's breath, etc. Scoring the total indicated above (or scoring higher) means the weapon has no effect (death ray, polymorph, paralyzation, stone, or spell) or one-half effect (poison scoring one-half of the total possible hit damage and dragon's breath scoring one-half of its full damage). Wands of cold, fire balls, lightning, etc. and staves are treated as indicated, but saving throws being made result in one-half damage.

So regardless of the underlying merits of the conversation, damage on a miss is categorically different in form and in history than saving throws (for fireballs, for example).

In both cases despite the defensive mitigation of armor class or saving throw, the character can still be affected and potentially killed. Damage on a miss is fundamentally and closely akin to damage on a successful save. The latter of which has always been part of the game.

 

[Alzrius]

How on Earth is that a double standard? That's just how HP work and have always worked.

Again, if you have the same operation representing two different things, that's a standard that's doing double-duty. So yes, a double-standard. Nor is that how it always operated; Gygax purported that it worked that way, back in AD&D 1E, but nothing about the game's actual operations verified that idea.

The double standard is in treating "damage despite a successful save" as categorically different from "damage despite missing your attack roll".

I'll refer you to Snarf's post, right above yours. Saving throws are different operations than attack rolls, and hit point depletion is a different operation from either. They have some interaction, certainly, but they're different.

Yes, we've talked about how the nomenclature is misleading. 5E updating it to just "Cure Wounds" usefully adds greater ambiguity compared to the old CLW.

It's not misleading; it's telling us what's happening, which is what the mechanics are supposed to do. Even removing the "light" part doesn't change that it's repairing physical injury that your character has taken.

 

[billd91]

See above. I'm not the one applying a double standard; the double standard comes from saying that hit point loss is sometimes injury, and sometimes a loss of stamina.

How on Earth is that a double standard? That's just how HP work and have always worked.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I think there's a problem with thinking of hit points as sometimes injury, sometimes loss of stamina. There's no knowable breakdown into how much is injury, how much is stamina, or how much of it is divine providence and that je ne sais quoi that keeps higher level adventurers from dying too often. So I think the implication is largely that it's all of the above at the same time.

 

[Mannahnin]

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I think there's a problem with thinking of hit points as sometimes injury, sometimes loss of stamina. There's no knowable breakdown into how much is injury, how much is stamina, or how much of it is divine providence and that je ne sais quoi that keeps higher level adventurers from dying too often. So I think the implication is largely that it's all of the above at the same time.

Sure. Just as true. And that in any circumstance in which the character is not being knocked unconscious, the amount of injury in the mix is always a tiny proportion.