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

[Snarf Zagyg]

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".

Strong disagree.

Look, even the weakened form in 5e, saving throws represent active resistance. Something happened (poison, fireball'd, etc.) and you can "save" for no effect or partial effect.

On the other hand, attack rolls are different. They are traditionally binary; you either succeed, or you don't. If you don't succeed on an attack roll, the effect doesn't happen.

Here's the way to look at it-

Monster Ability- Roll to hit. If hit, the target is poisoned for 3 rounds. If missed, the target is poisoned for 1 round.

Compare-

Monster Ability- On a successful hit, the target must save. Successful save means the poison lasts 1 round. Unsuccessful save is 3 rounds.

There is a MASSIVE conceptual difference between those two things.

What this really is about is that people think that "auto-hit" spells are cool, and want to give similar things to martials. Fine. Give the martial "Unerring Strike" X number of times per day and provide that the target takes Y damage, and 1/2 damage on a successful save. THAT is similar.

Damage on a miss isn't. Different mechanics. Bad analogy. Hit points and saving throws are not the same thing.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

That's not what the phrase "double standard" means. A double standard is to apply a rule or principle differently in different situations or cases rather than keeping it consistent.

Gygax's explanation is accurate to the way HP have always worked, in part because D&D has no wound penalties.

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.

An injury which might be mortal for a 1st level character or a hangnail for a 10th level one. The nature and degree of any injurious component of the hit point loss has always been ambiguous, and always apparently minor to trivial for any depletion short of reducing the target to 0HP.

If they are injuries, than every single injury suffered short of unconsciousness is one which neither slows the person down or hinders their fighting, spellcasting, concentration, use of skills, speech or thought in any mechanically-represented way.

 

[Alzrius]

That's not what the phrase "double standard" means. A double standard is to apply a rule or principle differently in different situations or cases rather than keeping it consistent.

Which is what's happening if you go by the "hit points can be injury or stamina loss" paradigm; sometimes the loss of hit points is because injuries are being taken, and other times it's a loss of stamina. What the loss of hit points represents is not consistent.

Gygax's explanation is accurate to the way HP have always worked, in part because D&D has no wound penalties.

You've brought up the idea that hit points aren't/can't be physical injuries because there's no concomitant loss of personal prowess before, and I addressed it then.

An injury which might be mortal for a first level character or a hangnail for a 10th level one. The nature and degree of any injurious component of the hit point loss has always been ambiguous, and always apparently minor to trivial for any depletion short of reducing the target to 0HP.

The issue of adjudicating the degree of injury taken (or restored) has certainly been an issue, i.e. do you measure it by absolute values or ratios of a character's total. But to do away with those measurements altogether by having hit point loss be sometimes injury and sometimes stamina loss doesn't solve the issue; it just trades it in for a more egregious one.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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



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).

Specifically this is what Alzrius said.. near as I can tell this statement is independent from the discussion on special pleading as it does not appear to be discussing either Aldarc or themselves.

Admittedly, some people are trying to reconcile the fallacy by saying that even hit point loss from a fireball isn't physical injury either, but I'd like to think that's self-evidently a much harder point to make.

Regardless of the historical lineage of saving throws and hit points, the fact is that the result of the saving throw dictates the downstream reduction in hit points (and this appears to be the case through versions of D&D which predate 4e). As it turns out, damage on a miss does as well.

Whatever hit points are, both effects impact them symmetrically.

It would seem that the more relevant historical distinction to make would be between Armor Class and saving throws. As these would be the "defenses" that differ between the two phenomena. But to be honest, I'm not that invested in maintaining a particular consistency with history, and I'm quite sure that, if I were, I could find an article you've already written.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Sure, but it's not like it's required for me to do so in my initial post, particularly given the form of a forum as a place of back and forth discussion. You could have asked how it applied. Instead, you insisted that it didn't and simply directed me to a Wikipedia page on the subject as if that was an argument. That choice to skip over that was poor form.

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.

You're right that I didn't acknowledge these other posters and the arguments that they were making until my prior post, but, yes, I did think that the prior few pages of back-and-forth with you and these other posters was fairly apparent because others were already pointing out what appears to me and others as a double-standard. I don't know why you expect that I am obligated to summarize others or acknowledge everyone else's contributions when this is not a requirement or expectation that you seem to place on others.

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.

Except that's not really a double-standard. That's just saying that some game mechanic can represent multiple things in the fiction.

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)?

The spell mechanic says that it restores a given amount of HP, and we are told elsewhere that the HP mechanic represents a mix of things in the fiction. There may be tension between those elements, but it's applied consistently. The game is consistent about that fact from its beginning. The fact that the spell is called Cure Wounds is a pretty moot point in the larger picture.

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

If I was alone on this matter, I think that it would be safe to say that I have "badly" misunderstood what's being said here, but that doesn't seem to be the case, as others seem to be corraborating this understanding of your position and the double-standard that you seem to have regarding partial damage on saves and damage on a miss.

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

When you are willing to overlook partial damage on a save, which has a long history in D&D, but get in an uproar about damage on a miss, which people like yourself complained about in regards to 4e, then what is "alien to D&D" does seem to be quite germane because it seems that legacy damage-on-a-miss is okay and internally consistent simulationism but 4e damage-on-a-miss is bad and internally inconsistent simulationism.

 

[Aldarc]

Whatever hit points are, both effects impact them symmetrically.

It would seem that the more relevant historical distinction to make would be between Armor Class and saving throws. As these would be the "defenses" that differ between the two phenomena. But to be honest, I'm not that invested in maintaining a particular consistency with history, and I'm quite sure that, if I were, I could find an article you've already written.

What's interesting here is that 4e makes "saves" and "armor class" consistent in that the attacker rolls against the target's AC and/or Defenses (Fort, Ref, Will). So they are less so in 4e two phenomena.

 

[Alzrius]

Sure, but it's not like it's required for me to do so in my initial post, particularly given the form of a forum as a place of back and forth discussion. You could have asked how it applied. Instead, you insisted that it didn't and simply directed me to a Wikipedia page on the subject as if that was an argument. That choice to skip over that was poor form.

It was poor form on your part to make an assertion and then not bother to demonstrate why you felt it was true. Just posting a statement of "you're wrong" is not a substantive contribution to a discussion, even if you tag it with "and this is the specific way in which you're wrong." Doing so simply comes across as rude, and so invites responses in the same vein. You need to actually bring up merits to say why your assertion is correct, otherwise it can be dismissed without evidence...because you've provided none.

You're right that I didn't acknowledge these other posters and the arguments that they were making until my prior post, but, yes, I did think that the prior few pages of back-and-forth with you and these other posters was fairly apparent because others were already pointing out what appears to me and others as a double-standard. I don't know why you expect that I am obligated to summarize others or acknowledge everyone else's contributions when this is not a requirement or expectation that you seem to place on others.

Again, if you want to make a contribution to the discussion, it helps to actually, you know, contribute. Saying "it's apparent that they're right and you're wrong" isn't really any better than saying "you're wrong, in this particular way." Which is what you're still doing here, i.e. not engaging with the actual points which have been brought up in the discussion, and instead saying why you weren't really at fault for throwing out an assertion and then not backing it up. Which, again, you should have done if you wanted to actually discuss the issue(s) in question.

Except that's not really a double-standard. That's just saying that some game mechanic can represent multiple things in the fiction.

Yes, that is "really" a double-standard. Having a singular mechanic represent multiple things in the fiction is having a standard that performs double-duty, as other posters have (correctly) pointed out.

The spell mechanic says that it restores a given amount of HP, and we are told elsewhere that the HP mechanic represents a mix of things in the fiction. There may be tension between those elements, but it's applied consistently. The game is consistent about that fact from its beginning. The fact that the spell is called Cure Wounds is a pretty moot point in the larger picture.

No, the point is not moot. By naming the spell that, the game is deliberately going out of its way to tell us what the mechanical operation is indicating in terms of the fiction. Moreover, that perfectly dovetails with similar operations, such as non-magical hit point recovery, which is not accomplished by picking four-leaf clovers or tithing to a church. There's no "tension" except that the single characterization of hit point loss as stamina reduction is not backed up by any of the game's actual mechanical elements (which, yes, include what those elements are named).

If I was alone on this matter, I think that it would be safe to say that I have "badly" misunderstood what's being said here, but that doesn't seem to be the case, as others seem to be corraborating this understanding of your position and the double-standard that you seem to have regarding partial damage on saves and damage on a miss.

You seem to have forgotten what was being discussed in this response, which was your continued insistence that pointing out the double-standard in hit point depletion being injury and being stamina loss is a special pleading, which is rather ironic because it's that double-standard that is itself a special pleading, insofar as the tension between having one operation be two different things goes. Other people saying "but that's never been a problem for me!" doesn't mean that the issue isn't there; again, being able to solve the problem means acknowledging that there's a problem in the first place.

When you are willing to overlook partial damage on a save, which has a long history in D&D, but get in an uproar about damage on a miss, which people like yourself complained about in regards to 4e, then what is "alien to D&D" does seem to be quite germane because it seems that legacy damage-on-a-miss is okay and internally consistent simulationism but 4e damage-on-a-miss is bad and internally inconsistent simulationism.

I don't know where you get the idea that partial damage on a save is beng "overlooked," because on a review of the thread that's never been any position that I can find being put forward. Partial damage on a saving throw (a saving throw being a different operation) is simply an acknowledgement that the character is being injured, and is managing to minimize their injuries. That's a very different animal than damage on a miss, as Snarf very neatly explained above.

 

[Alzrius]

Specifically this is what Alzrius said.. near as I can tell this statement is independent from the discussion on special pleading as it does not appear to be discussing either Aldarc or themselves.

That was meant to be in response to the continued "special pleading" digression, and was a mix-up on my part. Mea culpa, there. The problems with having hit point loss be injury and stamina depletion isn't a fallacy per se (though, ironically, it does look like it could be a special pleading. ) I've gone back and edited my post, in a (probably vain) hope that we can dispense with the fallacy digression and return to the point under discussion.

 

[Gammadoodler]

That was meant to be in response to the continued "special pleading" digression, and was a mix-up on my part. Mea culpa, there. The problems with having hit point loss be injury and stamina depletion isn't a fallacy per se (though, ironically, it does look like it could be a special pleading. ) I've gone back and edited my post, in a (probably vain) hope that we can dispense with the fallacy digression and return to the point under discussion.

Fair enough. That explains the confusion.

 

[Red Castle]

Strong disagree.

Look, even the weakened form in 5e, saving throws represent active resistance. Something happened (poison, fireball'd, etc.) and you can "save" for no effect or partial effect.

On the other hand, attack rolls are different. They are traditionally binary; you either succeed, or you don't. If you don't succeed on an attack roll, the effect doesn't happen.

Here's the way to look at it-

Monster Ability- Roll to hit. If hit, the target is poisoned for 3 rounds. If missed, the target is poisoned for 1 round.

Compare-

Monster Ability- On a successful hit, the target must save. Successful save means the poison lasts 1 round. Unsuccessful save is 3 rounds.

There is a MASSIVE conceptual difference between those two things.

What this really is about is that people think that "auto-hit" spells are cool, and want to give similar things to martials. Fine. Give the martial "Unerring Strike" X number of times per day and provide that the target takes Y damage, and 1/2 damage on a successful save. THAT is similar.

Damage on a miss isn't. Different mechanics. Bad analogy. Hit points and saving throws are not the same thing.

The mechanic is different, but the intention and result remains the same, at least in the philosophy of how 4e works compared to other editions.

Instead of asking the defender to make a saving throw to resist damages, 4e introduced different kind of defenses: Fortitude, Reflex and Willpower.

If we look at the classic fireball for example.

In 4e, the Wizard makes an attack targeting Reflex. If he hit, full damage; if not, half damage.

In other editions, the Wizard cast Fireball and automatically hit. The defender must now make a Saving throw: A success means half damage, while a failure means full damage.

The mechanical difference is that in one case it's the attacker rolling the dice, in the other it's the defender. But the intention and result is still the same. The Fireball is just too big to be completely dodge and best case scenario for the defender is that he will take half damage.

The intention of 4e was to go away from the 'sometimes it's the attacker who roll, sometimes it's the defender' and simplify it into 'it's always the attacker who roll'. The way to do that, to get the same effect from non-fully dodgeable attack, was the introduction of Damage on a Miss and instead of saving throws, you create new kind of defenses. Different mechanic, same result.

I personally prefer it this way, but YMMV, of course.