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

[Alzrius]

That's only a problem if you consider any attack but that last one particularly significant rather than shock and stress with some minor injuries, and encouragement can make everything but the latter part go away, and let you ignore the latter part.

I mean, in reality, the only degree to which injuries accumulate is shock and blood loss. In all other respects, every hit is a fresh case. So the hit point model, to the degree it doesn't represent those (and it at least does a poor job of doing the last) isn't really representing anything that's matching in any particular way to the fiction. Its too high order an abstraction to do that.

Sure, but again that's incumbent on interpreting the same thing different ways, where a successful attack for 8 points of damage isn't injuring you (much) until it suddenly kills you, as @Pedantic noted. I find that to be more immersion-breaking than having hit points be an imperfect model in what they're representing, simply because at least I know what any given hit represents (since the operation informs the in-character presentation), rather than having to contextualize it myself each and every time.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I don't. Those are instances where 5E doesn't work for me. It's just not enough to make me repudiate 5E as a whole, because I don't see those as being as intrusive to the overall play experience as similar mechanics were in 4E, along with the fact that 4E had a lot of other issues which, together with the aforementioned hit point one, was more than I could countenance.

And how do you reckon damage absorbed by temporary hit points in any system?

 

[Aldarc]

No, the game itself is doing the heavy lifting (as it's supposed to) by telling us that the mechanical operation of the cure light wounds spell is, in fact, curing wounds. You'll notice that I've already said that that the degree of information conveyed with regard to the in-character nature of the wound received when hit points are lost is rather sparse. Which is fine, since its conveyed the essential element of the operation: that a physical injury has been received.

You can take burning damage from a fireball, losing hit points commensurately, and then regain them because a warlord yells at you. The operation is the same, but what they represent is two different things in two different circumstances.

Yes, and? So what? How does this represent an actual problem?

The game does not tell me that the Warlord's yelling cures my burns or unsinges my skin. It remains absolutely silent on that point. The game tells me that the Warlord's words fill me with greater resolve, potentially allowing me to tap into my energy reserves, so I keep fighting with a renewed sense of vigor. However, in contrast, the Cleric calls upon their deity so they can channel their holy magic to bind my wounds or fill me with divine courage, though this also may also deplete part of my energy reserves. Different proceses in the fiction. Same end result in the mechanics.

Pointing out that mental ability scores can conceivably said to represent different aspects of a character's psyche is a tu quoque fallacy,* in that even if that's true it doesn't speak to the fact that having hit point loss/restoration represent two different things (as a game operation) is still an issue in terms of leaving the players to parse which thing that single mechanic is representing at any particular time. Having an aggregate of your character's mental accuity is a separate consideration from having one mechanic measure two different things happening to them in combat.

My point of introducing the complexity of what Wisdom represents was not so you can try to go for another round of tit-for-tat in fallacy accusations. Instead, it was simply to point out that game mechanics can and do represent more than one thing without somehow being a "double-standard," "special pleading," or whatever other fallacy buzzword you want to throw around at me to score points.

Yes, a GM or player may have to parse what HP loss represents, much like a GM or player may have to parse what a variety of other mechanics or game processes (e.g., attributes, a missed attack, a saving throw, etc.) may represent in the fiction. Parsing how the mechanics play out in the fiction is called "playing the game." I don't see how HP is somehow peculiar in this regard or why it's an issue. The fact that HP can be a variety of elements that contributes to a character's survival is IMHO meant to be liberating for the GM and player to interpret/parse the fiction in a variety of ways for the purposes of greater rather than less simulation.

Though I will add that depending on who you talk to here, it's not the player's job to parse that information; instead, that responsibility rests entirely with the referee/judge/GM to parse that information.

Damage on a miss is based around the idea that you've missed (as in, not injured) the character. And yet, despite not injuring them, you've made them lose some hit points. So they've now lost hit points for reasons that aren't injury...and which can be restored via cure light wounds.

Damage on a miss is based around the idea that you have not made a full hit with a full effect, but that your attack still had some effect on the target. Pemerton provides further elaboration on the point of what damage-on-a-miss represents in the context of 4e.

Now, if the game changed that to suggest that damage on a miss wasn't a miss at all, but represented an attack that always dealt some degree of damage to the target regardless of their defenses, that's a different issue, in that it at least remains consistent about what hit point loss represents.

You seem pretty easily hung-up on labels without actually doing the work to read the rules in their context. Here is the entry on Miss in the 4e PHB 1, which tells us what a miss represents:

Miss

Miss: Half damage.
Miss: Half damage, and no ongoing fire damage.
Miss: Half damage, and the target is not pushed or
immobilized.

Sometimes the dice are against you, and you miss your target. Missing isn’t always the end of the story, however. A miss can indicate a splash effect, a glancing blow, or some other incidental effect of a power. Examples of some typical “Miss” entries are given above.

Half Damage: When you calculate half damage, remember to apply the rule about rounding down (page 11). If a damage roll produces a result of 1, half of that damage is 0.

Call it whatever you want if it helps you sleep at night. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Regardless of your hang-ups with the name "miss," the game is explicitly clear and internally consistent with what a miss can represent.

Entrenchment does not mean that the argument is not salient, or correct.

Those are wise words that you would do well to remember.

So I'll just say I found it quite well-presented.

It's unsurprising that people find arguments they already are already disposed towards agreeing with to be persuasive.

 

[Alzrius]

And how do you reckon damage absorbed by temporary hit points in any system?

To the extent that temporary hit points are almost always (in my experience) the product of magic, they function appropriately to that, in that the character is being injured by the attack, but the injury isn't leaving a wound. Like, the blade actually hits their flesh and cuts it, but when it's withdrawn there's no injury left behind (presuming that he has any temporary hit points left, or has expended them all but lost no "real" hit points) or there's a disproportionately minor wound (if he's expended all of his temporary hit points and only lost a few "real" hit points).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but again that's incumbent on interpreting the same thing different ways, where a successful attack for 8 points of damage isn't injuring you (much) until it suddenly kills you, as @Pedantic noted. I find that to be more immersion-breaking than having hit points be an imperfect model in what they're representing, simply because at least I know what any given hit represents (since the operation informs the in-character presentation), rather than having to contextualize it myself each and every time.

Well, my own feeling is if you aren't contextualizing it every time, you aren't knowing what it represents anyway. A given sword swing can do too many different things, and the damage only takes you so far.

I mean, when dealing with big amorphous blob hit points like D&D I don't bother myself most of the time, but that can't help but say that it makes your object comes across as emotional rather than principled (and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but an emotional reaction can be about anything; I responded negatively to 4e myself on that level, but I can't express it in any way that says there was anything "wrong" there).

 

[Red Castle]

Let's take the fighter At-Will power level 1 'Reaping Strike' for exemple.

4e version:
Reaping Strike
'You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy's defenses.'
Attack: Strength VS AC
Hit: 1(W)+Strength modifier damage
Miss: Half Strength modifier damage. If you're wielding a two-handed weapon, you deal damage equal to your strength modifier.

Now, let's try to turn this power to 5e:

Reaping Strike: You punctuate your scything attacks with wicked jabs and small cutting blows that slip through your enemy's defenses. The defender must make a dexterity Saving Throw. If he fail, he suffer 1(W)+Strength modifier damage. If he succeed, he takes half your Strength Modifier damage or equal to your Strength modifier if you are wielding a two-handed weapon.

Would the 5e version be acceptable? If not, why?

If yes, then why would the 4e version be unacceptable?

It has the same narrative: your multiple attacks slip through your enemy's defense.

It has the same intention: No matter what happens, the defender can't block every blows you throw at him so you are guaranteed to do at least some damage.

It has the same result: The defender will either take full damage or at least damage based on your strength modifier

It only has a different mechanic to get the same result: One is the attacker rolling the die, the other is the defender.

 

[Aldarc]

To the extent that temporary hit points are almost always (in my experience) the product of magic, they function appropriately to that, in that the character is being injured by the attack, but the injury isn't leaving a wound. Like, the blade actually hits their flesh and cuts it, but when it's withdrawn there's no injury left behind (presuming that he has any temporary hit points left, or has expended them all but lost no "real" hit points) or there's a disproportionately minor wound (if he's expended all of his temporary hit points and only lost a few "real" hit points).

The Inspiring Leader feat lets a player provide Charisma modifier + Level temporary HP to up to 6 creatures within 30 feet of me after a 10 minute inspiring speech. The Battlemaster's Rally maneuver provides a creature with temporary hit points equal to the superiority die + Charisma modifier. These are probably two of the most blatant ways to provide temporary HP and they are non-magical.

 

[Gammadoodler]

To the extent that temporary hit points are almost always (in my experience) the product of magic, they function appropriately to that, in that the character is being injured by the attack, but the injury isn't leaving a wound. Like, the blade actually hits their flesh and cuts it, but when it's withdrawn there's no injury left behind (presuming that he has any temporary hit points left, or has expended them all but lost no "real" hit points) or there's a disproportionately minor wound (if he's expended all of his temporary hit points and only lost a few "real" hit points).

And insofar as the effect is not magical? E.g. from inspiring leader, fighting spirit, recent UA patient defense, others?

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, and? So what? How does this represent an actual problem?

I've been very clear about this: it represents an actual problem because it off-loads the task of determining what's happening within the context of the game world onto the player(s), rather than informing them itself. Is the hit point loss an injury, or just accumulating stress/fear/loss of luck/less divine protection, etc.? You have to figure it out, rather than the game telling you.

The game does not tell me that the Warlord's yelling cures my burns or unsinges my skin. It remains absolutely silent on that point.

I mean, that's not the best example, since the blurb on page 145 of the 4E PHB expressly says: "You call out to a wounded ally and offer inspiring words of courage and determination that helps that ally heal." But we'll ignore the last five words, there.

The game tells me that the Warlord's words fill me with greater resolve, potentially allowing me to tap into my energy reserves, so I keep fighting with a renewed sense of vigor. However, in contrast, the Cleric calls upon their deity so they can channel their holy magic to bind my wounds or fill me with divine courage, though this also may also deplete part of my energy reserves. Different proceses in the fiction. Same end result in the mechanics.

Yeah, and that's the crux of the issue. Having hit points potentially represent two different things creates a cognitive gap that the player(s) then have to bridge. That some players have no issue doing that is fine for them, but if other players want the game to tell us what's happening, having one mechanical result be indicative of two different things is a hindrance that doesn't need to be there.

My point of introducing the complexity of what Wisdom represents was not so you can try to go for another round of tit-for-tat in fallacy accusations. Instead, it was simply to point out that game mechanics can and do represent more than one thing without somehow being a "double-standard," "special pleading," or whatever other fallacy buzzword you want to throw around at me to score points.

Having a mechanic aggregate something isn't the issue, though (hence why there's no problem with hit point loss representing all different kinds of injuries); it's having an operation (i.e. a function that the mechanics take part in) be representation of two different things happening within the context of the game world. Wisdom damage would be a much better example for what you're trying to state, and even then it'd be fine because it represents one thing: an attack on that particular part of the character's mind. When you have it represent two different things, then you have a problem

Yes, a GM or player may have to parse what HP loss represents, much like a GM or player may have to parse what a variety of other mechanics or game processes (e.g., attributes, a missed attack, a saving throw, etc.) may represent in the fiction. Parsing how the mechanics play out in the fiction is called "playing the game."

Which is why the game is at its most elegant when it takes up the metaphorical "heavy lifting" on your behalf, at least as much as it can without becoming burdensome. Now, that will naturally vary from person to person insofar as what constitutes "burdensome," but again, just because you don't find a task difficult doesn't mean that it's not a task in the first place.

I don't see how HP is somehow peculiar in this regard or why it's an issue. The fact that HP can be a variety of elements that contributes to a character's survival is IMHO meant to be liberating for the GM and player to interpret/parse the fiction in a variety of ways for the purposes of greater rather than less simulation.

Whereas I find nothing "liberating" in the game telling me that I have to keep track of one more thing that's happening, in addition to everything else that I'm keeping track of. If it wants to present two different things, injuries and stamina, then it should have two different mechanics for injury and stamina.

Though I will add that depending on who you talk to here, it's not the player's job to parse that information; instead, that responsibility rests entirely with the referee/judge/GM to parse that information.

Either way, it's something that the people sitting around the table have to deal with, rather than the game system taking care of that burden for them.

Damage on a miss is based around the idea that you have not made a full hit with a full effect, but that your attack still had some effect on the target. Pemerton provides further elaboration on the point of what damage-on-a-miss represents in the context of 4e.

Yes, but what effect? Physical? Psychological? It doesn't seem to want to say, and so that's now something that the players need to figure out on their own. The game could do more to convey what it's trying to model, is my point.

You seem pretty easily hung-up on labels without actually doing the work to read the rules in their context. Here is the entry on Miss in the 4e PHB 1, which tells us what a miss represents:

Yeah, that doesn't really narrow things down. It's a vague nod in the direction of maybe being physical damage, but doesn't commit to it, and doesn't explain how a "miss" is still a hit.

Call it whatever you want if it helps you sleep at night. A rose by any other name is still a rose. Regardless of your hang-ups with the name "miss," the game is explicitly clear and internally consistent with what a miss can represent.

In this metaphor, the game isn't saying a rose at all, which is a problem because without informing us of what's going on in the setting, we don't actually know if it smells as sweet.

Those are wise words that you would do well to remember.

I'm glad you agree that what I'm saying is wise; now you just need to abide by it.

It's unsurprising that people find arguments they already are already disposed towards agreeing with to be persuasive.

And you would do well to remember the converse of that.

 

[Alzrius]

Well, my own feeling is if you aren't contextualizing it every time, you aren't knowing what it represents anyway. A given sword swing can do too many different things, and the damage only takes you so far.

Figuring out the degree to which something has happened is not the same thing as figuring out what's happened in the first place. Yes, you figure out how much of an injury X hit points' worth of damage is, but at least you know it's damage.

I mean, when dealing with big amorphous blob hit points like D&D I don't bother myself most of the time, but that can't help but say that it makes your object comes across as emotional rather than principled (and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but an emotional reaction can be about anything; I responded negatively to 4e myself on that level, but I can't express it in any way that says there was anything "wrong" there).

I disagree; the emotional objection is from people who feel attacked by pointing out that the double-standard in having hit point loss represent two different things creates a cognitive burden for people who like the game to inform them of what's going on.