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

[Aldarc]

But D&D is full of these inconsistencies and ambiguities, right? I'm wearing leather armour and I have a Dex bonus. My opponent misses me by one. Did I dodge it, or did my armour absorb it?

Yes.

 

[James Gasik]

Yes.

Exactly. The "how" you avoided the damage isn't important, just that you did.

AC is basically a reverse saving throw. The opponent rolls the die to hit the DC instead of you, but it's the same thing. And it's a combination of factors that can let you avoid damage.

Further, that there are some effects that can partially bypass AC (damage on a miss) is perfectly understandable, and in fact, such "armor piercing" should be more prevalent in the game. Maybe you could add it to crossbows (or firearms, if those are used in your game). It's no different than effects that still damage you when you make a saving throw, regardless of all the text written to the contrary, other than the method to arrive at the result is different.

When 4e introduced the Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses instead of saving throws, the only thing that changed was "who rolls the die". The results are exactly the same. I hit your Will defense, you fail your Wisdom save- narratively, the same thing happens.

 

[Hussar]

It's kinda funny. I play online and have for a long time. I forgot that the target rolls saving throws. Using a VTT, all that's automated, so, it's all from the attackers POV. Target the target, click the cast button, and the saving throw is rolled by the system.

I forgot that that's not the way it actually works.

 

[soviet]

In fact it occurs to me that if a miss can be partially attributed to the absorbing effects of armour, 'damage on a miss' is even easier to accept. It's just the bruising you get from being shot in kevlar.

 

[Manbearcat]

In fact it occurs to me that if a miss can be partially attributed to the absorbing effects of armour, 'damage on a miss' is even easier to accept. It's just the bruising you get from being shot in kevlar.

The idea that “damage on a miss” is counterintuitive is bonkers to me. Every physical activity I’ve ever dedicated myself to or been forced upon me features:

* An endocrine response which robs you of durability as intense clashes accrue.

* A waning ability to recruit your best physical and emotional response as heart rate spikes and as high stakes, high energy events, and the demoralizing toll of inevitable micro-losses within those events/exchanges (refer to “90 % of the game is mental”) put your energy budget at an increasing deficit.

* If it’s martial arts, slipping a punch, performing a feint, sprawling to foil a takedown/sweep are all costly and most of those come with collateral physical damage.

Net = “damage on a miss” is the only thing that makes any sense whatsoever in a TTRPG system with ever-increasing damage expressions and HP values for creatures (D&D).

 

[Red Castle]

Exactly. The "how" you avoided the damage isn't important, just that you did.

AC is basically a reverse saving throw. The opponent rolls the die to hit the DC instead of you, but it's the same thing. And it's a combination of factors that can let you avoid damage.

Further, that there are some effects that can partially bypass AC (damage on a miss) is perfectly understandable, and in fact, such "armor piercing" should be more prevalent in the game. Maybe you could add it to crossbows (or firearms, if those are used in your game). It's no different than effects that still damage you when you make a saving throw, regardless of all the text written to the contrary, other than the method to arrive at the result is different.

When 4e introduced the Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses instead of saving throws, the only thing that changed was "who rolls the die". The results are exactly the same. I hit your Will defense, you fail your Wisdom save- narratively, the same thing happens.

Yes, that’s what I wrote earlier.

Hit on a miss in 4e and saving throw in other editions has the same narrative, the same intention and the same effect.

The only difference is the mecanic (one is the attacker rolling, the other the defender) and somehow, for some people, it seems to change the narrative completely.

Thinking that the attacker missing is different than the defender dodging or parrying imply that when you attack someone the defender do absolutely nothing and that missing is entirely on the attacker fault, which is nonsense. I’ll refer to my past years of fencing again and I’ll tell you: when I attack someone and miss, it’s because the defender either dodge or parry the blow, not because somehow I could not hit the target.

 

[deganawida]

The idea that “damage on a miss” is counterintuitive is bonkers to me. Every physical activity I’ve ever dedicated myself to or been forced upon me features:

* An endocrine response which robs you of durability as intense clashes accrue.

* A waning ability to recruit your best physical and emotional response as heart rate spikes and as high stakes, high energy events, and the demoralizing toll of inevitable micro-losses within those events/exchanges (refer to “90 % of the game is mental”) put your energy budget at an increasing deficit.

* If it’s martial arts, slipping a punch, performing a feint, sprawling to foil a takedown/sweep are all costly and most of those come with collateral physical damage.

Net = “damage on a miss” is the only thing that makes any sense whatsoever in a TTRPG system with ever-increasing damage expressions and HP values for creatures (D&D).

Yeah, this is exactly correct. When training with competitive martial artists 25 years ago, I would end up with massive bruises on my forearms from blocks. Did my partner ever get a good hit in? Nope, I managed to dive or block every single one, every time* (which is why I was everyone’s preferred sparring partner). Did I still take damage? You bet!

* Except once, when I look a front snap kick to the back of my right thingy while I was also kicking, which overextended my leg and and gave me a hamstring injury. Got serious about splits after that.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In fact it occurs to me that if a miss can be partially attributed to the absorbing effects of armour, 'damage on a miss' is even easier to accept. It's just the bruising you get from being shot in kevlar.

Is even easier to accept ... for you.

The only person who seems to have gotten this is @Hussar (and thankfully so). This isn't something you're going to logic your way out of! There is something truly bizarre that people think that after how many comments ... in how many threads ... over how many years ... about this same subject that they will suddenly perfect the exact logical argument that will suddenly "win"?

I will use the simple example again- just because Star Wars has "pew pew pew" in space (where there is no sound) doesn't mean that a Star Wars fan will accept absolutely everything. People have different mental models for different things, and different tolerances for what they will accept.

What is too much for one person, is not enough for another. And that's okay! We are all different people, shaped by different experiences, with different expectations.

For some people, the idea that a "to hit" roll is a binary operation (you either hit, or you miss) is it. Period. For others, it's just another mechanic that happens to be a part of the game. There is no right and no wrong to how people feel about these operations, because ... the game is just a fictional space that we create. How the rules and fiction interact will vary depending on the person.

Instead of demanding that other people that we aren't gaming with share the same mental space that we do, it's probably best to play with people that have similar outlooks, and accept that other people may not always agree with us.

The reason that I think D&D is particularly known for these types of conversations is precisely because it tends to straddle the line; it tends to allow people to see what they want to. Which can be good for mixed groups, but bad for purists.

 

[soviet]

Is even easier to accept ... for you.

The only person who seems to have gotten this is @Hussar (and thankfully so). This isn't something you're going to logic your way out of! There is something truly bizarre that people think that after how many comments ... in how many threads ... over how many years ... about this same subject that they will suddenly perfect the exact logical argument that will suddenly "win"?

I will use the simple example again- just because Star Wars has "pew pew pew" in space (where there is no sound) doesn't mean that a Star Wars fan will accept absolutely everything. People have different mental models for different things, and different tolerances for what they will accept.

What is too much for one person, is not enough for another. And that's okay! We are all different people, shaped by different experiences, with different expectations.

For some people, the idea that a "to hit" roll is a binary operation (you either hit, or you miss) is it. Period. For others, it's just another mechanic that happens to be a part of the game. There is no right and no wrong to how people feel about these operations, because ... the game is just a fictional space that we create. How the rules and fiction interact will vary depending on the person.

Instead of demanding that other people that we aren't gaming with share the same mental space that we do, it's probably best to play with people that have similar outlooks, and accept that other people may not always agree with us.

The reason that I think D&D is particularly known for these types of conversations is precisely because it tends to straddle the line; it tends to allow people to see what they want to. Which can be good for mixed groups, but bad for purists.

I'm not trying to win, or to convince you that you're wrong, or trying to play d&d with you.

I said before that if someone's position is that they just don't like hit on a miss, then I have no issue.

The issue is when people try to dress up that personal preference as a category difference. 'Games with hit on a miss are inadequate/shallow/dissociated/too boardgamey' etc. At least, when there are a hundred other mechanics they do accept that would seem to also tick those boxes or have those issues.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not trying to win, or to convince you that you're wrong, or trying to play d&d with you.

I said before that if someone's position is that they just don't like hit on a miss, then I have no issue.

The issue is when people try to dress up that personal preference as a category difference. 'Games with hit on a miss are inadequate/shallow/dissociated/too boardgamey' etc. At least, when there are a hundred other mechanics they do accept that would seem to also tick those boxes or have those issues.

But they are those things...for them. No amount of you calling them hypocrites will change that.