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

[Campbell]

Hit points (and damage) within 4e are perfectly coherent if you accept the way they are portrayed and discussed within the game itself. If you bring in a set of aesthetics and/or understanding based on previous experience playing and running other editions of the game you can make it feel incoherent for yourself, but that requires smuggling in those expectations a priori. I can get the argument some would make that being inconsistent with the aesthetics that some groups depended on in previous editions might be unacceptable for some, but that is not the same as 4e being incoherent. It's just not cohering to an aesthetic preference some gamers have.

For what it's worth I consider 4e to have the most consistent treatment of hp in D&D land. It's perfectly up front that all hp loss is superficial Diehard stuff. Even in Cleric "healing" is portrayed as more inspiring than knitting of wounds. Personally, I prefer the more Berserk-like aesthetics of Pathfinder Second Edition. That does not speak to relative internal coherency though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Just a side comment, but the perception of whether a new edition of a game is the same game or not (beyond the more than slightly blithe "It has the same name and was put out by the same company" which I think is kind of a silly metric to me) is going to be subjective. I thought the idea that 4e was "Not D&D" was downright silly (I could probably spend a page listing features of it you'd never see outside the D&D sphere), but the devil's in the details for many people and some elements simply felt very crucial in a way it wouldn't to someone like me.

 

[Red Castle]

Just a side comment, but the perception of whether a new edition of a game is the same game or not (beyond the more than slightly blithe "It has the same name and was put out by the same company" which I think is kind of a silly metric to me) is going to be subjective. I thought the idea that 4e was "Not D&D" was downright silly (I could probably spend a page listing features of it you'd never see outside the D&D sphere), but the devil's in the details for many people and some elements simply felt very crucial in a way it wouldn't to someone like me.

I agree. Maybe it wasn’t clear, but I was voicing my opinion on the subject, not facts.

 

[Voadam]

I've statted the same characters, or very similar ones, in AD&D, Rolemaster and Burning Wheel.

And of course there are many AD&D characters that are also statted in 4e D&D - red dragons, Orcus and Demogorgon, etc. Some of these I've also statted in RM. I've statted balrogs in AD&D, RM and Burning Wheel.

I'm currently using the Moathouse from the AD&D module T1 Village of Hommlet converted to Torchbearer 2e. This includes converting NPCs as well as architecture and geography.

Etc.

In each system, I stat that character as fits that system. So, for instance, in 4e D&D an implacable warrior does damage on a miss. A magic-user in AD&D has spellbooks, but in RM knows spell lists. The resolution of the Wand of Orcus's death touch is different in different systems. Etc.

To me, this goes back to the idea that different RPGs approach the mechanics-fiction relationship differently, and so represent the same trope or archetype in different ways.

I've done similar with a recurring character in 1e, 2e, 3.0, 3.5, Everquest RPG, Pathinder 1e, 4e D&D, BESM 3e, Shadowrun 4e, and 5e D&D. The original character in AD&D was a human fighter switch class to wizard, in 4e I did a couple versions, a ranger multiclassed into paragon multiclass wizard out of the PH 1, and later a swordmage with human and genasi versions using the CB. Playing the same character with different mechanics but a similar core concept is fun and there are usually multiple mechanical ways to execute a core concept.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree. Maybe it wasn’t clear, but I was voicing my opinion on the subject, not facts.

Like I said, it was just a side comment.

 

[billd91]

So a Fireball doing damage on a miss is a bridge too far for you?

Totally different situation. As it always has been.

 

[Lanefan]

To flip this around: an attack that does damage on a miss, be that a fireball or the attack of a fighter or a rogue, always hit their target. The attack roll just determines whether it is a "solid" hit or a weaker/glancing one.

As I already said (and you quoted) Fireball and other area damage effects don't do damage on a miss, because if they miss you (i.e. you're not in the AoE) you don't take any damage.

The problem with melee attacks always hitting their target (and, where such things are measured by depletion of hit points, always affecting their target) is, as @billd91 already noted, that this leaves no room for an attack to miss outright and have no effect at all.

 

[Lanefan]

But that is exactly how Fireball works in 4e:

Fireball (Daily)
Standard Action
Area Burst 3 within 20 squares
Target: each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence Vs Reflex
Hit: 3d6+Intelligence modifier fire damage
Miss: Half Damage

Like it or not, Fireball in 4e is doing damage on a miss and is one of the example to show that Damage on a miss is doing exactly the same thing as a successful saving throw in other editions. Same narrative, same intention, same result; only difference is that it is the attacker rolling the dice instead of the defender.

So if you are okay with Fireball hitting on a miss

I'm not, but given that truly awful wording used in the spell write-up there seems to be no choice about it. Clearly 4e redefined "miss" to mean something other than its usual meaning. Sigh.

If "miss"in this case means you take half damage then what's the term for someone who happens not to be in the area of effect but that the caster wanted to hit with the spell? Example: two people standing just far enough apart that a single Fireball can't affect both, thus to hit one person you have to miss the other.

because it's an area attack or magical or any reasons, but not okay with a fighter attack hitting on a miss... then the problem is not entirely the 'Damage on a Miss' mechanic being a binary operation since there is another factor entering the equation.

Yes, that factor being that 4e is using words to mean things they shouldn't mean. Instead of "Hit" and "Miss", better terms there would be "Succeed" and "Fail". Also, the other built-in assumption here that I fundamentally dislike (one that 4e shares with 3e and 5e) is that the spell is always going to go exactly where the caster wants it to go.

 

[pemerton]

As I already said (and you quoted) Fireball and other area damage effects don't do damage on a miss, because if they miss you (i.e. you're not in the AoE) you don't take any damage.

This thread is about 4e D&D. In which Fireball does damage on a miss:

But that is exactly how Fireball works in 4e:

Fireball (Daily)
Standard Action
Area Burst 3 within 20 squares
Target: each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence Vs Reflex
Hit: 3d6+Intelligence modifier fire damage
Miss: Half Damage

Like it or not, Fireball in 4e is doing damage on a miss and is one of the example to show that Damage on a miss is doing exactly the same thing as a successful saving throw in other editions. Same narrative, same intention, same result; only difference is that it is the attacker rolling the dice instead of the defender.

So if you are okay with Fireball hitting on a miss because it's an area attack or magical or any reasons, but not okay with a fighter attack hitting on a miss... then the problem is not entirely the 'Damage on a Miss' mechanic being a binary operation since there is another factor entering the equation.

As do many other AoE effects, eg:

Wizard 29th level Daily "Greater Ice Storm":

Area burst 5 within 20 squares
Target: Each creature in burst
Attack: Intelligence vs Fortitude
Hit: 4d8 + Intelligence modifier cold damage, and the target is immobilized (save ends)
Miss: Half damage, and the target is slowed (save ends)
Effect: The burst creates a zone of ice. The zone is difficult terrain until the end of the encounter or for 5 minutes.​

This is an attack that conjures an ice storm. The storm is so fierce that anyone caught in it is chilled, perhaps severely, and slowed or (if the attack roll is a hit) unable to move at all. Armour provides no protection against this ice storm; only sheer fortitude does so.

The problem with melee attacks always hitting their target (and, where such things are measured by depletion of hit points, always affecting their target) is, as @billd91 already noted, that this leaves no room for an attack to miss outright and have no effect at all.

This is not a "problem", except in the sense that perhaps you don't care for it. The whole point of damage on a miss is that the attack in question, whatever it is, always wears down and slightly sets back its target. As, for instance,

Rogue 25th level Daily "Biting Assault":

Melee or Ranged weapon
Requirement You must be wielding a crossbow, a light blade, or a sling.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs Fortitude
Hit: 3[W] + Dexterity modifier damage, and the target takes ongoing 10 damage and is weakened (save ends both)
Miss: Half damage, and the target takes 10 ongoing damage​

This is an attack the involves the attack pounding the living daylights out of the target, regardless of their armour. Either way, the target is set back and suffers ongoing damage, whether that be bleeding or the reverberating effects of the pounding. On a successful, but not a failed, attack roll the pounding is so brutal that the foe is also weakened. What helps a target resist this pounding is their fortitude.

The notion that damage from a fireball, or a greater ice storm, cannot but be suffered is no more or less "realistic" or "problematic" than the notion that damage from a biting assault cannot but be suffered.

And of course 4e D&D is not the only RPG that establishes a degree of symmetry in this respect for some attacks. Eg in Rolemaster there is a distinctive attack table for fireball. Everyone in the areas of the burst is attacked on that table. Low rolls on that table inflict zero damage.

In T&T 5th ed, fireball (called "Blasting Power") does not always do damage; nor does its cold equivalent Freeze Please. Per 2.32.2,

Neither spell has to necessarily take effect against the foes, any more than an ordinary blast of flame (or ice) would necessarily damage a character.​

It is purely a convention of D&D that everyone caught in the blast radius of a fireball must take damage. It is a choice to make that particular sort of attack resolve a certain way. 4e chooses to have some other attacks also be implacable. That's all.

 

[pemerton]

the other built-in assumption here that I fundamentally dislike (one that 4e shares with 3e and 5e) is that the spell is always going to go exactly where the caster wants it to go.

This assumption is made in every published version of D&D. None has a rule for "mis-targetting" a fireball.

I'm not, but given that truly awful wording used in the spell write-up there seems to be no choice about it. Clearly 4e redefined "miss" to mean something other than its usual meaning. Sigh.

<snip>

4e is using words to mean things they shouldn't mean. Instead of "Hit" and "Miss", better terms there would be "Succeed" and "Fail".

The 4e PHB was quoted by @Aldarc and by me upthread. Here it is again (from pp 58, 276):

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. . . .

You resolve an attack by comparing the total of your attack roll (1d20 + base attack bonus + attack modifiers) to the appropriate defense score. If your roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, you hit. Otherwise, you miss.

When you hit, you usually deal damage and sometimes produce some other effect. When you’re using a power, the power description tells you what happens when you hit. Some descriptions also say what happens when you miss or when you score a critical hit. . . .

Hit: If the attack roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, the attack hits and deals damage, has a special effect, or both. . . .

Miss: If your attack roll is lower than the defense score, the attack misses. Usually, there’s no effect. Some powers have an effect on a miss, such as dealing half damage.​

If "miss"in this case means you take half damage then what's the term for someone who happens not to be in the area of effect but that the caster wanted to hit with the spell? Example: two people standing just far enough apart that a single Fireball can't affect both, thus to hit one person you have to miss the other.

At my table we would say things like that person is outside the AoE or that person is outside the attack or I can't get both those people.

This causes no more trouble than in AD&D, when magic missile cannot miss and yet it can be possible for someone to be too far away from the mage to be able to be hit them.