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

[Aldarc]

I just try not to assume derivation when parallel evolution is possible.

I looked a little deeper due to my own curiosity. Trudvang Chronicles was based on the Swedish game Drachar och Demoner, which was derived from RuneQuest/BRP. But it also sounds like the history of these two IPs involved a lot of changing hands over the decades, and I'm not as familiar with either history to provide a compelling argument that demonstrates that the mechanic in question derives from BRP.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Not quite. In 0-1-(2?)e fireballs expanded to fill a volume, thus in a confined area it was really easy to affect targets you didn't want to hit - including yourself, the caster. Lightning bolts also rebounded, which caused some interesting times when the caster wasn't good at either billiards or distance estimation.

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.​

In my view that's a misuse of hit and miss terminology when applied to AoE effects, probably done in the interests of streamlining the rule set.

The very fact that they list a fireball as targeting the specific creatures within its AoE as opposed to targeting the AoE itself and just affecting everything in there seems wrong somehow. I don't think the intent was to make it a "smart bomb" where it only affected living things and left everything else unscathed, but why else would they do this?

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.

As least magic missile never has to worry about doing damage on a miss.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not quite. In 0-1-(2?)e fireballs expanded to fill a volume, thus in a confined area it was really easy to affect targets you didn't want to hit - including yourself, the caster. Lightning bolts also rebounded, which caused some interesting times when the caster wasn't good at either billiards or distance estimation.

In my view that's a misuse of hit and miss terminology when applied to AoE effects, probably done in the interests of streamlining the rule set.

The very fact that they list a fireball as targeting the specific creatures within its AoE as opposed to targeting the AoE itself and just affecting everything in there seems wrong somehow. I don't think the intent was to make it a "smart bomb" where it only affected living things and left everything else unscathed, but why else would they do this?

As least magic missile never has to worry about doing damage on a miss.

1E fireballs can be very dangerous.

 

[Lanefan]

1E fireballs can be very dangerous.

And that's what makes them great!

 

[James Gasik]

Actually there was once a circumstance where a Fireball could "miss", and that's if you tried to send it through a narrow opening before it detonates, so you had to make an attack roll.

It was funny reading pages and pages of nerdfights about this in 3e. "So because you have to roll to hit with Fireball, you should be able to crit with it!".

Then lo and behold, in the next edition, you could crit with Fireball!

 

[pemerton]

Not quite. In 0-1-(2?)e fireballs expanded to fill a volume, thus in a confined area it was really easy to affect targets you didn't want to hit - including yourself, the caster. Lightning bolts also rebounded, which caused some interesting times when the caster wasn't good at either billiards or distance estimation.

These are not rules for mis-casting. They encourage the player to be very careful about placement, relying on the fact that there is no chance of not placing the spell where the player wants to.

The very fact that they list a fireball as targeting the specific creatures within its AoE as opposed to targeting the AoE itself and just affecting everything in there seems wrong somehow. I don't think the intent was to make it a "smart bomb" where it only affected living things and left everything else unscathed, but why else would they do this?

To distinguish from an attack against enemies.

4e's rules are clear; although there seem to be many critics in this thread who have not read them.

 

[cavalier973]

“Is it a hit?”

“Negative. Negative. It just impacted on the surface.”

 

[Red Castle]

Totally different situation. As it always has been.

So Damage on a Miss is okay in certain situation but not so in others, just like I said to Snarf. Could I dare say that the 'problem' is just when a Martial character use it?

 

[Red Castle]

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.

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.

No need for a particular word for that, just say 'the target is out of the AoE, or out of range'.

So the problem is not really the Damage on a Miss mechanic (because it's okay in certain situation) but simply the use of the word 'miss' that you decide to take literally, even if the designer took the time to explain that it is doesn't necessarily mean a total miss (when there is a miss effect).

The thing is, when they designed 4e, they decided to get rid of Saving throw. They instead decided to create 3 other type of defense: Fortitude, Reflex and Will. For the designer, it made the game more simple, now it's always the attacker that roll the dice, not sometimes the attacker, sometimes the defender. Keep it simple. But by doing so, they had to find a way for certain powers, like fireball, to always do damage, no matter if the attack roll hit or miss. Hence the creation of Damage on a Miss. Instead of the defender rolling if he completely dodge or not the effect, Now it's the attacker that roll if he fully hit or not. That was the solution to the removal of saving throw and the creation of different defense. So, in the parameter of 4e, a game without saving throw, knowing the intention to replace the use of saving throw, the Damage on a Miss does make sense.

As for the term used, I think, again, that they wanted to keep it simple and based it on if your roll hit or missed the target defense number. I think that 'failure' would have bring the same problem, being taken literally for some. I don't think there is a word that would fit perfectly the situation, so they simply picked one and explained what they really meant by that. They could have called it a 'Partial hit' I guess, but then I can already see the discussion. 'What's a partial hit?' 'It's when you miss.'... so better cut the middle man.

 

[Red Castle]

Fun fact, it looks like Damage on a Miss already exist in 5e.

Acid Arrow:
A shimmering green arrow streaks toward a target within range and bursts in a spray of acid. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 4d4 acid damage immediately and 2d4 acid damage at the end of its next turn. On a miss, the arrow splashes the target with acid for half as much of the initial damage and no damage at the end of its next turn.