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

[pemerton]

But, you're still getting hung up on the why. Why do people take this position? It doesn't really matter. The only point of asking why is to try to convince someone that their position is wrong.

I'm not interested in convincing other that they're wrong - I'm interested in refuting assertions that my game is incoherent, laden with cognitive gaps, etc.

I mean, I think I know what the "why" is - it's because AD&D looked at through the lens of 3E is taken to have established the paradigm of what a RPG is.

The GAME DEFINES this. Giants cannot knock someone down because the game says so. And if you believe that the game itself defines reality, then, there is no inconsistency. A human fighter can be run through multiple times because the game says that that's okay.

<sip>

Humans can't jump 30 feet because the tradition of the game says that they can't. Fireballs always hit because the tradition of the game says that they do. Weapons MUST have a chance of failure because tradition says they do.

I agree more with the second than the first part of this: because it's not that the game defines this - as has been quoted in this thread, 4e D&D has clear rules and definitions.

It's because a certain tradition is taken to be what RPGing is as such.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I'm not a fan of this either, as it implies that the arrow always misses by a short enough distance to splash acid onto the target. I also don't like that they've changed it to a burst of acid rather than the arrow injecting the acid into the target if it hit.

 

[Lanefan]

Honest question, believe me, it’s not a trap, I’m just curious. Would you be okay if the power was written like that:

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.

Only if it was coupled with the original hit-or-miss attack roll, as potential for extra damage on a hit.

If a weapon attack can't sometimes result in the defender taking 0 damage because the attack was so poorly done, I'm not interested.

I should note that I'm also a big advocate of having casters roll to aim their spells; and poor aim here can mean a lot fewer (or even none) of the intended targets were touched.

 

[Lanefan]

Granted, there can be attacks that armor is ineffective against, but D&D usually models those as magical, and if something can bypass an armor type, it was usually a bonus to the attack roll.

Or worse, "touch AC", lol. Which I don't miss, even if it seems odd to me that delivering a touch attack actually cares about what armor someone is wearing at times.

I always thought touch AC was one of 3e's better innovations. It's not like there aren't effects/buffs/harms in the game that are delivered by touch, and knowing how hard it is to touch someone is very handy - saves having to calculate it every time.

 

[pemerton]

If a weapon attack can't sometimes result in the defender taking 0 damage because the attack was so poorly done, I'm not interested.

This is an illustration of my point.

In D&D, there is no chance of a spell being recited so poorly that it doesn't work. There is no chance of dropping or spilling a potion that you try and drink during a fight. There is no chance of tripping on an uneven cobble stone while walking across a room, or jogging across the room during a fight.

D&D defaults to auto-success for all sorts of actions that - from real world experience - we know might go wrong.

These decisions about when to permit auto-success, when to insist on a chance of failure, etc, are about game conventions. 4e D&D is not incoherent or unrealistic or cognitive gap-laden because its fiction includes some attacks with swords or bows to be so fearsome that their target is always set back at least a little bit.

 

[Lanefan]

I think their point is, if that's okay for everything else, why not spells? Why are spells closed when everything else is defined-by-GM in how it plays out?

Probably because spells are far more open to exploits than any other aspect of the game, and thus need to be more fully nailed down in what they can and cannot do.

 

[Lanefan]

This is an illustration of my point.

In D&D, there is no chance of a spell being recited so poorly that it doesn't work.

Not any more. In 1e spellcasting was very easily interruptable, and an interrupted spell was lost.

There is no chance of dropping or spilling a potion that you try and drink during a fight. There is no chance of tripping on an uneven cobble stone while walking across a room, or jogging across the room during a fight.

D&D defaults to auto-success for all sorts of actions that - from real world experience - we know might go wrong.

D&D as written, maybe. That's why I kitbash things, to get that bit of realism in there where I can. I don't worry about the cobblestones if someone's walking normally but if you're trying to run across an uneven floor during a combat then yes, you'll roll a (very easy) Dex check to make it without stumbling.

These decisions about when to permit auto-success, when to insist on a chance of failure, etc, are about game conventions. 4e D&D is not incoherent or unrealistic or cognitive gap-laden because its fiction includes some attacks with swords or bows to be so fearsome that their target is always set back at least a little bit.

That's just it: not everyone is willing to subscribe to some of those underlying game conventions without some pushback.

 

[billd91]

I always thought touch AC was one of 3e's better innovations. It's not like there aren't effects/buffs/harms in the game that are delivered by touch, and knowing how hard it is to touch someone is very handy - saves having to calculate it every time.

I believe a modification AC for touch spells appeared in a Players Option: Spells and Magic. And it’s a potentially useful idea, but some vulnerabilities were also created, particularly when unbounded natural armor bonuses also appeared. Suddenly, powerful dragons with huge ACs were very easy to take out with Harm spells…

 

[Lanefan]

I believe a modification AC for touch spells appeared in a Players Option: Spells and Magic. And it’s a potentially useful idea, but some vulnerabilities were also created, particularly when unbounded natural armor bonuses also appeared. Suddenly, powerful dragons with huge ACs were very easy to take out with Harm spells…

Yeah, 3e both removed casting times and allowed combat casting, which is where many of these broken things arise. If you're within melee range of a massive dragon (which you have to be to touch it) and you cast a spell, your odds of getting that spell away should be pretty much zero (unless the draogn somehow doesn't know you're there).

The most common use for touch AC for me is when I'm DMing opponents who only have to touch you to do something nasty - incorporeal undead being the usual suspects here.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't think this is quite right. Clearly some of them think that high level human fighters can be run through many times by swords and not die, even though the rules for AD&D state the exact opposite.

And many seem to think that a giant can literally hit a person with a club yet that person not be knocked down.

I don't think the strong views are about what ordinary people can do. I think they are strong views about game conventions - as we have seen in this thread, such as the convention that a fireball must damage everyone in its AoE, or that a person who is attacked by a sword-wielding warrior must have a chance of taking no damage at all.

If you look around at any thread where someone says "hey I think Fighters should be more like mythical heroes", often citing Beowulf or Cu Chulainn, you'll see people rejecting the idea that martials could perform legendary feats. You can point out any of the already incredible feats they can perform (time dilation via Action Surge, regeneration via Second Wind, ability to get fight a dragon the size of a city bus effectively) until you're blue in the face, but the response you'll likely get is "unless the books say they are superhuman, they aren't".

I know, because I've tried to engage with those arguments, lol. Often the same people who hit you with the "Guy at a gym" fallacy are the ones who feel that magic should get a free pass, and it should be overpowered, because magic. But try to slap a little magic on their Fighter Bro, "just an ordinary guy in an extraordinary situation", and they start making comparisons to superhero fiction.

And getting back to this thread, I've lost count of how many times I've heard someone say 4e Fighters are basically spellcasters, usually zeroing in on one ability ("Come and Get It") and calling it mind control, instead of just taunting your opponent into doing something stupid.