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

[Hussar]

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

Not so much all RPG'ing, but, rather, what D&D is as such. And since most people here are primarily D&D gamers, D&D tends to be synonymous with RPGing. This is why these kinds of arguments generally don't happen outside of D&D - if you're playing Game X, then generally Game X will fall within an acceptable tradition for Game X. If you want something different, you simply change systems. Most people aren't going to use Call of Cthulhu to run a kingdom building game, for example.

But, D&D is a much, much larger tent.

 

[Hussar]

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.

And yet, funnily enough, the AD&D version of Melf's Acid Arrow simply could never miss:

By means of this spell, the wizard creates a magical arrow that speeds to its target as if
fired from the bow of a fighter of the same level as the wizard. No modifiers for range,
nonproficiency, or specialization are used. The arrow has no attack or damage bonus, but
it inflicts 2d4 points of acid damage (with saving throws for items on the target); there is
no splash damage. For every three levels that the caster has achieved, the acid, unless
somehow neutralized, lasts for another round, inflicting another 2d4 points of damage
each round. So at 3rd-5th level, the acid lasts two rounds; at 6th-8th level, the acid lasts
for three rounds, etc.
The material components of the spell are a dart, powdered rhubarb leaf, and an adder's
stomach.

So, even though it moves as if fired from a bow, it can never, ever miss. No saving throw. Basically an up powered version of Magic Missile.

So, adding splash damage is actually in keeping with the original tradition.

 

[Voadam]

And yet, funnily enough, the AD&D version of Melf's Acid Arrow simply could never miss:



So, even though it moves as if fired from a bow, it can never, ever miss. No saving throw. Basically an up powered version of Magic Missile.

So, adding splash damage is actually in keeping with the original tradition.

You are reading that very differently than I am.

"as if fired from the bow of a fighter of the same level as the wizard. No modifiers for range, nonproficiency, or specialization are used. The arrow has no attack or damage bonus."

That sounds like an arrow fired by a fighter except no attack modifiers for range, etc.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The whole issue here is you are trying to define in game events separate from the mechanics. Those that disagree with you will never do that. In game events are DEFINED by the game itself.

I think its a little more nuanced than that; they'll come up with rationales to explain the game mechanics, they won't just let the mechanics sit naked, but since they're comfortable with the D&D approach (for the most part; there are obviously cases like Lanefan or Micah who can't go the full way there) the rationales will be set up so it doesn't require significant reframing of what the game tells you mechanically, and for the most part, won't press on it hard.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Not really. If most of it is at the discretion of the GM, he has the same veto power here as anywhere else. Some players may not be fond of that, but I have no evidence the ones who care are fond of it outside of magic, either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not so much all RPG'ing, but, rather, what D&D is as such. And since most people here are primarily D&D gamers, D&D tends to be synonymous with RPGing. This is why these kinds of arguments generally don't happen outside of D&D - if you're playing Game X, then generally Game X will fall within an acceptable tradition for Game X. If you want something different, you simply change systems. Most people aren't going to use Call of Cthulhu to run a kingdom building game, for example.

But, D&D is a much, much larger tent.

Its not unknown outside of it with other large-object systems. Some are outright designed for it. Its just usually less a case of the core system having really strong baked in assumptions that look odd elsewhere.

 

[Kannik]

What I greatly prefer about the 5e approach is that it tends to skew towards the original design philosophy for D&D, which saw incompleteness as a virtue. Gygax made no bones about this: D&D (and even AD&D, though he was inconsistent about the latter) was what the players, and primarily the DMs, made of it. Whereas 4e is much more constrained.

To use an analogy, to me, 5e feels like a really big box of random lego. I can buy lego kits (adventures) to help me make things, or I can just have at it. 4e felt like one of those kits where you are really expected to follow the directions.

That's an amusing analogy, and I'd guess your experience is different from my experience with the groups I played in. Especially given that Lego is brilliant because it both has a 'thing' and then you can remake it into all sorts of other things, especially as you combine it with other things. One of my groups very much found 4e liberating compared to what the 3e framework had become. And the base campaign locations and even planar material was very background-y and ripe for player and DM insertion.

To get a sense of which vein you're pointing to, what bits are incomplete in 1e that you think are not incomplete in 4e, and were re-incompleted in 5e?

 

[Kannik]

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…

I took out a dragon in 3e with a 1st level discipline psionic power due to it attacking touch AC...

(To be clear, I spammed that discipline over and over again until I was out of psi points, and due to touch AC I was reliably able to whittle it down... )

 

[Kannik]

You are reading that very differently than I am.

"as if fired from the bow of a fighter of the same level as the wizard. No modifiers for range, nonproficiency, or specialization are used. The arrow has no attack or damage bonus."

That sounds like an arrow fired by a fighter except no attack modifiers for range, etc.

That is my recollection as well. The Mage got to use the Fighter Attack Matrix for this one attack, with the added bonus of no range penalty and etc.

 

[billd91]

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).

Eh, Harm was always a combat spell and casting times aren’t particularly off since the spell can be cast in a round in both 1e and 3e. 3e added a saving throw, but the chances of dumping a dragon with hundreds of hit points down to 1d4 hit points in one go was VERY attractive since he was absolutely cake to hit with his sub-10 touch AC.