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

[James Gasik]

Coming off of 3.5, there was a strong "RAW is sacred" sentiment among D&D players, many of whom were resistant to DM's just arbitrarily changing the rules. So I can certainly see that even if the books explicitly said (and they did) you could make houserules, why players (and even some DM's) would reject them.

(A good example of this was spells that dealt fire damage saying they targeted creatures but not objects, or were silent about environmental damage. The books did in fact tell the DM that you can certainly allow someone to light things on fire with a fire spell, but that the rules for most powers were written with their intended use case in mind- combat. The DMG had, however, examples of how much damage things in the environment could do, like lighting things on fire.

But you know, maybe "nobody reads the DMG" isn't a uniquely 5e thing.)

Some people say this was player entitlement "how dare you nerf my power" or a reaction to DM overreach "I don't like that your character can do this thing in my game so you can't". Like with most things, it was somewhere in the middle.

 

[Red Castle]

One could argue that all those explanations are there so you know why you shouldn't change anything. That was the impression I got.

I’m always amaze how two person can read and interpret two completely different things from the same text, or focus on different parts of the text.

For me, the first part saying that house rules add fun to your games by making them unique, can serve as handy patch for rules that you don’t like and ackowledging that the DnD rules can’t cover every possible situations so you should feel free to make your own is pretty much them encouraging players and DMs to make their own rules or modifications. They then proceed to tell you what to look for and warn you of some traps (I’ve seen my fair share of house rules that make no sense or break the game, not just in rpg but boardgames too).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m always amaze how two person can read and interpret two completely different things from the same text, or focus on different parts of the text.

For me, the first part saying that house rules add fun to your games by making them unique, can serve as handy patch for rules that you don’t like and ackowledging that the DnD rules can’t cover every possible situations so you should feel free to make your own is pretty much them encouraging players and DMs to make their own rules or modifications. They then proceed to tell you what to look for and warn you of some traps (I’ve seen my fair share of house rules that make no sense or break the game, not just in rpg but boardgames too).

I'm glad it worked for you. Given that the entire design philosophy of 4e rubbed me the wrong way, I likely wouldn't have bothered changing the rules even if I thought the game encouraged it.

 

[tomBitonti]

Come and Get It Fighter Attack 7
Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action
Close Burst 3

Target: Each enemy you can see in the burst
Attack: Strength vs. Will
Hit: You pull the target up to 2 squares to an adjacent square. If the target is adjacent to you after the pull, it takes 1[W] damage.

Errata

This power was updated in the class compendium.

• It was changed from Strength vs. AC to Strength vs. Will.
• Creatures are no longer automatically forced to shift towards you, and are instead pulled on a hit.
• The damage was reduced from 1[W] + Strength modifier damage to 1[W] damage.

Targets which have a movement of 0 or 1 squares, or which are paralyzed or entangled, or sleeping, are moved.

An incorporeal target, with which the fighter has no means to physically interact, is moved.

Targets which are unaware of the attacker are moved. An invisible, silenced, fighter can use this power.

TomB

 

[Gammadoodler]

Elementals in general have long been a sticking point in D&D. How do you punch something made of air? Grapple something made of fire? Should you be able to burn a water elemental?

Can elementals wield weapons or pick up objects? Wear armor? I don't think any edition has really addressed these points in a satisfactory manner, often leaving it entirely up to the DM to figure out what makes sense to them.

It's that way with a lot of things in D&D if you apply a 'real world' lens to it. Worse, it's not like people will apply the same lens to everything, or that two people will look through that lens and reach the same conclusions. Can centaurs climb, how do giants get around square/cube laws, how does a regular human survive a fall of x height? Do elves, dwarves, and halflings fall the same way as humans? Does a fireball work underwater?

So what are designers to do? Try and accommodate the vast, diverse, inconsistent and sometimes conflicting interpretations of fantasy biomechanical physical and metaphysical interactions ?

Or build a set of mechanics that works, and trust that players will figure out how to reconcile their own personal inconsistencies for the sake of playing the game?

I think this is where quite a bit of an irreconcilable divide exists.

 

[pemerton]

But again, it is also with some people the fact it worked on things that to them it seemed like it shouldn't. Its the "tripping the slime" problem all over again.

I am aware of this.

From the fact, though, that X cannot imagine how a skilled warrior might wrongfoot a zombie it doesn't follow that CaGI is telepathy. I mean, do these people also have zombies being immune to trip attacks in 3E D&D?

 

[pemerton]

It's been years, but I seem to recall that some of the issue with Come and Get It came down to to it targeting AC originally, before it was errata'd?

CaGI as published (which is how my table always played it) pulls the targets adjacent, and then permits an attack vs AC.

The pull is the fighter luring, taunting or wrongfooting them in. The attack is the fighter then walloping them all.

 

[pemerton]

I remember some early discussion/posting by Mearls or somebody about I think whether a flame power could set things alight, something with a door and a lock?

You are remembering Chris Perkins running a session where someone tried to use Faerie Fire to burn down a door.

Anyway, the DMG has a discussion of setting things alight with fire powers, on pp 65-66.

 

[Micah Sweet]

CaGI as published (which is how my table always played it) pulls the targets adjacent, and then permits an attack vs AC.

The pull is the fighter luring, taunting or wrongfooting them in. The attack is the fighter then walloping them all.

The pull works regardless of circumstance, so long as the target is within range and fails their save. They could be on a castle wall, behind a rock, a wizard with zero chance of taking the fighter in melee, it doesn't matter. The rules always trump the fiction in 4e. That's always been the problem.

 

[Manbearcat]

Every creature that possesses proprioception, the ability to triangulate and perceive motion/angles and other objects in space, and the ability to move itself through that space possesses some kind of neurology (even if extraordinarily primitive by human standards) and related infrastructure in order to achieve that perception and movement.

Just "discombobulate" that infrastructure via moving it adversely/suddenly (whatever). The creature momentarily can't detect itself/others/move appropriately in space. Its faculties are compromised until resolved. It can't emit its soundwaves or detect or resolve their reflections or perturbations through the earth...or whatever. Done.

This isn't that hard. You don't even have to use your imagination that much. Physical systems of perception and motion can get compromised by momentary collisions or otherwise adverse orientation.

Why are we making this difficult? Why, after 15 years, are we still making this difficult?