4e / GSL WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[billd91]

Originally Posted by tomBitonti

rofl

EDIT: I think that was a classic dungeon. A question: How well does that dungeon convert to 3.5E? To 4E?

It is a classic dungeon. Converted to 3e, it works just fine. I tried it on my players and it played very much like 1e when it debuted.
One difference was in dealing with spellcasters. Because there are some spellcasters who don't need to sleep to regain casting ability and some arcane casters who don't need spellbooks, I had to come up with a different way to gimp their spells. Fortunately, 3e had the perfect solution: ability damage.
I had the captured spellcasters kept in a largly drugged state that inflicted Int, Wis, and Cha damage. They had recovered enough to have 11 in their prime casting stat and so had 0th and 1st level spells available. And they had the potential to find a scroll of lesser restoration to get one caster up to better power later on.
The mod played out like a dream.

For what it's worth, I don't see it playing out at all the same with 4e. Too much is inherent, usable with any weapon (including a fist), and available no matter what shape the PC is in. The whole module would require substantial conceptual rebuild.

[Spatula]

Originally Posted by billd91

For what it's worth, I don't see it playing out at all the same with 4e. Too much is inherent, usable with any weapon (including a fist), and available no matter what shape the PC is in. The whole module would require substantial conceptual rebuild.

The difference between using, say, a 3[w] attack with a +3 fullblade vs a fist is pretty damn dramatic. Like -6 to hit, -12 damage dramatic, without getting into bonuses from feats.

The issue (as with your 3e version) is spellcasters, who don't really need anything except LOS to use most of their abilities. The lack of their implement would hurt, but not nearly as much as weapon users would be penalized.

[gribble]

Originally Posted by ehren37

I actually like the concept of healing surges, if not the execution. In 3rd edition, Wands of cure light wounds are so cheap that out of combat healing may as well be free past 5th level or so.

Don't get me wrong, I agree 100%. I didn't like the fact that in 3e, once the party got access to wands of cure light wounds they basically always had full HP.

My point was in regards to the 10 minute adventuring day. A big deal was made about how 4e "solved" this problem, but IME it has only made it worse. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though I do wish people who should know better (like Rob) would stop trumpeting this point.

My experience has been that for anything other than very low level play (levels 1-4), the adventuring day in 4e is a lot shorter than it ever was in 3e.

I think the best solution I've seen to this problem so far has been in Trailblazer. It's a good compromise between the 4e and 3e system, IMO.

[gribble]

Originally Posted by catsclaw227

This is the case for us, but we still go 4-6 encounters. Maybe the DM is throwing too many "hard" encounters and not enough "easy" and "normal" ones?

We're running through the WotC adventures at the moment - almost finished P2. Now WotC isn't really great shakes when it comes to fun and interesting adventures, but one thing they do manage to do fairly well is designing challenging yet balanced encounters. So I find it hard to believe it's a problem with the encounter design.

Things hit new heights of absurdity with this weeks game. After one encounter (I won't say which, for sake of spoilers, but it involved wights), our parties defenders were both out of healing surges. So after one encounter, and with the majority of our dailies still in hand, we had to stop for the day.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by MerricB

I'm sorry; this is just so ludicrously wrong I had to pull it out.

Have you actually read or played 4e? It sure looks like you haven't.

Could you please show me where in the 4e books the fighter can...

...cast a fireball with a 100 ft range that deals damage to everyone in a 35'x35' square.
...create a web with a 100 ft range that immobilizes everyone in a 25'x25' square.

It's like saying "the 1e magic-user can cast magic-missile. Magic missile deals damage. The 1e fighter swings a sword. The sword deals damage. Therefore the magic-user and fighter are the same."

You are missing my point. In 1e, the magic-user was the only class that could cast magic missile. Magic missile clearly worked differently than a fighter swinging a sword. The M-U just had to have the spell memorized. The fighter had to hit before any damage was dealt.

I've played 4e and found it to be mind-numbingly dull. What every class can do with its powers reads like a copy of every other class.

Let's look at the four core classes from 4e:

Cleric: Priest's Shield and Righteous Brand both do 1[W] + Str damage. Lance of Faith and Sacred Flame both do damage (1d8, 1d6) + Wis modifier.

Fighter: Cleave does 1[W] + Str, as does Reaping Strike. Pretty much all of the fighter's powers do some multiple of x[W] damage. Looks pretty similar to Priest's Shield and Righteous Brand.

Rogue: Yep, they do x[W] damage, but with a Dex bonus instead of strength

Wizard: Gee - they do d[x] + Int damage on most of their spells, just like many of the Cleric's powers except with an Int bonus instead of Wis.

The only differences between the classes seems to be the secondary effects of each power and what attribute to use for bonus damage.

Because they've made great pains to "balance" every class against every other class, they are all, to me, equally boring.

1e/2e/BECMI/OD&D were quirky with seemingly arbitrary reasons for the differences in the way that each class executed their abilities, but those differences are the reason why it wasn't boring.

To express it a different way, would you want a pilot to operate a 737 or Airbus the same way he would an F-16? After all, the airline pilot should have as much fun as the fighter pilot, right? Different objectives, different ways of doing things - to the point that sometimes it makes no sense to have both of them operate exactly the same.

[Ariosto]

I think I've made it amply clear that (at least in "D&D" terms) I do not share Rob's design goals.

However, I am pretty impressed by how well he and the rest of the team designed the game to accomplish those goals.

I strongly suspect that if such issues as the "short adventuring day" are still significant, then that is probably due more to the assumptions and habitual strategies of players than to rigid game-mechanical factors.

[FireLance]

Originally Posted by 3catcircus

You are missing my point. In 1e, the magic-user was the only class that could cast magic missile. Magic missile clearly worked differently than a fighter swinging a sword. The M-U just had to have the spell memorized. The fighter had to hit before any damage was dealt.

I think you are mistaking similarity in resolution mechanic for similarity in effect. A 1e fighter swinging a sword and a 1e magic-user casting magic missile had different resolution mechanics, but they had essentially the same effect: damage is dealt.

4e attack powers may have similar resolution mechanics and may all deal similar amounts of damage, but their effects can be quite different.

Cleric at-will attacks help an ally in addition to dealing damage, by providing an attack bonus, an AC bonus, temporary hit points or a saving throw.

Fighter at-will attacks push opponents around, deal damage to a secondary opponent, or deal damage even on a miss.

Rogue at-will attacks allow the rogue to move before attacking, ignore the opponent's armor, and retaliate against an opponent's attack.

In addition to the iconic magic missile, wizard at-will attacks target multiple opponents, slow them, or temporarily create hazardous areas which will damage those who enter them.

Yes, all of these attacks can be used at will, they all require an attack roll, and they all deal damage. However, saying that they are all the same is like saying that since two people are both sitting at computers and typing on keyboards to produce words on screen, the contents of their posts must be the same.

[Piratecat]

Originally Posted by Plane Sailing

I've just looked at three pages of thinly veiled edition wars and some pretty snarky comments all round. Not very good going.

Either the thread gets back on track or it gets closed.

Thanks

Closed it goes.