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

[Ondath]

There's a definite design tension here between what's most playable and usable for reference at the table and what's helpful and gives the DM ideas for scenario design and non-combat use of different monsters and NPCs.

Micah and others have said that they really found the longer 2E and 3E write-ups useful in terms of defining how these monsters could interact with the world, not merely how they fight the PCs. And I'll agree, so did I. Your example of the Marileth creating zombies is a great one. That's genuinely helpful for worldbuilding and scenario design.

But on the other hand 3E statblocks and the design of making them follow the same rules as PCs as far as skill points and feats and everything got insanely unwieldy and long. They were the antithesis of useful at the table. 4E statblocks were an incredible, blessed relief after them, even though I missed some of that longer detail and those noncombat abilities when brainstorming and writing scenarios.

It might be an impossible task to find the perfect middle ground, because different DMs want and need different things.

I know this is basically impossible to do for a profit-seeking company that will want to limit the number of pages for its books, but why can't we have both? Have a stat block that's designed in a compact and easy to read manner that only shows the combat-relevant details, and also have a "monster file" that gives all of its lore and out-of-combat capabilities. Not necessarily like the walls of text in the 5E DMG, mind you, but more like the larger capabilities of a monster beyond what would come up in combat, brought together in a second, also well-designed block. I feel like that'd satisfy both the simulationists and the gamists.

 

[Voadam]

I know this is basically impossible to do for a profit-seeking company that will want to limit the number of pages for its books, but why can't we have both? Have a stat block that's designed in a compact and easy to read manner that only shows the combat-relevant details, and also have a "monster file" that gives all of its lore and out-of-combat capabilities. Not necessarily like the walls of text in the 5E DMG, mind you, but more like the larger capabilities of a monster beyond what would come up in combat, brought together in a second, also well-designed block. I feel like that'd satisfy both the simulationists and the gamists.

Looking at the 3.0 versus 3.5 pit fiend, most of what was cut were lower level combat spell abilities and some spell combat options. Detect good and detect magic are the most non combat things. No suggestion, charm, or polymorph are the biggest things that can be both combat and noncombat. So pit fiends no longer polymorph into people with detect good and at will suggestion, they are more consistently Lord of the Rings Balor types.

3.0: At will: animate dead, blasphemy, charm person, create undead, desecrate, detect good, detect magic, dispel magic, fireball, hold person, improved invisibility, magic circle against good, major image, produce flame, polymorph self, pyrotechnics, suggestion, teleport without error (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), unholy aura, unhallow, and wall of fire; 1/day-meteor swarm (any) and symbol (any).

3.5: At will—blasphemy (DC 25), create undead, fireball (DC 21), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster (DC 27), persistent image (DC 23), power word stun, unholy aura (DC 26); 1/day—meteor swarm (DC 27).

 

[Blue]

I wouldn't be shocked if that "odd/even" mechanic came from Rob Heinsoo, since a similar mechanic exists (to general dislike) in 13th Age.

If by "general dislike" you mean "my own personal opinion that isn't widely shared" then I believe it. However I'm playtesting 13th Age 2nd edition and those type of mechanics are still in there strong, the exact opposite than if there had been a "general unlike" for the mechanic where they'd be replacing it.

 

[overgeeked]

He went overboard in his initial claims and made a false claim when he opined that 4E uniquely divorced power recovery from rest or verisimilitude, but I can see now what he actually meant, and it's more defensible and accurate than his initial statements.

4E discussion with inaccurate exaggeration? Never.

So the closest linkage to a shared cool down that I can think of in 4e is the 1/day daily max a character can use from any magic items.

Basically, yes.

 

[Mannahnin]

I know this is basically impossible to do for a profit-seeking company that will want to limit the number of pages for its books, but why can't we have both? Have a stat block that's designed in a compact and easy to read manner that only shows the combat-relevant details, and also have a "monster file" that gives all of its lore and out-of-combat capabilities. Not necessarily like the walls of text in the 5E DMG, mind you, but more like the larger capabilities of a monster beyond what would come up in combat, brought together in a second, also well-designed block. I feel like that'd satisfy both the simulationists and the gamists.

I think that's a great question.

And I don't think "profit seeking company that will want to limit the number of pages" is necessarily a factor. You only want to limit page count to cut costs if you don't think you'll be able to charge more. In fantasy fiction publishing it's a famous issue that publishers PREFER to print big doorstoppers of books because there seems to be an expectation/preference among readers for big long novels, not the short stories and novellas of the pulp era.

And in practice we've seen something similar play out with D&D, where Wizards prefers to publish big hardcovers, and smaller third party publishers are the folks printing zines and small modules nowadays.

I think this could be a great basis for a new monster manual. Split monster statblocks into the "run at the table" compact form and include an expanded paragraph or two of info and abilities and skills which are primarily for non-combat and scenario design use.

 

[Dausuul]

I know this is basically impossible to do for a profit-seeking company that will want to limit the number of pages for its books, but why can't we have both? Have a stat block that's designed in a compact and easy to read manner that only shows the combat-relevant details, and also have a "monster file" that gives all of its lore and out-of-combat capabilities. Not necessarily like the walls of text in the 5E DMG, mind you, but more like the larger capabilities of a monster beyond what would come up in combat, brought together in a second, also well-designed block. I feel like that'd satisfy both the simulationists and the gamists.

At one point, I recall they were trying an approach where a creature's primary combat spells and spell-equivalents had the essential mechanics spelled out (heh) in the statblock, while the others were just listed off.

I don't know if that's still the plan, but it seems like a good solution to me. The marilith has its full range of magical abilities, and the DM can delve into them where appropriate; but when you just want to toss the party into a demonic Cuisinart, the statblock is self-sufficient for a straight-up fight.

(Of course, that still leaves the question of where to put abilities that don't map neatly onto spells, but after these last couple of playtests, I assume they'll just turn them into spells anyway.)

 

[Alzrius]

So, what is Project Cornerstone? And was there mention of revenue gained from D&D Insider?

I don't recall any specific mentions made of how much revenue DDI generated. As for Project Cornerstone...this is why it's better to post summaries of these seminars ASAP, rather than a week later, because I'm having a bit of a hard time recalling that part (hence why it's not in my original list of bullet points).

I think that was the code name for what eventually became Gleemax, but it might be worthwhile to ask @darjr to double-check me on that one.

 

[Alzrius]

3.0's glass cannon outsider spell like ability platforms versus the 3.5 beefed up combat stat bruiser ones who can fight better at their CR class but have stripped down magic.

The funny thing is that even in 3.5, the creatures with big lists of spell-like abilities (SLAs) were quite often not the combat monsters their CR presented them as being.

Sort of.

If you ever picked up a copy of Bad Axe Games' Trailblazer: Teratologue (affiliate link) – which was a monster book companion to Trailblazer, their own attempt at a 3.75 edition – you likely noticed that they made an interesting notation regarding the monsters' CR. Specifically, it noted that they'd used the work of Craig Cochrane (our very own @Upper_Krust), who had taken the idea that a monster's CR was the aggregate total of everything in its stat block to its natural conclusion, devising an intricate breakdown that assigned a numerical value to each aspect of a monster's stats (i.e. Hit Dice, Base Attack Bonus, feats, skill bonuses, movement types, etc.), all of which cumulatively added up to its CR.

Now, the Teratologue didn't reproduce U_K's work in full, but instead adjusted the monsters' CRs accordingly. However, it included a certain takeaway from it: all of the monsters in the book had their total CR, but also a "spine CR" listed.

The "spine CR" was the Challenge Rating that a monster had by taking into account only the "spine" of its stat block, which was the term that Bad Axe Games used for the core features such as Hit Dice, Base Attack Bonus, melee and ranged attacks, saving throws, and one or two other things. The idea there was that the spine CR was an accurate measurement for how dangerous a creature was if you treated it like a brawler; that it ran up to the party and just started making attacks for all it was worth.

For plenty of monsters, the spine CR and the total CR were virtually identical. A bulette or a dire bear aren't going to do much besides move up and make attacks each round. But for creatures with large amounts of SLAs (or actual spells, for that matter) the differences between the spine CR and the total CR were often dramatic. The pit fiend (which was virtually identical to the 3.5 pit fiend), with a total CR of 20, had a spine CR of...9.75. Which is to say, by having it plant its feet and slug it out with a 20th-level fighter, the pit fiend was going to absolutely get its ass kicked in short order.

Total CR takes everything into account, and for creatures with large lists of SLAs, those make up a considerable portion of that number. So if they act like casters first and foremost, before eventually closing to melee, you get the full "value" of the encounter. But if you have them move in and ignore their SLAs, then it shouldn't be surprising that they're not going to have as much oomph as their total CR would suggest.

It really made for fascinating reading, and it's a shame that the concept (and the book) isn't wider known today.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The 5e DMG also gives the option of making short rests every DAY.

That's because the 5e is not tightly proscribed, unlike 4e. And it ignores almost everything in 4e about short rests marking the boundaries between encounters.

I do appreciate the idea that 5e and 4e are exactly the same, which ... I mean, sure, that's definitely a thought. But that is an insult to both the great design of 4e, as well as the different design in 5e. But, you know, you do you.

I think you could be a bit more charitable here. It's pretty obvious that they meant that they don't see much difference between a 4e 5-minute rest and a 5e 1-hour-but-you-can-change-it-willy-nilly rest, not that they see no difference in the editions as a whole.

While you're absolutely right about what the difference IS, I think it's clear that that difference is more subjective on whether it counts as "fundamental" or "not a big deal".

I mean, now that I understand why YOU think it's a big deal, I'm inclined to tip my hat to your point, but at the same time - to me, it made very little difference to how I run the game, then or now.

The hour part of 5e makes a bigger difference! (In that, I find it much harder to find a spot in my narrative where the PCs can choose to take an hour's break, where they couldn't just choose to take an 8 hour long rest - but that's an entirely different issue.)

 

[Voadam]

The funny thing is that even in 3.5, the creatures with big lists of spell-like abilities (SLAs) were quite often not the combat monsters their CR presented them as being.

Yes, even the beefier 3.5 outsiders are still essentially multiclassed bruiser spellcasters. Not as vulnerable as a straight mage spellcaster of the same CR, more magical options and tricks than a straight tanked out melee combatant of the same CR. For the CR system to work they have to be a bit weaker in casting and throw down melee than either the straight casters or the straight bruisers doing those specialties alone. The 3.5 CR 20 pit fiend can throw a meteor swarm once a day and a fireball at will, which is a nice ranged area of effect, but a 10d6 fireball is going to do 35 damage save for 17 (or none for rogues and monks) before any fire resistance, so not that big a deal at CR 20. A CR 20 mage can do multiple meteor swarms and then 8th level spells once they run out. Still, being able to do a meteor swarm, that adds on to their threat so that plus their melee prowess should come out to CR20, which means you expect their melee prowess to be less than something designed just for melee at CR 20.

Dragons with their big magic have a bit of the same issue in 3.5.

4e took the route of mechanically making monsters focus on their combat role, so either artillery or brute or lurker, etc. with a few signature flavor things for the specific monster type. So essentially not multiclassing outsiders.