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

[payn]

Upthread there was a suggestion that 5e D&D does not have hard-coded roles for PCs. I'm curious about where the functional contrast lies.

In 4e I can build a "fighter" whose main role is healing and buffing allies - it's called a Warlord, but in 5e terms is a fighter (STR-based, weapon-and-armour user).

This is exactly what I was talking about. Hard coded classes have a "stay in your lane" design. PF2, oddly enough, is also designed this way. Hybrid multiclassing, also used in PF2, keeps you on the path with a little taste of another class. In 3E/5E you can just take a level of cleric/bard/etc with your fighter to get some healing.

And a thief with battlefield control would use (say) Positioning Strike, Blinding Barrage, Bait and Switch, Walking Wounded, Sand in the Eyes, Knockout, etc.

The first quote was mostly mechanical in ability, the second quote above is about the application. The tactical nature of the game needs you to mark, push,etc.. I think of it like bump, set, and spike. You need to fulfill your bump/set/spike role for the team to succeed. The application in 3E/5E dont require this, although you can apply it to better effect if you choose. You get to choose, however, which is the point im making. PF2 has also leaned in this hard coded stay in your lane tactical combat direction.

 

[Aldarc]

This is exactly what I was talking about. Hard coded classes have a "stay in your lane" design. PF2, oddly enough, is also designed this way. Hybrid multiclassing, also used in PF2, keeps you on the path with a little taste of another class. In 3E/5E you can just take a level of cleric/bard/etc with your fighter to get some healing.

"Stay in your lane" seems like the opposite conclusion that I personally would have drawn from several people in this thread talking about how 4e classes often had secondary or tertiary roles outside of their primary one. That seems to defy what I would consider "stay in your lane" design.

 

[Autumnal]

“What the heck happened with 4th Edition?”

A game got made. I’m glad it did.

No further questions, Your Honor.

 

[payn]

"Stay in your lane" seems like the opposite conclusion that I personally would have drawn from several people in this thread talking about how 4e classes often had secondary or tertiary roles outside of their primary one. That seems to defy what I would consider "stay in your lane" design.

Secondary and tertiary combined with hybrid multiclassing seems very much in a lane compared to other systems. Clearly, our miles have varied.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

This is exactly what I was talking about. Hard coded classes have a "stay in your lane" design. PF2, oddly enough, is also designed this way. Hybrid multiclassing, also used in PF2, keeps you on the path with a little taste of another class. In 3E/5E you can just take a level of cleric/bard/etc with your fighter to get some healing.

I think it's because multiclassing easily can screw up balance. If you make sure conventional a'la carte multiclassing is off the table, then you can create classes with wilder features without running into odd balance issues.

 

[payn]

I think it's because multiclassing easily can screw up balance. If you make sure conventional a'la carte multiclassing is off the table, then you can create classes with wilder features without running into odd balance issues.

Only the front loading, which has never really bothered me. Honestly, multiclassing has always felt like giving up overall power for versatility. That is, if you discount prestige classes of 3E and its unbounded accuracy mess. I'd place the issues more on that than the open multiclass process.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Only the front loading, which has never really bothered me. Honestly, multiclassing has always felt like giving up overall power for versatility. That is, if you discount prestige classes of 3E and its unbounded accuracy mess. I'd place the issues more on that than the open multiclass process.

I won't speak of 5e, but in 3e at least non-spellcasting multiclassing almost always benefited in in both power and versatility. I think given how relatively meaty some low level class features there were, you're underweighting frontloading.

 

[payn]

I won't speak of 5e, but in 3e at least non-spellcasting multiclassing almost always benefited in in both power and versatility. I think given how relatively meaty some low level class features there were, you're underweighting frontloading.

Eh, I'm pretty familiar with 3E/PF1 I'm gonna needs some good examples of this. I mean, the most popular dips are considered the most underpowered classes. Does 1-2 feats from fighter make you overpowered? Getting evasion from 2 levels of Rogue or Monk? Even the tier 1 classes are not considered powerful dips because of limited spell casting like cleric/wizard.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I recall looking into 4e shortly after starting with 5e, and mostly being turned off by the power presentation being so different. I've been thinking of giving the PHB another go recently, but I've heard a lot that the math was all broken on release, so never really felt like it was worth the trouble, mostly just focusing on PF2, that seems pretty similar.

 

[Aldarc]

Secondary and tertiary combined with hybrid multiclassing seems very much in a lane compared to other systems. Clearly, our miles have varied.

It feels like the goalposts have now been shifted from arguing that it is design that restricts a character class to one lane (i.e., "stay in your lane") to argue simply that classes exist within in a lane at all.