D&D General New Interview with Rob Heinsoo About 4E

[Belen]

So because you choose not to use a piece of information no one should ever be given it? You don't think that if someone wants to make sure that the party has a protective front line or a combat medic there is any value in spending literally a word or two pointing this out to those that want it?

You can have both in 5e if you choose. Healing word is a bonus action and multiple classes can take it if they want.

I do not force the party in my games to take certain roles or have certain abilities. I craft the campaign to suit the party that I have on hand. Right now, my current game has a dwarf barbarian/monk, a fighter rune knight, a circle of the land druid, and a circle of the moon druid.

I do not think of the "role" people play and I rarely see players think in terms such as tank, dps, or healer.

 

[Belen]

What you seem to be specifically arguing for here, in terms of your example of a fighter being able to prevent multiple enemies from simply going around them, is an excellent illustration of what I didn't like about 4e: the extent to which it tried to realize MMORPG dynamics in a TTRPG setting.

Basically, the ability of the defender, or "tank" to hold aggro while the rest of the party acts with relative impunity. I hate that about MMORPG fights. I recognize that it is to some extent necessary, given the limitations imposed by the medium, but it always feels so dumb that the healer is spamming heals, the DPS are doing huge numbers, and the boss just keeps pounding uselessly away on the tank. I don't want even a lite form of that in my TTRPGs. As DM, I want to play my antagonists as believably as I can, and in most cases that means they will definitely try to get at the wizard in the back and it is up to the party to figure out how to handle that.

This.

It makes no sense that a bunch of bandits are going to focus on the guy none of them can hit while the other folks slaughter them.

Smart enemies will focus on the person they feel is the top threat to them. A taunt mechanic does not make a ton of sense in an RPG unless you are playing it for the tactical combat.

 

[overgeeked]

This.

It makes no sense that a bunch of bandits are going to focus on the guy none of them can hit while the other folks slaughter them.

Smart enemies will focus on the person they feel is the top threat to them. A taunt mechanic does not make a ton of sense in an RPG unless you are playing it for the tactical combat.

Exactly. People living in a fantasy world with wizards, dragons, clerics, and gods are not going to be confused about the weakling in the robes throwing fireballs being the most dangerous person on the field. They’re also not going to be dumb enough to just stand in front of an unhittable target pointlessly hacking away.

 

[Minigiant]

This.

It makes no sense that a bunch of bandits are going to focus on the guy none of them can hit while the other folks slaughter them.

Smart enemies will focus on the person they feel is the top threat to them. A taunt mechanic does not make a ton of sense in an RPG unless you are playing it for the tactical combat.

The 4e Fighters mark was a physical barrier as a body block or brutal undeniable strikes.

The 4e Paladin's mark is a magical enchantment.

The Warden uses thorns and stones to slow the bandits.

The Swordmage teleports themselves or the bandits into melee.

There were very few MMO taunts in 4e and they were optional

 

[Belen]

So how do you pick your class and subclass, which ASi to get, and how do you decide what to do if a fight breaks out?

Generally, I have a character concept in mind. For instance, if I ever get to play again, then I want to play a holy warrior. I have never gotten to play a Paladin. For me, it starts with the RP aspects. What type of person/hero do I want to play? It would be Devotion, Glory, Ancients, or Crown in the case of the Paladin.

I have not even looked at their abilities yet. I just read the flavor text to see what type of Holy Warrior I may want to RP.

Once I choose, then I will look at the stats and combat. The style is probably going to suit the RP aspects I want.

I just do not consider combat until I have picked who I want to play in the game.

 

[Belen]

Of course you could ... just not spending months doing the same fight. It's doing the same fight with the same characters that makes things samey, irrespective of the existence of roles. Why do you expect 4e fights to be the same twice? Each done half-competently should present a different tactical challenge.

And this is what makes 5e combat far far more repetitive than 4e in my experience. With minimal forced movement in 5e almost all environments are basically the same - backdrops with places marked where you don't stand. And with no flanking, minimal setting the ground on fire (don't stand in the fire!), and a ludicrous number of foes doing almost exactly the same numbers in melee as at range (spells forcing saves being unchanged, a scimitar doing the same damage for a Dex based character as a shortbow, and a javelin at least using the same stat as a great club) and minimal "Melee AoE" the effect of tactics is minimised.

And 4e was wonderful for giving folks that tactical challenge. The entire edition was focused on that style of play to the detriment of all other styles.

I hated it. I am not a fan 3.5/PF13, 4e tactical maneuvering with combats that take 1-3 hours.

I am not a dungeon crawl type of DM and I like D&D when the system is broad and flexible enough to serve multiple styles of play.

 

[Belen]

The 4e Fighters mark was a physical barrier as a body block or brutal undeniable strikes.

The 4e Paladin's mark is a magical enchantment.

The Warden uses thorns and stones to slow the bandits.

The Swordmage teleports themselves or the bandits into melee.

There were very few MMO taunts in 4e and they were optional

Funny enough, I have seen all of that in 5e except the Fighter's mark.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Basically, the ability of the defender, or "tank" to hold aggro while the rest of the party acts with relative impunity. I hate that about MMORPG fights. I recognize that it is to some extent necessary, given the limitations imposed by the medium, but it always feels so dumb that the healer is spamming heals, the DPS are doing huge numbers, and the boss just keeps pounding uselessly away on the tank. I don't want even a lite form of that in my TTRPGs. As DM, I want to play my antagonists as believably as I can, and in most cases that means they will definitely try to get at the wizard in the back and it is up to the party to figure out how to handle that.

And to me this is objecting to something because it superficially resembles something else. I hate MMO taunts - they are mind control.

A 4e mark isn't mind control - it's changing the consequences. Probably the clearest (although not the most realistic) is the paladin mark. "I am going to magically challenge you. You can still ignore me - but if you do attack someone you are slightly distracted and get hurt a little by divine power". The marked creature knows this and then gets to choose in a realistic way whether it's worth taking the damage. The answer is frequently "yes. That's not much damage". (Where the paladin excels is challenging an entire horde all at once, all of whom get to make this choice).

The fighter's class ability meanwhile says "I am a badass, I am in your face, and I am already taking advantage of the smallest gaps in your guard. Do you really want to risk not giving me your full attention?" And realistically sometimes, but not often, the answer is yes and my monsters do that. Less often than for the paladin because it hits harder.

What about the fighter being both in someone's face and more able to sieze small opportunities than others prevents your antagonists responding believably and deciding whether to chance it based on the actual situation and their psychology? Is it just that it looks like a taunt in a bad light?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There was a lot of gnashing of teeth over the 4E wizard. I almost always play wizards, and I played a ton of 4E. Never played a wizard there because I had so much fun with the martial. 5E? I play all spellcasting characters.

my group starting in 3e, then into 35 only played spell casters (until Bo9S) in 5e we play either all spell casters or no fullcasters... 4e we loved playing mixed parties that didn't feel like full caster was always the right answer.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

So instead of fixing the OP stuff, you want to break the game by making everything else OP as well…

I guess that also explains why you presumably like 4e when most did not

Uhhh...

When you say "everything" you can only mean every player option, because otherwise it wouldn't make sense, really.

Accepting that premise I argue that if everything is OP then nothing is. In that context OP itself becomes irrelevant, unless you argue that the player characters were OP relative to the monsters in the monster manual.

Except I'm pretty sure that 4E was known to be fairly balanced from the GM perspective aside from the monsters in the first Monster Manual.

Your point seems nonsensical. You seem to insinuate that people liked 4E because it was overpowered.