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

[Aldarc]

Point being: marking mechanics and aggro mechanics are entirely opposite. "Aggro"/"enmity"/"threat"/etc. is inherently mind control. Creatures never make choices about their targets. With marking, it is always the case that the DM must be making choices (or, as noted, being forgetful or otherwise accidentally doing a thing they really would rather they hadn't done if they'd known better.)

Agreed. Taunting/threat/aggro in MMORPGs are purely a meter for mob mind control. Mobs are programs designed to attack whatever has the highest threat level. Tanks have tools to generate a measurable threat level, which should ideally be higher than the threat level generated by the rest of the party. There is no human-based decision-making with threat/aggro mechanics. The GM is making their own tactical and roleplay choices when playing NPCs deciding who/what they should attack or do. Defender's marking mechanics exist to make those choices more difficult. But nothing stops the GM from deciding that every single one of their NPCs ignores the marking defender. (And a party with two defenders? ) The GM is not programmed to attack the Defender. The NPCs are not programmed to attack the Defender. The rules do not obligate that the NPCs attack the Defender.

ETA: It's also pretty clear that Marking is not mind-control IF we were to reverse roles between the GM and the player. Let us say, for example, that the GM had a NPC that "marked" the PC. The PC will take a -2 penalty on their attacks if they attack a NPC other than the Goblin Defender. Is the PC being mind-controlled? I think that the answer is clearly "no" because this is in no way binds the action declarations that the player makes for their character nor does it strip action declarations for the character away from the player.

 

[Oofta]

I think 4E marking is borderline, but other fighter features are absolutely over the top game mechanics in my opinion. It's fine to say that I can influence another human in a one-on-one fight. But on a battlefield against multiple opponents? Sure there's a fighter guy in heavy armor but there's also the raging barbarian about to chop my head off. Why should the fighter be more threatening. Then it always works on any creature, whether or not they have a mind. Why can I intimidate a golem, a magical construct. Don't even get me started on come and get it, rain of steel or any number of other fighter powers.

None of the fighter powers are wrong or bad. They serve a purpose in the game if that's the type of game you want to play. You can just accept them as pure game mechanics put in their to support the fighter's role and move on. You can accept that the game mechanics have priority over the simulation, that they don't have to have a passing resemblance to (action movie) reality. Then you don't have to come up with flimsy reasons why a fighter can do what they do. Or you can just say that martial powers are still supernatural, just from a different source. I assume everybody accepts that characters in Anime are doing things not humanly possible, that they are inherently supernatural and that's okay.

Just for the love of Gygax stop telling me that I just don't understand how these things work because you happen to think the game mechanic is a good one to have. I simply don't want to play a game that takes the approach 4E does ever again.

 

[billd91]

I'm prepping to run a 4e session tomorrow with a gargoyle in an encounter.
This is an example of something I dislike about the system.
The gargoyle can spend a standard action to turn to stone. On its next turn, it can leave stone form as a minor action and if it hits with an attack, it deals +20 damage.
In the fiction of the world, how do I convey this added threat to my players? How do the characters know the gargoyle has gotten more dangerous? How do they know to avoid the attacks or to target the super-charged gargoyle?
Because to me, the only way it makes sense is to say, "this gargoyle is a Lurker monster. It spends one round hiding or otherwise positioning itself to do additional damage to your characters." And to convey the information in this manner, you are reducing everything about the world to miniatures on a grid and statblocks. It's the same experience as playing Necromunda (which I'm also doing this weekend) - except with D&D, it's weekly for 4 hours and supposed to last a year or more with 6 participants.

How that makes sense to me isn’t as an attack in the middle of combat. It’s the opening attack of the lurking gargoyle when he first reveals he’s not a statue. It could be read as a ‘power-up’ but that seems kind of nonsensical to me.

 

[Retreater]

How that makes sense to me isn’t as an attack in the middle of combat. It’s the opening attack of the lurking gargoyle when he first reveals he’s not a statue. It could be read as a ‘power-up’ but that seems kind of nonsensical to me.

Right. That would make more sense. But this isn't an ability on the first round of combat. Presumably, the gargoyle strategy is to alternate turns to "power up" attacks.
I do understand that 4e is highly gamist, but moments like the gargoyle really drive home that you're controlling a piece in a game. For me, getting lost in the world and invested in a story is a big part of the appeal of the hobby, which sets it apart from boardgames and wargames.
I've never gotten that feeling from 4e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

For me, getting lost in the world and invested in a story is a big part of the appeal of the hobby, which sets it apart from boardgames and wargames.

Try playing a 5e fighter who just gets to attack attack attack.

 

[Belen]

Roles can even help provide some additional clues about what character concept best matches which class. Again, I have a holy warrior, so I should probably look at the classes with the Divine power source. Now would the holy warrior that I have in mind best be realized by playing a Paladin (defender), Cleric (leader) for a war god, or an Avenger (striker)? Likewise, maybe I have a concept for a defender of nature character. In 5e, the druid may be the obvious choice. However, 4e presents me with the choice between the Warden (defender), the Druid (controller), the Shaman (leader), or even the Barbarian (striker). I have to think about that.

* FWIW, these are some of the players who were disappointed in the class/subclass delivering the desired playstyle.

For me, every single class played the same with the exception of the 4 combat roles. They all had at-will, encounter, and daily powers. Sure, the powers changed the way they played and felt in game but the core was they every class fundamentally operated the same base way. I know that is simplistic and a generalization but that was how 4e felt to me.

If you combine that with what I grew to hate in 3.5/PF1, which is all of the fiddly bits such as as you have this +2 or this -2 or this half-dozen situational effects going on at any time. Or movement by squares. I had players that refused to play 3.5 and 4e without a battle map. Sure, in theory, you can play without one and I saw it happen, once, but the tactical game was so prevalent that players always insisted on a battle map so they could make full use of their class abilities.

I did not want a tactical miniatures experience with a light dusting of RP and even my very experienced players would fall into that trap, especially the optimizers because they needed the map to optimize.

I hated the core 4e experience. I will never go back to a game like 3.5/4e as a DM. I may play in one, but I will never run systems like it again.

Also, there is a Paladin nature warrior in 5e.

 

[Belen]

I think 4E marking is borderline, but other fighter features are absolutely over the top game mechanics in my opinion. It's fine to say that I can influence another human in a one-on-one fight. But on a battlefield against multiple opponents? Sure there's a fighter guy in heavy armor but there's also the raging barbarian about to chop my head off. Why should the fighter be more threatening. Then it always works on any creature, whether or not they have a mind. Why can I intimidate a golem, a magical construct. Don't even get me started on come and get it, rain of steel or any number of other fighter powers.

None of the fighter powers are wrong or bad. They serve a purpose in the game if that's the type of game you want to play. You can just accept them as pure game mechanics put in their to support the fighter's role and move on. You can accept that the game mechanics have priority over the simulation, that they don't have to have a passing resemblance to (action movie) reality. Then you don't have to come up with flimsy reasons why a fighter can do what they do. Or you can just say that martial powers are still supernatural, just from a different source. I assume everybody accepts that characters in Anime are doing things not humanly possible, that they are inherently supernatural and that's okay.

Just for the love of Gygax stop telling me that I just don't understand how these things work because you happen to think the game mechanic is a good one to have. I simply don't want to play a game that takes the approach 4E does ever again.

It works really well in a tactical grid. The mechanics played beautifully as a tactical miniatures game. It felt like the old D&D miniatures game that I ran extensively at game stores as a WOTC rep.

I see a lot of people say, hold the line. This works on a grid or in a narrow space like a dungeon. It is less so when there is more open space to maneuver.

Now, I could see having some additional "defender" options in 5e such as using a reaction to use your remaining movement to block an attacker etc. That would make sense to me.

 

[Aldarc]

For me, every single class played the same with the exception of the 4 combat roles. They all had at-will, encounter, and daily powers. Sure, the powers changed the way they played and felt in game but the core was they every class fundamentally operated the same base way. I know that is simplistic and a generalization but that was how 4e felt to me.

If you felt that way, then you felt that way, and I won't tell you otherwise about how you felt. However, I disagree because I did not feel that way. In my experiences, the classes in 4e did feel and play very differently despite the superficial similarities of resources. Playing a Warlord felt different, in practice, than playing either a Cleric or an Artificer despite all three classes being Leaders. I did not feel as if I were a battlefield tactician playing a Cleric as I did when I played a Warlord. The powers played a big role in that differentiation for me. Playing as a Swordmage feels different than playing Fighter, again, despite both being Defenders. How they perform their function is different.

But an interesting point of contrast is that I do feel that a lot of classes in 5e play the same. I think that it's in no small part due to how many classes were given spells.

Also, there is a Paladin nature warrior in 5e.

From what I can tell, WotC shoved the Avenger and Warden into the Paladin to create, respectfully, the Oath of Vengeance and Oath of the Ancients. I don't particularly think that they succeeded in recreating those classes. I don't think that the 5e Oath of Ancients Paladin feels anywhere near the "nature warrior" as the 4e Warden did.

 

[dbolack]

How can an arcana skill be used for diplomacy. I ask again - what happens in universe.

This is clearly "These are not the droids you're looking for" where Arcana skill is force mastery. Seems really clear to me and I just walked in on this topic...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

From what I can tell, WotC shoved the Avenger and Warden into the Paladin to create, respectfully, the Oath of Vengeance and Oath of the Ancients. I don't particularly think that they succeeded in recreating those classes. I don't think that the 5e Oath of Ancients Paladin feels anywhere near the "nature warrior" as the 4e Warden did.

this is all about WotC watering down cool ideas from 4e and then sprinkling them into 5e. I would lover Avenger Warden Warlord... I might even like 5e more then.