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

[Clint_L]

Doesn't mean they can't also be something else, something distinctly different from fighters in other editions.

Or fighter sub-classes. 5e supports supernatural fighters. Not to mention monks, paladins, barbarians, rangers, etc.

 

[Aldarc]

Doesn't mean they can't also be something else, something distinctly different from fighters in other editions.

You seem to be implying that they are not extraordinary when you say that they are extraordinary in real life and in other editions. You seem to be intentionally excluding 4e here and implying that they are something "distinctly different" than fighters in other editions. I can't help but get the feeling that you are weaseling your way out of calling 4e fighters "extraordinary." It's like you refuse to concede this point.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What is "broadly realistic"? Do each of us have a different level of where that cut-off is before getting to "punching through a steel door" [which I agree with you on as going farther than I want]?

Is Hawkeye "magic" or "supernatural" within the Comics/MCU?
Is James Bond or John McClane "magic" or "supernatural" within their movies worlds?
Are the characters in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon "magic" or "supernatural" in their worlds?
Or do the dials in those worlds for what is normal just go higher?

I agree with you that the mundane doing big heroic things is the staple in fiction for some characters - is being just an "ordinary guy" part of what makes Hawkeye and Batman who they are?

Do the falling damage rules in every edition go too far for you? The 5e encumbrance default rules? The speed of healing in any edition? etc...

So there is a medium I like, but a character/story I don't follow (I dislike the paceing and can't get into it) but I get told all the time the main character can 'no or low dif solo X'

Now again I don't follow the story so maybe they can (keeping this vague to stop derail and not nitpick). However more people who also follow that story say that character sucks as a combatant, but only has supernatural power that lets them beat equal or lesser power supernatural characters...

Some how this character is more skilled then batman and more powerful then superman, but if you turn off all of there supernatural abalities they can still solo superman ?!!? could that be how said character is written? Maybe! I can name someone in the DCU that with no powers (or green rocks) beats kryptonians consistantly. However if you agree or disagree that person per the writer per the rules of the verse is NOT supernatural...

 

[Belen]

You seem to be implying that they are not extraordinary when you say that they are extraordinary in real life and in other editions. You seem to be intentionally excluding 4e here and implying that they are something "distinctly different" than fighters in other editions. I can't help but get the feeling that you are weasling your way out of calling 4e fighters "extraordinary." It's like you refuse to concede this point.

Ok, I do think that 4e fighters are distinctly different than other editions. They were slotted into a distinct role.

Which is funny because at one point in the thread, I was told, role does not matter in 4e and players can pick whatever they want, then later in the thread, people were aghast that Retreater had no defenders in his game.

To be honest, I think all of the classes in 4e are distinct from classes in other editions of D&D.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You seem to be intentionally excluding 4e here and implying that they are something "distinctly different" than fighters in other editions. I can't help but get the feeling that you are weaseling your way out of calling 4e fighters "extraordinary."

this is the beach front of this edition war

It's like you refuse to concede this point.

and the war goes on and on

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Ok, I do think that 4e fighters are distinctly different than other editions. They were slotted into a distinct role.

I think all D&D has something akin to roles, but 4e labled them and gave them a ground floor viability...

2e fighters were defender off striker and 2e rouge was called a thief and was more of a lurker (monster) then a striker.

Which is funny because at one point in the thread, I was told, role does not matter in 4e and players can pick whatever they want, then later in the thread, people were aghast that Retreater had no defenders in his game.

I can build a X class that can fill Y role in most systems... that will require some system mastery to do it well... 4e just defined and set up the minimum expected roles (IMO).

To be honest, I think all of the classes in 4e are distinct from classes in other editions of D&D.

the only ones I feel that way about are Ranger, Sorcerer, and the ones made just for 4e (like my personal fav WARLORD!!)

 

[Aldarc]

Ok, I do think that 4e fighters are distinctly different than other editions. They were slotted into a distinct role.

Which is funny because at one point in the thread, I was told, role does not matter in 4e and players can pick whatever they want, then later in the thread, people were aghast that Retreater had no defenders in his game.

To be honest, I think all of the classes in 4e are distinct from classes in other editions of D&D.

This feels like a different point than the one that is being made. I'll be honest in saying that I'm paying little to no attention to the Retreater's side of the discussion so I can't comment on that.

 

[Belen]

I think all D&D has something akin to roles, but 4e labled them and gave them a ground floor viability...

2e fighters were defender off striker and 2e rouge was called a thief and was more of a lurker (monster) then a striker.

I can build a X class that can fill Y role in most systems... that will require some system mastery to do it well... 4e just defined and set up the minimum expected roles (IMO).

the only ones I feel that way about are Ranger, Sorcerer, and the ones made just for 4e (like my personal fav WARLORD!!)

It's cool.

I have no issue with people who love 4e. I hated it, but I also realized that I ended up disliking 3.5 and PF for many of the same reasons. The sheer tactical crunch, ties to the battle map, and ridiculously long combats.

I did, specifically, also hate the role and powers system in 4e.

The game was not D&D to me and much of my extended network felt the same. I had friends who ran it but none of them stuck with it for more than a campaign.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I feel like there is a divide of sorts. This forum as a whole has shown this to me. I think the importance of game balance is overplayed on this forum compared to the community as a whole.

I feel like there is a segment of players who value game balance over pretty much everything. I think, if you do, 4e is very alluring. There is a strong argument it's the best balanced ttrpg in existence.

But I think this is fool's errand of sorts. 4e didn't do well commercially from WotC's point of view. According to a self reporting survey of hobby stores in Q3 of 2010, it was in a dead heat with pathfinder for sales. As opposed to 5e, where many call it a monopoly, and malign the lack of players for other systems - pathfinder included.

I think it's unanswerable whether the AEDU system of actions was in part, or in whole, responsible for 4e's comparatively lack luster popularity. A simple search of reddit posts on the topic from the 2010-2014 era, shows the system is contentious at best. This contentiousness implies that it's, in part, responsible for the performance of 4e. It was a defining feature of the edition.

This all makes me wonder, if balance, as whole, is a fools errand in games like D&D. It sure doesn't seem like the vast majority of 5e players care. And the evidence that it has a positive effect on player numbers seems scant.

EDIT: cleaned up two typos

 

[Cadence]

This all makes me wonder, if balance, as whole, is a fools errand in games like D&D. It sure doesn't seem like the vast majority of 5e players care. And the evidence that it has a positive effect on player numbers seems scant.

My guess, as with most things, is that there is a range in which things work well for most folks. And as you move farther and farther from that range it ejects more and more folks.

This can be balance or verisimilitude in games, music volume or temperature in a store, amount of spice in a food, etc...

I would be amazed to find that almost everyone didn't think some level of balance was needed (if we give all Wizards an extra level but no one else? Two extra levels? Ten?).

On the other hand I have a hard time imagining that "exact balance" in a game can be achieved without jettisoning a lot of things people like.

So the trial and error thing is to find those boundaries.