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

[TwoSix]

Fair enough. It just feels like there might have been another step in the reduction of bonuses that wasn't 'throw them all out'.

Look, man, I still have players confused by “you add proficiency bonus to attacks, but not to damage”, and we’ve been playing almost ten years.

If there’s any hint of math at all, some people are going to need it simpler.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Look, man, I still have players confused by “you add proficiency bonus to attacks, but not to damage”, and we’ve been playing almost ten years.

If there’s any hint of math at all, some people are going to need it simpler.

Sure. The question is, are those people the ones the game should be designed for?

 

[TwoSix]

Sure. The question is, are those people the ones the game should be designed for?

That's above my pay grade

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Sure. The question is, are those people the ones the game should be designed for?

I think one of the unfortunate drawbacks to 4E's design is that it assumed you could keep all players constantly engaged during combat instead of them zoning out when it isn't their turn. I looked at the 4E Cleric's powers last night and there are a lot of little short term effects with specific requirements, such as:

The next ally who hits it before the end of your next turn regains hit points equal to 2 + your Charisma modifier.

the next ally to hit the target before the end of your next turn deals extra radiant damage equal to your Charisma modifier.

Until the end of your next turn, your allies gain a +2 power bonus to all defenses while adjacent to you.

Each ally who hits or misses the target before the end of your next turn gains a +2 power bonus to all defenses until the end of his or her next turn.

Given the nature of the AEDU system these features will only come up once per fight each unless they are at-wills, meaning they are less likely to be memorized through repetition. That can be a lot for a player to keep track of themselves, much less reminding their fellow players of. I can see how these kinds of effects promote both teamwork and engagement and like these in a vacuum, but I think the system could have benefited from fewer, more consistent ones.

I also think that having more potential options for simple to use and remember classes and power would have benefited 4E. In my experience running and playing 5E I've had some players who are very interested in tactics and having all their character's abilities memorized and others who routinely forget what modifiers to add, what feats they've taken, what racial abilities they have, etc. People have different levels of willingness and capability to devote to knowing game mechanics by heart. 5E and editions other than 4E accommodate for this by having a range of complexity from relatively simple to complex, but 4E seems to be designed exclusively for intermediate to advanced players.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Morale bonus from bless or Inspire Courage, luck bonus from prayer, maybe some insight bonus from psionics... and let's not forget AC which would commonly have armor + enhancement bonus to armor + shield + enhancement bonus to shield + natural armor (which is of course a separate category from armor) + enhancement bonus to natural armor + Dex + Dodge + deflection, with some of those not applying to touch attacks, and some not when flatfooted. And let's not forget incorporeal touch attacks where regular armor won't help but armor from a force effect like mage armor does.

But these are not all the same. The armor + enhancement, as an example, is counted as a whole. If something goes through the armor, will usually go through the enhancement. It's a bigger number but in the same order of magnitude.
what is applied or not to touch attack and your flatfooted AC are pre-calculated, you just have to add the floating bonus.
It's not always immediate but the gain is granularity and strategy. I vastly prefer what 3e and 4e did frankly, even if oddly enough 4e initially advertised the removal of this and of the magic items christmas tree. It didn't, and that's good in my book.
3e and 4e also share the fact that they assume an high level threat should not be worried by low level creatures. Which I also endorse.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

going back to the 90's I was on message boards on AOL, and got called out for being a POS DM over this... and today I think I was (In my defense I was 17-18 at the time and only playing for 3 years)

I had a campaign where the player collected these magic swords, and armors... then when that campaign ended (around level 11ish)it had a major downer ending... the next Friday night we drew up the grand children or children of those characters 65 years later and the OG characters were in hiding the PCs had to go and pass tests to get the items (now at level 2-3) and then go to the gods themselves to reforge special things into super artifact armors... at level 6ish we had 5 super over powered characters each with multi +6 items... and they were teamed up with 3 other characters... each of them had cool artifacts too but not as much. they made it back 'home' and the BBEG and his shadow lich were waiting for them... they had killed a bunch of people they cared about, and the players thought this was the big climatic showdown 2 campaigns in the making... I had something else in mind.

the shadow lich held the BBEG hand and cast "Mord's Disjunction" destroying all the item they just spent 5 levels getting powered up with, some of witch they had spent a year in the previous campaign collecting.


my intent... piss them off tell them they were no longer a threat and leave. then they would grind back to higher level and either fix or make new items (I had seeded ways to do so since this new campaign started). Everyone wanted to quit and call it a TPK... even though not 1 Player Character died.

so I went on line for advice and was told what I would tell new DMs today... taking away the treasure can be WORSE then killing a character, even if you mean it to let them rebuild.

I feel blessed because I did this to my players, another instance I killed and reanimated them all for a period, and they kept going. What they did in-universe was to find workarounds.
The Mage Disjunction feels really epic tho, and honestly it becomes a sort of MAD (edit: intended not in D&D terms but in nuke terms) in-universe that few should be compelled to use.
In my homebrew I am going to nerf it a bit too, at least some aspects. Like, the spells are gone, the items just shut down for 2d4 rounds unless d3 of them if a 1 is rolled (or just a save missed). Still dangerous.

 

[SteveC]

Look, man, I still have players confused by “you add proficiency bonus to attacks, but not to damage”, and we’ve been playing almost ten years.

I had a friend who ran a game for some smart people who could not catch on. For one guy (and I'm not making this up), he drew a big D20 on a paper and put a "5" in it. Then he drew a D8 and put a "3" in it. He told him. "Hold the D20 in one hand, the D8 in the other. On your turn, roll the D20 and add ... 5. If I say you hit, roll the D8 and add ... 3. Tell me that number as your damage."

He had to do this for several sessions. The guy was great in roleplay scenes and had fun with the game but, wow.

As obnoxious as that sounds, it worked, and it may seem like the guy he did this to would have been pissed off, but he appreciated it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think one of the unfortunate drawbacks to 4E's design is that it assumed you could keep all players constantly engaged during combat instead of them zoning out when it isn't their turn. I looked at the 4E Cleric's powers last night and there are a lot of little short term effects with specific requirements, such as:






Given the nature of the AEDU system these features will only come up once per fight each unless they are at-wills, meaning they are less likely to be memorized through repetition. That can be a lot for a player to keep track of themselves, much less reminding their fellow players of. I can see how these kinds of effects promote both teamwork and engagement and like these in a vacuum, but I think the system could have benefited from fewer, more consistent ones.

I also think that having more potential options for simple to use and remember classes and power would have benefited 4E. In my experience running and playing 5E I've had some players who are very interested in tactics and having all their character's abilities memorized and others who routinely forget what modifiers to add, what feats they've taken, what racial abilities they have, etc. People have different levels of willingness and capability to devote to knowing game mechanics by heart. 5E and editions other than 4E accommodate for this by having a range of complexity from relatively simple to complex, but 4E seems to be designed exclusively for intermediate to advanced players.

Oh, you're completely right that a wider spectrum is valuable. I do not question this.

My assertion is twofold.

First, 5e was designed with the theory that most things need to be tailor-made for the math-averse folks TwoSix described. That's a problem, because it can very easily turn off the folks who want more. (I'm sure someone will come along and give 3PP as a solution, and I've already said elsewhere why I find that not actually a solution.)

Second, that 5e has continued past editions' flawed, bad, damaging, rigid link between spells = complexity = flexibility (and thus power), while martial = simplicity = inflexibility (and thus weakness). There is no such thing as a simple spellcaster (I'm sure someone will come along and give Warlock as a counter-example, and no, the Warlock ABSOLUTELY IS NOT simple.)

If we're going to take the "a spectrum is needed" response seriously, there needs to be a spectrum across thematics, not just in the generic. There needs to be at least one spellcaster that is comparably simple to the Fighter, even if it's still a little more complex (e.g. Battle Master level). There needs to be at least one martial that is at least comparable to the Warlock or Sorcerer. And we really, really need to fix the whole "simple things are usually weak unless heavily optimized, complex things are usually very strong unless played incredibly casually" problem. 5e has taken baby steps on that front. There's a lot more that can be done.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Oh, you're completely right that a wider spectrum is valuable. I do not question this.

My assertion is twofold.

First, 5e was designed with the theory that most things need to be tailor-made for the math-averse folks TwoSix described. That's a problem, because it can very easily turn off the folks who want more. (I'm sure someone will come along and give 3PP as a solution, and I've already said elsewhere why I find that not actually a solution.)

Second, that 5e has continued past editions' flawed, bad, damaging, rigid link between spells = complexity = flexibility (and thus power), while martial = simplicity = inflexibility (and thus weakness). There is no such thing as a simple spellcaster (I'm sure someone will come along and give Warlock as a counter-example, and no, the Warlock ABSOLUTELY IS NOT simple.)

If we're going to take the "a spectrum is needed" response seriously, there needs to be a spectrum across thematics, not just in the generic. There needs to be at least one spellcaster that is comparably simple to the Fighter, even if it's still a little more complex (e.g. Battle Master level). There needs to be at least one martial that is at least comparable to the Warlock or Sorcerer. And we really, really need to fix the whole "simple things are usually weak unless heavily optimized, complex things are usually very strong unless played incredibly casually" problem. 5e has taken baby steps on that front. There's a lot more that can be done.

I think a massive problem with this is the fact that people forgot the best lesson from 4e. Is something that I rarely hear even from many 4e fans. Which is modularity.
4e built the class layout for 30 levels giving to every class a number of slots. Did I like the powers? Usually not. Did I like how they did it? Nope.
But the concept by itself not only is brilliant, it should be the standard.

Take as an example Pathfinder 1e. You have the Rogue and the Fighter in the Core Rulebook. The Rogue has 10 Talents, which allow the designer to always add a power that is required for a specific concept, or even re-work failed concept with a stealth buff. The Fighter cannot do that because the designers forgot to give the class this "scaffold".

The consequence of this is that for archetypes and other optional rules, instead of altering existing "fighter talents", these archetypes/rules remove core abilities of the Fighter removing flavor and functionality. I am not a fan of 4 but in my opinion one type of modularity (not necessarily 4e 1:1) should be a design standard.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Has anyone played a Peace Domain Cleric in 5E? More than any other subclass it reminds me of the 4E Cleric with Emboldening Bond's always on Bless-like effect and ability to let allies teleport around to take damage for others. It was very effective, but I found I did have to remind some players more than I would have liked to add the extra 1d4 once per turn. This was for a combat heavy high level one shot, though, so it might have been better in a longer running campaign where the players got familiarized with it over time.