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

[Oofta]

Not according to 3.5e D&D. Trying to play word games like this risks equivocating what is meant in this case by "supernatural."

D&D 3.5 redefined several words. I'm not using game terminology from a game published 20 years ago.

This is all such a deflection of the real issue. I grew to dislike how fighters in 4E worked. I don't know how else to say it. They weren't the action movie hero fighter I wanted to play, at least not if I wanted and effective fighter. Using the "s" word is just a descriptor taken straight from the dictionary. Supernatural: "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena"

 

[Retreater]

I'm tired of having the group run away from challenges they think are too hard - it happens about every other combat. So I have to throw out my prep - and everyone's in a bad mood.

For example, I was running an adventure for levels 6-8. There is a 10th level encounter early on. One of the opponents is a 10th level elite (in addition to a trap and two other opponents) that wrecked the party. They asked "were we supposed to be able to beat that?" And I don't know how to answer them.

The math on a monster card makes it trivial to adjust those levels!!!! It’s so simple! Take a l1 orc, add the appropriate given modifiers, and now it’s level 4! Why are you hurting yourself like this?

So theoretically, I can go through, re-tool all the encounters that look "off" with this business card math, and it should work?

At this point, I think it's the only hope I've got in salvaging this adventure.

 

[Aldarc]

D&D 3.5 redefined several words. I'm not using game terminology from a game published 20 years ago.

D&D 3.5 defined its terms. I think that they are useful in how finely they distinguish between types of abilities. For example, Supernatural abilities in 3.5e are magical and they do not function in an anti-magic field. In contrast, Extraordinary abilities in 3.5e are not magical, and they do function in an anti-magic field.

This is all such a deflection of the real issue. I grew to dislike how fighters in 4E worked. I don't know how else to say it. They weren't the action movie hero fighter I wanted to play, at least not if I wanted and effective fighter. Using the "s" word is just a descriptor taken straight from the dictionary. Supernatural: "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena"

Then say that you don't like how fighters in 4e worked. You have plenty of other reasons for that, including AEDU. You don't have make false claims that 4e Fighters are supernatural to do so.

 

[Oofta]

D&D 3.5 defined its terms. I think that they are useful in how finely they distinguish between types of abilities. For example, Supernatural abilities in 3.5e are magical and they do not function in an anti-magic field. In contrast, Extraordinary abilities in 3.5e are not magical, and they do function in an anti-magic field.


Then say that you don't like how fighters in 4e worked. You have plenty of other reasons for that, including AEDU. You don't have make false claims that 4e Fighters are supernatural to do so.

It's not a false claim to state my opinion. Supernatural is not a defined power source in 4E, for that matter extraordinary is not redefined in 4E either.

There is nothing derogatory about the word supernatural. I'm not calling martial powers spells. If I stated that many fighter powers were too fantastical for me, would you care?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Have you considered the word "extraordinary"? Have you considered applying the understanding of "extraordinary" used by 3.5e D&D, which elaborates what it means? Or would accepting that somehow require you conceding that it's not magical or not supernatural?

I gave a list of adjectives that don't mean supernatural... this is a fight you can't win he will not change his prejudice

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then say that you don't like how fighters in 4e worked. You have plenty of other reasons for that, including AEDU. You don't have make false claims that 4e Fighters are supernatural to do so.

If I say I don't like 3.5/Pf I get asked all the time why... not once have I had to go into extreme detail... cause not liking something is easy to grasp.

I also don't like what i call torture horror, but I love monster and thrill and psychological horror...

If asked why I can provide examples of what I do and don't like... I can even provide contra examples (In general I don't like X but in this one case I like Y and I don't know why... example hellraiser)

This person doesn't like 4e they disagree with abilities the system assigned... instead of saying "I don't like it and I would do it different" they fall back on falsehoods like "Fighters are spell casters, this power clearly labeled and described as a martial ability MUST be mind control"

Then they pretend that "People argue I shouldn't dislike 4e" when we point out "The thing you say you dislike is untrue, and we can point in the book where it is not mind control, but its okay not to like it"

 

[Oofta]

I gave a list of adjectives that don't mean supernatural... this is a fight you can't win he will not change his prejudice

I don't get the issue with the word I chose or why you have to call me prejudiced. It's a game.

Would you find "fantastical" objectionable?

 

[Belen]

This person doesn't like 4e they disagree with abilities the system assigned... instead of saying "I don't like it and I would do it different" they fall back on falsehoods like "Fighters are spell casters, this power clearly labeled and described as a martial ability MUST be mind control"

This is ok if they feel like casters to that person. In many cases, I agree. They call it a power source and it certainly feels like they gave "powers" to every class. This is a perception issue.

It is why I feel like all the classes are the same with just a reflavor of powers and role.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is ok if they feel like casters to that person.

as long as it is just that... not "they ARE casters" or "It MUST be mind control"

again I don't often (and I don't think here ever) see 4e fans police opinions or dislikes...

In many cases, I agree. They call it a power source

someone posted back in the 20teens "Martial power sources makes it feel like a giant green battery in the middle of the multiverse" and I actually used a slight reskin of that as a joke for years in my games... "Willpower, Drive, Training, and a spark that sets you apart... you are worthy of the martial power source"

and it certainly feels like they gave "powers" to every class. This is a perception issue.

again, 5e gives powers too... action surge, cunning action, flurry of blows, rage, cantrips, channeled divinity, Second wind, skill mastery, Inspiration (bardic not general)... but if you like it you look past it.

as a comic book fan I often see people complain about 1 story doing something (most recently resurrection) and complain it breaks the world and takes them out of the story... when I point out cases going back 50 years of the same, they say it's different, the difference is if you like it.

It is why I feel like all the classes are the same with just a reflavor of powers and role.

I can understand why you feel that way... I don't though

 

[Aldarc]

It's not a false claim to state my opinion.

This may be news to you, but opinions can be false. You can state that in your opinion the moon is made of cheese. That does not make it so nor does it mean that your "opinion" can't be criticized.

There is nothing derogatory about the word supernatural.

You should know from past discussion and debate you have partaken in on this forum numerous times that there is undoubtedly baggage in calling a fighter's abilities supernatural.