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

[Belen]

There was a significant change of Spell-likes in high-level outsiders between 3.0 and 3.5, too - in fact, I think that the 3.0 outsiders were close to 2e in Spell likes (which from my point of view is good) but had obsolete and too few HDs - too close, and this time was not a good thing, to the 2e counterparts.

3.0 spells were much closer to 2e in general. 3.5 decided to "fix" things further and then went heavy into tactical battle map. I would run 3.0 again but I am not sure I could do it for 3.5.

 

[Alzrius]

I see the problem here. Previous editions often gave monsters (particularly planar monsters) a whole bunch of special abilities that were either flavor or downtime stuff – often in the form of a laundry list of spell-like abilities. For example, in 2e a marilith could cast animate dead, cause serious wounds (reverse of cure serious wounds), cloudkill, comprehend languages, curse (reverse of bless), detect evil, detect magic, detect invisibility, polymorph self (7 times per day), project image, pyrotechnics, and telekinesis in addition to the common tanar'ri spell-like abilities of darkness 15' radius, infravision, and teleport without error. 3.5e cut down a lot on these in favor of combat-relevant abilities, but not completely – the 3.5e list is align weapon, blade barrier (DC 23), magic weapon, project image (DC 23), see invisibility, telekinesis (DC 22), greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), unholy aura (DC 25). And 4e went even further with turning everything into a distinct Power.

The reasoning here is that the marilith is one of the most powerful non-unique monsters in the MM, and very much an endgame monster (in 3.5e it is CR 17). Things like animate dead, cloudkill, cause serious wounds, curse, and pyrotechnics are kinda useless at those levels, so off they go. But those abilities could still be useful off-screen in the proper circumstances – perhaps they used cloudkill to murder off a whole orc tribe and then animate their shambling corpses and set them on nearby tribes – that's flavorful, even if it's not something that's relevant to level 15+ characters and thus shouldn't take up space in their stat block. But it could still be part of their lore, perhaps in the form of 4e rituals?

The changeover from 3.0 to 3.5 saw a lot of this being cut. It wasn't even all SLAs either. Like, remember in 3.0 how nightshades of all types were immune to spells of 6th-level and lower? I can understand why that got the axe, but it also removed a lot of flavor. A similar thing happened late in 3.5 when they came down hard on monsters that could polymorph (e.g. mariliths lost that ability altogether).

EDIT: Ninja'd by Kaiyanwang.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Sure. But many decried any solution.

You have people loudling whining about 5e's Concentration mechanics.

"I can't have 4 lingering self buffs!"
Or attunement
"I can chain 5 magic wands to clean up junk battles"

Really writing better spells only scratches the surface. The problem was usually a quantity issue. That's why it usually appears when the slots or scrolls get numerous.

Sometimes is a matter of finding the sweet spot. As an example I find 5e wands brilliant (I literally imported them in my 3.PF homebrew) while the new Concentration is too harsh for my taste. The fact that finding this sweet spot is difficult doesn't mean that most of the criticism is in bad faith or that the baby must be thrown with the bathwater (the 4ed solution).

 

[Kurotowa]

I wouldn't put it past Wizard fans to complain their guy isn't a God anymore

It's been a bit over 30 years since I first played a version of D&D, and I don't know that I can recall a single Wizard PC I've played in that entire time. It's just not for me. And I still didn't like 4e. The one campaign we tried, I had a Paladin. A Paladin of the Raven Queen, in fact, since I was excited by the idea of a non-LG Paladin. It did not satisfy.

Over in the fighting game sphere, they talk about how much or how little a game allows for self-expression. Some games, there's a single optimal path for playing a given character. Self-expression is low, and they talk about "flowchart characters" where there's a very rigid If A, Then B approach to the fight. B is always the right answer to A. Many express a stronger fondness for games where there are multiple options in a Risk vs Reward matrix, and where a single character can be played in different styles such that a high level player can be identified just by how the character acts.

In 4e, at least in early 4e that the people who didn't stick around experienced, there wasn't a lot of self-expression. There was some choice in AEDU powers and feats, but it was mostly a false choice where once you picked a path then everything else followed it. A class was a rigid mechanical role and not a narrative choice that could be molded into different character types. It felt more like picking a wargame hero unit than creating a character.

There's where PF2e is different, even if it takes a lot of pieces from D&D 4e. In PF2e you have a lot of real and meaningful choices for self-expression in building a character. A bit too many for my tastes, actually, but it's night and day from 4e. And sure, maybe a bunch of people are going to jump out to tell me that actually, this or that supplement from later in 4e's lifecycle changed that. The problem is you only get one first impression, and once people walk away you need a big change to get them to come back.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

3.0 spells were much closer to 2e in general. 3.5 decided to "fix" things further and then went heavy into tactical battle map. I would run 3.0 again but I am not sure I could do it for 3.5.

My apologies for the multiple posts but many people answered me. I will stop if required.
I have myself re-discovered a lot of 3.0 which I prefer over 3.5 in certain corners, the outsider spell likes is one of them.
On the other hand, their HD-to-CR improved consistently in the 3.0-3.5-PF1e progression.
See MM2 in 3.0, hate the math sometimes but love the monsters. Barring... you know which one.

EDIT: @Alzrius you are absolutely right on the "immune to level Xth or lower. I think that is a brilliant mechanic when used sparingly, and monsters like Rakshasa and Nightshades should absolutely have that. I think tigerboy has it for 5e which was a pleasant surprise.

 

[Oofta]

Sometimes I wonder if anything short of a 3.75e would have ever gone over properly with the fans back then? I feel like 4e was bound to be controversial no matter what as long as it changed fundamental rules.

I wonder if DnD needed to go through this turmoil to come out stronger? Would 5e have been this popular if it hadn't been for 4e being such an iconoclastic edition before it? Challenging sacred cows and opening a ton of discussion about game designs. Would we just be up to 3.95 at this point without it?

I can't speak for anyone else but 5E is the successor to 3.5 that I wanted all along. If I wanted 3.75 I'd play first edition PF.

 

[Hussar]

Please, let's not stray into ascribing motives and putting words into the mouth of the people who disagree with you. No one has said that, no one even suggested that, so to put it forth is just building strawmen.

For many of us, we just didn't like how 4e played. It didn't feel satisfying or deliver the play experience we were looking for. If it did deliver for you, great. I'm glad you enjoyed it. But it's not a personal attack to say that lots of us didn't. I'm sympathetic that the market out voted you and 5e went in a very different direction, but given that 5e brought me back to D&D I'm not going to join you in condemning it.

See, this is the part that I've always been utterly baffled by.

I get not liking 4e. I totally get that.

But, not liking 4e, to the point of disliking it so much that you wouldn't play it, and then claiming that 5e brought you back to D&D, when so much of 5e is brought forward from 4e. I will never, ever understand this.

 

[Aldarc]

Sometimes is a matter of finding the sweet spot. As an example I find 5e wands brilliant (I literally imported them in my 3.PF homebrew) while the new Concentration is too harsh for my taste. The fact that finding this sweet spot is difficult doesn't mean that most of the criticism is in bad faith or that the baby must be thrown with the bathwater (the 4ed solution).

IMHO, 5e did throw the baby out out of the bathwater when it came to many of the things that 4e did well. There was a real sense in playtesting, IME, that everything that remotely looked, sniffed, or sounded like 4e had to be discarded regardless of their merits.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The "4E made it obvious it was a game" misses the mark IMHO. The issue was that it was designed similar to a card based board game that borrowed ideas heavily from MMOS. It had very clearly defined roles, actions (in combat and out of combat with skill challenges), limitations and controls on the DM for everything. The lore, the visuals, were all layered on top of the game that had one true way of being played.

Compare that to every other version of D&D. D&D grew out of games that simulated war. We have a wizard not because they're a controller but because wizards were a merger of iconic to fantasy tradition and war game artillery.

You have the cleric literally because someone was overrunning the game with "Sir Fang", a vampire, and someone wanted to play a vampire hunter to counter him. You have Vancian casting because it makes it easy for a wargame.

 

[Hussar]

I see the problem here. Previous editions often gave monsters (particularly planar monsters) a whole bunch of special abilities that were either flavor or downtime stuff – often in the form of a laundry list of spell-like abilities. For example, in 2e a marilith could cast animate dead, cause serious wounds (reverse of cure serious wounds), cloudkill, comprehend languages, curse (reverse of bless), detect evil, detect magic, detect invisibility, polymorph self (7 times per day), project image, pyrotechnics, and telekinesis in addition to the common tanar'ri spell-like abilities of darkness 15' radius, infravision, and teleport without error. 3.5e cut down a lot on these in favor of combat-relevant abilities, but not completely – the 3.5e list is align weapon, blade barrier (DC 23), magic weapon, project image (DC 23), see invisibility, telekinesis (DC 22), greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), unholy aura (DC 25). And 4e went even further with turning everything into a distinct Power.

The reasoning here is that the marilith is one of the most powerful non-unique monsters in the MM, and very much an endgame monster (in 3.5e it is CR 17). Things like animate dead, cloudkill, cause serious wounds, curse, and pyrotechnics are kinda useless at those levels, so off they go. But those abilities could still be useful off-screen in the proper circumstances – perhaps they used cloudkill to murder off a whole orc tribe and then animate their shambling corpses and set them on nearby tribes – that's flavorful, even if it's not something that's relevant to level 15+ characters and thus shouldn't take up space in their stat block. But it could still be part of their lore, perhaps in the form of 4e rituals?

See, to me? This is exactly what I mean. Ok, you don't like the 4e marilith because it cuts out all those low level spells. Fine, I get that.

But, the 5e Marilith is virtually identical to the 4e one. It has no spells. None.

But, in 4e this was a HUGE deal. To the point where ten years later, it gets brought up as a reason to not like 4e. Again, totally get that. But, if it was a huge deal then, why is it totally kosher now? I've not heard so much as a peep about this in 5e. Where is all the anger and rage over how they are ruining the game by cutting out all this role playing stuff?

Like I said, I don't get it. I understand not liking 4e. But, if you really didn'T like 4e, why in heck do you like 5e?