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

[EzekielRaiden]

Sorry but we are going back to condescension here.
(1) Not everything that some considered a bug, or at least an unworkable issue, was actually one.
(2) the designers inability to address issues within a certain framework does not justify the change of the entire framework. If a specific spell does not work, change it.
I could make the same example with Pathfinder. Just because I think Magnificent Mansion should have a longer casting time and Natural Spell should immediately end Wild Shape, doesn't mean that the solution is PF2e.
And not liking a given edition is not "irrational".

People are still asking for the same rules to produce different outcomes. That is fundamentally irrational, and is an actual issue that really happens even on this very forum (consider how many people openly state balance is irrelevant or even bad, and then turn around and complain about Twilight Cleric being unbalanced or silvery barbs being broken).

Or, three roughly equal groups all agree that change should be made, but group A wants to remove X and preserve Y at all costs, group B wants to remove Y and preserve Z at all costs, and group C wants to remove Z and preserve X at all costs. No single group in this situation is irrational: each recognizes the need for change, each sees an acceptable cost paid for that change, and each advocates for an essential element they aren't willing to give up. But because their collective opinions break transitivity, A<B, B<C, C<A, no possible result can please anyone, even doing nothing at all. Again, a fundamentally irrational result. This is precisely why we don't have a psionic class in 5e. It's not that people don't want one; they do. It's not that WotC doesn't feel like making one; they tried three or four times. It's that there are somewhere between three and six factions of psionics fans (and a faction of anti-fans who never ever want anyone to have a psionics class), and all of those factions disagree on what psionics "really" is vs the parts that can be discharged as not all that important. Since a one-third minority can kill any chance of success for a new class, and well over that amount have every reason to tear down a psionics class that doesn't do things just right for them, there will never be a resolution, even though the vast majority of fans want a psionic class and WotC wants to give them one.

Democracy is not required to be rational.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

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.

We have humans because a fish was bored and/or needed to find a land spot because competition and predation were less harsh than in the water, but we came a long way since that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That makes sense. People watching a movie don't want to be reminded they're watching a movie. People reading a book don't want to be reminded they're reading a book. Performers on stage don't want the audience to see that it's just a stage. If you're telling scary stories around a campfire, no one wants you to point out that you're statistically very unlikely to encounter a mass murderer out here in the woods. The point is the feeling, the engagement, the way the world melts away when you're telling a story with your friends.

But when I'm playing D&D I'm playing a character with a class, a level, an Armour Class, a set number of basically consequence-free hit points, and a multi-page character sheet (which if I'm playing a caster has a large number of arcane rules). Everything is reminding me of this from the D&D mechanics in any edition.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Because 5e sings the songs and does the dance.

 

[Cadence]

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.

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?

I'm assuming there were things in 4e that many people who didn't like it as a whole game did like. I really disliked 3.5 having all the NPCs be fully PCs, and I liked the idea in 4e of not needing to have all the monsters be fully built up. So 5e kind of riding the line there makes me very happy. I am fine with Dragonborn and Tieflings, so having them carry over is fine. (Just like I loved the huge variety of races in the PF 1e supplements).

There were other about the combat and powers in 4e I didn't like.

It feels to me like 5e took a lot of the things I liked best about various editions, dodged some I don't, and put them in a blender until well mixed. It isn't perfect, but 5e is certainly in the top couple of editions if I had to pick.

So I completely get that some people really like 5e while really disliking 4e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We have humans because a fish was bored and/or needed to find a land spot because competition and predation were less harsh than in the water, but we came a long way since that.

That analogy would be rather more relevant if any of the component parts of Vancian casting had remotely evolved since their inception. They have not. The one and only meaningful change is that you don't prepare individual slots anymore...which is a pure buff to casters.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

People are still asking for the same rules to produce different outcomes. That is fundamentally irrational, and is an actual issue that really happens even on this very forum (consider how many people openly state balance is irrelevant or even bad, and then turn around and complain about Twilight Cleric being unbalanced or silvery barbs being broken).

Or, three roughly equal groups all agree that change should be made, but group A wants to remove X and preserve Y at all costs, group B wants to remove Y and preserve Z at all costs, and group C wants to remove Z and preserve X at all costs. No single group in this situation is irrational: each recognizes the need for change, each sees an acceptable cost paid for that change, and each advocates for an essential element they aren't willing to give up. But because their collective opinions break transitivity, A<B, B<C, C<A, no possible result can please anyone, even doing nothing at all. Again, a fundamentally irrational result.

Democracy is not required to be rational.

I think I already addressed that in the previous posts. Trial and compromises are needed but this is not an excuse for bad writing. Because most of the time is just bad rule writing. See above, importing a 5e mechanic kept the magic of wands but solved the "we will just heal of combat we have 827346826590826345 charges lol" 3e and PF designers never thought about.

That analogy would be rather more relevant if any of the component parts of Vancian casting had remotely evolved since their inception. They have not. The one and only meaningful change is that you don't prepare individual slots anymore...which is a pure buff to casters.

First and foremost there are games with at least 5 variants. Classic, 5e style, 3e Sorcerer style, power points and at-wills. Pick your poison.
Secondly, the analogy works because from fish to human we all have a spine. Some fundamental elements are there because that's what makes us - vertebrates. Without it we wouldn't be recognizable.
If you catch my drift.

 

[Kurotowa]

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.

I'm not sure what's confusing or contradictory about it. 4e and 5e are different editions. They have different design philosophies, different feels, and different play experiences. Sure, there are discrete elements that carry over. So what? It's not like 4e was an anathema where I detest every single element of it. Nor it is as if 4e sprang forth fully formed from nothingness, rather than evolving out of late 3e.

It's fine that some of the good bits of 4e stuck around. If anything, there's a few bits I wish hadn't been throw out. But it's the overall direction and style of 4e that turned me off. I'm not going to hold that against every single element that appeared in the edition.

 

[Alzrius]

so much of 5e is brought forward from 4e.

I don't agree with your premise, here, and I suspect that a lot of other people don't as well.

For sure, there are a few 4E-isms (i.e. things that are unique to 4E) in 5E, but nowhere near the point where you could call it "so much."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think I already addressed that in the previous posts. Trial and compromises are needed but this is not an excuse for bad writing. Because most of the time is just bad rule writing. See above, importing a 5e mechanic kept the magic of wands but solved the "we will just heal of combat we have 827346826590826345 charges lol" 3e and PF designers never thought about.

I have added the psionics problem to the quoted post.

People in general want a psionics class. This is demonstrable and backed up by WotC's own statements and efforts.

WotC wants to give people a psionics class. They tried at least three times. They don't repeatedly try to do something if they don't actually want it to happen.

But the factionalism within the psionics fan community is so fierce, a generally acceptable solution is impossible. Nothing can clear the 70% threshold because nothing will ever be perfect for 70% of fans.

Rationality fails at the group level.