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

[EzekielRaiden]

It’s wild how willfully blind people choose to be. Basic math shows the wizard is the most powerful. Basic system knowledge shows the wizard is the most powerful. The designers of the game flat-out say the wizard is the most powerful. And yet people still refuse to acknowledge it. So weird. They must be getting something out of the charade. Otherwise they wouldn’t keep it up.

Careful there. Say the quiet part out loud like that, and people get angry.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Yes, it does explain (to some extent) 4e.

You can pretend to please people, while fixing nothing. Or you can fix things, and necessarily piss some people off. Pick your poison.

When coupled with the other, actually irrational positions (like the need for Wizards to always be the best class in the game, as Heinsoo himself reported following 4e's launch), explosive responses are guaranteed.

The fact that they resisted changes doesn't directly mean "it must be the best class" - this is misconstructing things, sorry.
EDIT: reading the other comments on "people getting angry" or "plausible deniability" I am compelled to question if a certain fandom of a certain edition, in fact, has any intention of discussing this with the required serenity.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Oh yeah the early Paladin was a 'V' class with two potential main stat. That was a misguided experiment and they dropped those pretty fast. No class beyond the PHB1 use that framework and they stopped supporting certain combination. The Cleric stopped getting STR/CHA powers, for exemple, to focus back on STR and WIS. The Warlock barely had any CON powers after a while.

Probably a bad first experience, no doubt.

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.

How is that not a dissociated mechanic? Aren't Spell Level an extra diegetic element? Should it not be based on the spell slot you use, as THAT is the true representation of the magical power behind the spell, instead of the level of the spell itself? Surely a Magic Missile powered to level 6 by a powerful mage would overcome the barrier of a foe better than a level 3 spell from a weaker one, no?

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.

Yeah I just wonder if 5E would exist as is without the 'fumble' of 4e? A lot of its mechanics wouldn't be there without 4e and I wonder if it would have seen as blasphemous coming right after 3e. Do you think 3.X caster players would have accepted the nerf that is Concentration? It's just a fun thought experiment.

 

[payn]

Yeah, I would not necessarily want a carbon-copy of 4e. Okay, maybe I would like that, but more as an option for people who liked 4e as-is to play a polished version of the game, much the same as people who love B/X have OSE as a polished version of the game. I would potentially want something between 4e and 5e. I would also want to see the version that Monte Cook was cooking. I heard that it delivered modularity, and it also got love from players who also loved 4e.

What do you think of PF2?

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say anything like this.

"Roles are straight our of WoW!!!!"

"Everyone is a spellcaster!!!"

 

[Zaukrie]

As frustrating as the tone and some of the comments are in this thread, it is quite instructive to someone that dabbles in selling DnD PDFs! I'm learning a lot here....

 

[Kaiyanwang]

How is that not a dissociated mechanic? Aren't Spell Level an extra diegetic element? Should it not be based on the spell slot you use, as THAT is the true representation of the magical power behind the spell, instead of the level of the spell itself? Surely a Magic Missile powered to level 6 by a powerful mage would overcome the barrier of a foe better than a level 3 spell from a weaker one, no?

Look, I understand that you want to see dissociated mechanics everywhere because it's annoying to read it about 4e, but then again, this is not the case.
In-universe, you spend different resources, as an example, to write a scroll of level 1 compared to level 6. The difference exists there even ignoring other factors like the level of knowledge and power required to cast them. Certain spells ARE more powerful and even if the creature in the world don't call it (again) "level", the difference exists in-universe.
So a monster that is outright immune to a spell below a certain power which we conveniently call "level" is not dissociated. I would recommend to do not point and scream "dissociated" at everything that moves in the near future just because the word annoys you.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

It’s wild how willfully blind people choose to be. Basic math shows the wizard is the most powerful. Basic system knowledge shows the wizard is the most powerful. The designers of the game flat-out say the wizard is the most powerful. And yet people still refuse to acknowledge it. So weird. They must be getting something out of the charade. Otherwise they wouldn’t keep it up.

The wizard always has ended up the most powerful.

For me the question is about at what level?

Most of us barely play to double digit levels. Tier 1 I don’t see an issue. At what point in tier two do folks things go off the rails?

In my experience it’s not the whole career of a wizard. Are we sure folks are blind? I am not talking level 18 fighter vs level 18 wizard…

But do wizards overshadow everything before most people quit?

(Not asking rhetorically but to hear at what level folks see the power balance shift)

I have only played 5e to 13th before we switch things up

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The fact that they resisted changes doesn't directly mean "it must be the best class" - this is misconstructing things, sorry.
EDIT: reading the other comments on "people getting angry" or "plausible deniability" I am compelled to question if a certain fandom of a certain edition, in fact, has any intention of discussing this with the required serenity.

"Roles are straight our of WoW!!!!"

"Everyone is a spellcaster!!!"

The "required" serenity was already not present.

Look, I understand that you want to see dissociated mechanics everywhere because it's annoying to read it about 4e, but then again, this is not the case.
In-universe, you spend different resources, as an example, to write a scroll of level 1 compared to level 6. The difference exists there even ignoring other factors like the level of knowledge and power required to cast them. Certain spells ARE more powerful and even if the creature in the world don't call it (again) "level", the difference exists in-universe.
So a monster that is outright immune to a spell below a certain power which we conveniently call "level" is not dissociated. I would recommend to do not point and scream "dissociated" at everything that moves in the near future just because the word annoys you.

Dissociated mechanics are, and always have been, a double standard.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

The "required" serenity was already not present.

While I enjoyed our direct discussion about wotc, the tone of other indirect posts, toward me or other I don't know, could be interpreted as passive-aggressive and hampering the discussion, quite frankly.
And I also don't think that dismissing Dissociated mechanics or attempting to call everything D.M. to dilute their meaning is an earnest way to approach things.