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

[Belen]

That's what PF2e did unless I am mistaken. Is something I wish to implement for myself but I admit the effort will be monumental.
Still a great idea.

It is not that bad if you pull the PHB list into excel and tag them. The two free spells a wizard learns then just gets picked off the common list.

I know that some DMs also require Wizards to research spells etc.

I have never had a problem with an overpowered Wizard or one that could so everything the other classes can do.

In my last high level campaign, the optimizers caster never got to do anything because the melee classes would often steamroll encounters.

 

[Oofta]

I see this argument a lot. I have never seen it actually happen in a game. Even my heavy optimizers never choose a Wizard.

The one time I saw anything remotely like it was with a Psion in a part with lower wisdom scores and the Psion could mind-control everyone.

Wizards can be quite powerful under the right circumstances. Can they go nova, burning off spell slots willy-nilly? Do enemies always approach in fireball formation? Ignore that the fireball sets unattended object on fire? Are their spells never countered? Are the monsters resistant or immune to the spell damage type? Can the wizard target the enemy without affecting allies?

Change some of those assumptions like I do? Wizards aren't all that. A fireball can be awesome, but when the dice are rolled, 8d6 isn't really all that much when the fighter can do just as much damage to an individual every round all day. I play the Solasta video game which implements D&D rules while records all the damage done. The only time the wizard was at the top of the list for damage dealt was when I played a mod where they handed out a couple of wands of fireball and almost every encounter was a roomful of lower level monsters all grouped up nicely in formation. Other than that? Wizards are never at the top of the list, they're frequently 3rd.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No. It is the fault of the designers.

Depends on the encounter. I was entirely fine with a panic-fireball ending an encounter where the PCs were getting swarmed by floating placentas.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

They also lamented that. Beautiful catch-22: too many rules and you're unable to roleplay, too few and you aren't facilitating roleplay. No matter what 4e did, it was wrong by definition.

Is not a matter of numbers but of the mindset behind the rule writing, being it style (which is frankly secondary to me) and overall (forgive me if I use such brutal oversimplification, but for lack of a better vocabulary) "gamisms" or perceived such.

 

[Aldarc]

Wizards can be quite powerful under the right circumstances. Can they go nova, burning off spell slots willy-nilly? Do enemies always approach in fireball formation? Ignore that the fireball sets unattended object on fire? Are their spells never countered? Are the monsters resistant or immune to the spell damage type? Can the wizard target the enemy without affecting allies?

Change some of those assumptions like I do? Wizards aren't all that. A fireball can be awesome, but when the dice are rolled, 8d6 isn't really all that much when the fighter can do just as much damage to an individual every round all day. I play the Solasta video game which implements D&D rules while records all the damage done. The only time the wizard was at the top of the list for damage dealt was when I played a mod where they handed out a couple of wands of fireball and almost every encounter was a roomful of lower level monsters all grouped up nicely in formation. Other than that? Wizards are never at the top of the list, they're frequently 3rd.

You know what beats DPR? Side-stepping entire combat encounters entirely with a spell. This is why damage meters don't tell the full picture. It's also why Fireball, although powerful for a 3rd level spell, doesn't generally enter most conversations about a spell ending an encounter, as per your earlier pithy remark.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

I have never had a problem with an overpowered Wizard or one that could so everything the other classes can do.

I overall had a playable 3e up to epics (past 35th) but I am interested in it for several reasons
1) I am try to write this down to make it playable for different playstyles
2) Some spell should be rare because it makes more sense in-universe or the world would be different
3) hunting for knowledge is a trope and is fun. In fact, in the above campaign I unlocked book access for my players only after they "completed" the adventure related to that book in a way or another (say the environmental books after a tundra or desert adventure).

Thanks (to Alzrius too)!

EDIT: Of note, after a while the casters in epic went back to be melee buffers because of the many layered immunities and stacked buffs and saves epic monsters had. Funny.

 

[overgeeked]

Yes, you literally are.

Sigh. No. I'm not. I'm not talking about fun. I'm talking about math. And power. You're talking about fun. This is why we're talking past each other. You're assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not. As evidenced by the whole rest of your post going on about fun.

Yes, fun is subjective. Cool? Let it go.

I'm not talking about fun, I'm talking about power and math. 2>1. Having more options is more powerful than fewer options. Having better options is more powerful than having worse options.

I don't find power gaming fun. Quite the opposite, it saps the fun out of the game. I don't find wizards fun because they're too powerful.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, it absolutely is, and I can get you forum links to that effect. Would send them privately to avoid cross-forum drama (I wasn't a user here at the time, IIRC.)


Yes, they did.


They also lamented that. Beautiful catch-22: too many rules and you're unable to roleplay, too few and they aren't facilitating roleplay. No matter what 4e did, it was wrong by definition.


Wasn't that the thing you were arguing against? That the problem was not setting disruption? I don't understand.

It was my experience that role-playing largely died during 4E and came back with 5E. I can only speculate as to why exactly why that was the case, but the difference is the ruleset being used. What I can say is that it was a pretty wide spread impression with my extended gaming group.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I see this argument a lot. I have never seen it actually happen in a game. Even my heavy optimizers never choose a Wizard.

It was at the most prevalent in D&D 3.X with a wizard with a loose leaf ring binder full of self-made scrolls.

In 5e the wizard has the highest skill ceiling and levels 1-4 are weak. They only really take over from level 9 -and at that point they have a ton of spells to remember to juggle.

The one time I saw anything remotely like it was with a Psion in a part with lower wisdom scores and the Psion could mind-control everyone.

Ewww.

 

[Retreater]

It’s the same argument about not being able to roleplay because there’s no rules for roleplaying. You and your table are not limited to only the rules. You can RP in 4E just as easily as in every other edition of the game. That people chose not to isn’t a problem with the game.

Here's my real-world example of the game I'm currently running.

Of course - yes, we can roleplay. But consider this...
I have been running the same group of characters for 3-4 hour weekly sessions for 6 months. Just to speed up the game, I am awarding over double the recommended XP. They just reached 5th level (out of a 30 level game).
This is cramming in as many combat encounters as I possibly can.
Another group I was running through the H1 - E3 campaign would've taken close to 5 years at the rate we were going.
So ... yes, there is the possibility of roleplaying, exploration, investigation, etc., but the focus is so much on combat. If you want to advance your characters or interact with 90% of the rules, you MUST focus on combat. And a battle isn't 20-30 minutes. It's a commitment that is going to take the majority of your session.