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

Status
Not open for further replies.
You said it was gone. It wasn't. It works differently, I certainly grant you that...but you do realize that this was this way because you could use Diplomacy to manipulate others' behavior, right? Skills are very powerful in 4e. Much moreso than 3e. (It still baffles me that 5e uses skill rules more similar to 4e, but almost everyone runs them like the limited, weak 3e skill rules, where doing anything remotely useful has a sky-high DC or is impossible because no defined DC exists.)

And one example does not "lots of stuff" make. If dismissal because of lack of citations for sweeping statements is an acceptable tactic, I'm not seeing why I should not dismiss this.
It was basically gone, they named a skill substitution after it. Is nowhere near the same spell. Please be honest with me and yourself. Same thing for Command.
Also what you say about 3e skills is incorrect. A lot of basic stuff is within the 15-20 range which with a few levels and a decent stat are perfectly accessible. Not everything is a DC40 10-foot step.
Then think about Illusions. Stuff like Trasmute X to Y. Polymorphs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think this is a great example of a lot of the anti-4E stuff (and, in the same way, a lot of anti-5E stuff). Things that you or I don't like aren't "horrible design." I quite like using Arcana for a Diplomacy check with a Suggestion spell. It makes something that's an "auto-win" option useful but not encounter-ending. I play the game Fate (and played it more back in the time of 4E), and a stunt "once per scene, roll Arcana to influence a target" would have been a cool stunt.
But is a great example of ruling that inhibits roleplaying as stated above. Doesn't kill it but doesn't help. Or so it was perceived, and the game failed.
For a reason that is not linked to presentation or setting.

And more importantly - why is a bad thing wether for a well placed spell, or a rogue stealing something, or the fighter crit, that an encounter is quickly solved?
 

You said it was gone. It wasn't. It works differently, I certainly grant you that...but you do realize that this was this way because you could use Diplomacy to manipulate others' behavior, right? Skills are very powerful in 4e. Much moreso than 3e. (It still baffles me that 5e uses skill rules more similar to 4e, but almost everyone runs them like the limited, weak 3e skill rules, where doing anything remotely useful has a sky-high DC or is impossible because no defined DC exists.)

And one example does not "lots of stuff" make. If dismissal because of lack of citations for sweeping statements is an acceptable tactic, I'm not seeing why I should not dismiss this.

I'd phrase that same complaint in reverse. 5e doubled down in the worst part of 4e's skill system, replacing the entirety of specific actions with generic DCs. Skills are significantly more powerful in the 3.x environment, because they allowed players to make specific function calls to specific rules.

I was going to say something about skill challenges earlier, but then 20 pages passed while I was working. 4e started a trend that accelerated into 5e (and arguably moved from a design element to a norm), where the rules were designed not as a thing players used to achieve what they wanted, but instead as a mechanism to interpret player declarations. The whole point of the skill challenge is to be able to provide a reasonable output from a large variety of player declarations.

Which is a whole different orientation. The 3.x skill rules are written to be used by players looking to get specific results, not by GMs to interpret player actions. Skills aren't powerful if they aren't consistent and preemptively knowable to the player, who can them opt to make a skill to get an outcome they want.
 




Automatically winning is boring for me, not fun. It's also totally in control of the DM and what the group considers "winning". If always winning is fun for the group, who am I to tell them they're playing wrong? Who are you?
Good, so since we're in agreement that no one can tell them that isn't fun, we must design the game to suit their fun.

Right?

So? I don't see how a wizard can bypass encounters on a regular basis. Other posters have questioned it as well.
It literally only requires a few spells, rarely more than five or six. E.g. fly can bypass all sorts of things. Tongues or comprehend languages eliminates the vast majority of language issues, and the latter is a ritual. Misty step fixes a ton of things involving crossing a barrier. Sending is one of the most powerful communication tools ever. Identify (ritual) nixes any mystery regarding spells or magic items. Floating disk (r) obviates carrying capacity. Tiny hut (r) obviates survival challenges. Phantom steed (r) makes the Wizard a self-sufficient rider who doesn't need feed or storage or have risk of losing her horse (and, with 10 minutes to resummon it each time, you can ride 60 miles in 7 hours without spending a spell slot.)

As far as versatility, yes in some ways wizards can be more versatile. But it doesn't matter, I can have a hundred options as a wizard but my 9th level wizard only has a little over a dozen spells they can memorize. Every wizard I've ever seen in play focuses on either damage or support.
Only because you somehow think you can't do both of those things and the other stuff with Int mod+level prepared spells. And remember, rituals don't need to be prepared.

Just slightly smart spell selection goes a huge way. Very few things resist(/higher) both fire and cold. Almost nothing resists both of those and a third type (e.g. acid or lightning, which will get you over 80% of all monsters at least being not resistant to all three.)

Again, I can only point to a neutral arbiter of combat effectiveness as measured by DPR that I have in Solasta. The only time the wizard was top of the heap was when I was given a wand of fireballs and every fight was mobs in an enclosed space. Unless you have better measurements other than you stating your perception as fact, I'm done.
I have ignored these comments for a reason. They are a game, not the actual book rules. I refuse to use Solasta (or BG3) to discuss actual 5e. The two are different.
 

For one, you should explain me why being a massive nerd on dragons and outsiders makes me better at diplomacy thanks to this spell. Explain me what happens in universe, please.
That's not what the Arcana skill is in 4e.

The Arcana skill is all knowledge, practice, and skills relating to arcane magic, other than, y'know, actually casting the spell itself.
 

So wait ... it's okay and expected to ban SS and GWM but you can't enforce rules like fireball starting things on fire because that would destroy your premise? Okely Dokely.
I did not say it was okay. It is simply what so many actually do. You should already know how I feel about blanket bans. I dislike them intensely.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top