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

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is the precise opposite. The obstacle does not have exploitable properties, it does not yield in different ways to different interactions. The skill system is a tool for the GM to pace player action declaration, instead of a tool for players to deploy to best overcome obstacles.

Nope! It is a system which says "at this point, when we have passed N skill checks, you WILL be obliged to grant us our intent." That is 100% what it is for, and it is 100% there to prevent GMs from sandbagging and asking for a few more checks until things end up how they want regardless of how clever you are, or how lucky.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's exactly the opposite. Being good at swimming incentivizes a character to use swimming to do as many things as possible, and when faced with a swimming related situation, players know precisely what risks they're running when they engage with it. It's written in the book ahead of time.

I agree, this is exactly how 4e's 'short list' type system works, where you get better at stuff, and have a decent chance to do a lot of things, but certain 'approaches' to solving problems will be favored by each character, due to ability and proficiency. This is because, largely, in the context of SCs skill checks get you past substantive single fictional obstacles.

I'm not defending the specifics of implementation here, there's plenty of nonsense numbers in the DCs and durations, but the transition from "skill as a specific coded set of actions players can use" to "skill as a generic resolution system" started in 4e and accelerated in 5e. I very much think the commonality is going the other way.

Well, think what you like, but the SC system lets skills become a part of the story, and the specific implementation supports this. 5e's implementation unfortunately is a good bit worse than 4e's, but similar in many respects. SCs can be made to work in 5e as well, though it is not as good a system for it overall. Pity, one hates to see edition-to-edition regression, but then again I can happily play 4e!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I firmly believe that if 4e

1. Gave every class 2 role and let you choose between them at level 1
2. Have all powers shared between power source

There'd be more acceptance on 4e.

Like you choose fighter and choose Slayer (Striker) or Guardian (defender).
Paladin chooses Defender or Leader.
Wizard choose Controller or Blaster.
Etc etc.

I think the less people had to accept to fix what was broken in the past, the more they'd accept change

I don't think so. I don't think the specific character of 4e, aside from it being rather different from previous editions, mattered much at all. I mean, 70% of its detractors are clueless about the game, so that tells you a lot.

Multiple roles would just muddle class design. Role is useful to players, but it is PRIMARILY a tool which keeps designers honest and made them actually create classes that both worked, and didn't turn out to be one man bands.

 

[Pedantic]

So, basically the probability that you can swim 100 meters, in total, is effectively zilch. Yeah, that's a great skill system! I want that! ROFLMAO! Seriously, nobody, outside of combats that happen at very small scales, uses it that way, it's unworkable.

No, that's just incorrect. An average person, with no ranks, a 10 strength, not wearing armor can take 10 and swim indefinitely in calm water until the rules for swimming an hour or longer come in and start causing non-lethal damage.

For the sake of ease assuming the standard human 30ft movement speed, that gives us a 100 yard time of 120 seconds. My competitive splits, and I was never a good sprinter, we're around 45 seconds for a 100, so we're moving slowly, but not too out of pocket.

A PC with a strength modifier and even just the 4 level 1 ranks ranks can immediately replicate that feat in rough water. A few more ranks and they could reasonably do it in light or medium armor, or in calm water under combat conditions unarmored.

Seriously, you have picked the worst example. Go after diplomancy or something. The swim rules work fine, and model heroic competence quite well.

Edit: Messed up my arithmetic.

 

[Undrave]

This power was made after 4e was fairly mature, too, so it's not like they didn't know about the context. Guess with 400 or so powers per class, you're gonna get some weird ones.

I think it was like a class feature of a Beguiler? One of the Essential subclass. It's just there so you don't have to negotiate with your DM.

Multiple roles would just muddle class design. Role is useful to players, but it is PRIMARILY a tool which keeps designers honest and made them actually create classes that both worked, and didn't turn out to be one man bands.

Or turn out to be a Monk.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't think so. I don't think the specific character of 4e, aside from it being rather different from previous editions, mattered much at all. I mean, 70% of its detractors are clueless about the game, so that tells you a lot.

Citation needed. Or are you just assuming that people who disagree with you must not be as enlightened as you are? If so, carry on.

 

[Aldarc]

I firmly believe that if 4e

1. Gave every class 2 role and let you choose between them at level 1
2. Have all powers shared between power source

There'd be more acceptance on 4e.

Like you choose fighter and choose Slayer (Striker) or Guardian (defender).
Paladin chooses Defender or Leader.
Wizard choose Controller or Blaster.
Etc etc.

I think the less people had to accept to fix what was broken in the past, the more they'd accept change

IMHO, I'm not sure if I would have classes perform different roles. (And we know that if they had, there would have been even more accusations of 4e D&D just being like WoW.) Instead, it's worth considering what would happened had WotC labeled Martial classes as "the Fighter," and then divided out class/roles from there. So all Martial classes become variants of "the Fighter." The Martial Defender could have been then called something else.

To be clear, this is not necessarily what I would have done with 4e. I don't have an issue with roles. But I think that trying to provide multiple roles for a single class makes designing for the class more difficult.

 

[Pedantic]

Nope! It is a system which says "at this point, when we have passed N skill checks, you WILL be obliged to grant us our intent." That is 100% what it is for, and it is 100% there to prevent GMs from sandbagging and asking for a few more checks until things end up how they want regardless of how clever you are, or how lucky.

The GM does not "ask" for skill checks in the 3e model (outside of opposed checks, like Spot & Listen). Players ask for information about the environment, then use skills. The GM calling for checks is a 5e thing, the "Swim" skill is a set of abilities locked behind probabilities, with a conditional +0-20 modifier often locked at +10. A character with a +20 to swim checks simply has the ability to swim at half their land speed as a full round action, as they can't fail to meet any of the DCs and needn't bother rolling to begin with. There is also no benefit to rolling higher than necessary, and no cost save for time to use the take 10/20 rules, so players have routine access to a lot of abilities without needing to roll in the first place.

Skills are tools players use to achieve their goals; this being 3.5 they are generally the second choice to an appropriate spell, but if they do the job they're certainly cheaper. It is perfectly cogent, for example, for a player to say "I'll swim across the channel to get to him" then roll, and report the results without consulting the GM, much in the same way it's cogent for a player with water walk active to simply announce they'll walk over it. Both actions have the same declarative power if you hit the appropriate DCs to use the action in the first place.

Am I simply parsing you wrong? Have you misremembered critical failures/successes and are accounting for those maybe? They pointedly were not included with skills.

Surely you can see how that's different from the 5e model? I don't know what an Athletics check in 5e does. It's not clear what actions require one, and when one is called for I will always have to roll, and I can't reference the results of my roll in a book ahead of time to see what I can do, that's entirely up to the DM's understanding in the moment analysis of what constitutes a "Moderate Task" or whatever. That's got far more in common with the DM deciding this is a level 12 challenge, and my approach is Medium than it does with 3e's Swim checks.

 

[Minigiant]

IMHO, I'm not sure if I would have classes perform different roles. (And we know that if they had, there would have been even more accusations of 4e D&D just being like WoW.) Instead, it's worth considering what would happened had WotC labeled Martial classes as "the Fighter," and then divided out class/roles from there. So all Martial classes become variants of "the Fighter." The Martial Defender could have been then called something else.

To be clear, this is not necessarily what I would have done with 4e. I don't have an issue with roles. But I think that trying to provide multiple roles for a single class makes designing for the class more difficult.

Actually designing classes with multiple roles if classes shared powers would be easy

The fighter would choose between getting a Mark or Damage boost at level 1.

Ranger would get a Hunters Quarry that dealt bonus damage or a slow.

 

[Aldarc]

Actually designing classes with multiple roles if classes shared powers would be easy

The fighter would choose between getting a Mark or Damage boost at level 1.

Ranger would get a Hunters Quarry that dealt bonus damage or a slow.

If you say so...