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

[overgeeked]

The thing is, it's actually good that sometimes enemy ignore the mark because triggering the punishment is FUN for the Defender. Defenders would actually be super boring if enemies ALWAYS respected the mark. The point of the Defender is to ONLY offer losing scenario to the enemy. Either outcomes of a mark should be in your favor and using your abilities to make it so is part of the appeal.

The most fun I had playing 4E was an eladric swordmage. They're a unique defender in that they mark the target then teleport around the encounter playing keep away with the mark. Tanking via kiting, basically. It was so much fun.

 

[Retreater]

I'm prepping to run a 4e session tomorrow with a gargoyle in an encounter.
This is an example of something I dislike about the system.
The gargoyle can spend a standard action to turn to stone. On its next turn, it can leave stone form as a minor action and if it hits with an attack, it deals +20 damage.
In the fiction of the world, how do I convey this added threat to my players? How do the characters know the gargoyle has gotten more dangerous? How do they know to avoid the attacks or to target the super-charged gargoyle?
Because to me, the only way it makes sense is to say, "this gargoyle is a Lurker monster. It spends one round hiding or otherwise positioning itself to do additional damage to your characters." And to convey the information in this manner, you are reducing everything about the world to miniatures on a grid and statblocks. It's the same experience as playing Necromunda (which I'm also doing this weekend) - except with D&D, it's weekly for 4 hours and supposed to last a year or more with 6 participants.

 

[niklinna]

I'm prepping to run a 4e session tomorrow with a gargoyle in an encounter.
This is an example of something I dislike about the system.
The gargoyle can spend a standard action to turn to stone. On its next turn, it can leave stone form as a minor action and if it hits with an attack, it deals +20 damage.
In the fiction of the world, how do I convey this added threat to my players? How do the characters know the gargoyle has gotten more dangerous? How do they know to avoid the attacks or to target the super-charged gargoyle?
Because to me, the only way it makes sense is to say, "this gargoyle is a Lurker monster. It spends one round hiding or otherwise positioning itself to do additional damage to your characters." And to convey the information in this manner, you are reducing everything about the world to miniatures on a grid and statblocks. It's the same experience as playing Necromunda (which I'm also doing this weekend) - except with D&D, it's weekly for 4 hours and supposed to last a year or more with 6 participants.

Getting hit by what's effectively a stone mace is gonna hurt a lot more than getting hit by a flesh-and-blood limb. This is something you might give your players beforehand, or as an explanation the first time it strikes (whether it hits or not).

 

[Minigiant]

Personally, I think this fundamentally misunderstands what is involved, but I don't think this thread is the appropriate place for that discussion.

I was being overly simplistic.

The point was that WOTC understood powers and roles early. Choosable roles would not be a balance problem.

 

[Clint_L]

This is pure legacy. In T&T, for instance, wizards both heal and use Take That, You Fiend.

I mean, you can assert that it is legacy all you want. It's good to have opinions. To me, it makes sense for class balance and design reasons. You could give every class access to every spell, but then you get a different and very homogenous system.

Not everything that has been done a particular way for a long time remains that way just for legacy reasons. Do bishops only move diagonally for legacy reasons? Sometimes, things are just good ideas that make a game work as intended. Having some class distinctions reflected in access to spells seems like a feature to me. Apparently not to you. Fair enough.

But saying it is only there for "legacy" reasons, while presenting zero evidence to support your claim, is dismissive and, like many comments in this thread, seems designed to imply that people with different opinions just haven't thought it through enough.

 

[pemerton]

(or, as noted above, to be forgetful and eat the punishment by accident).

Just to be clear: I don't assume that just because I, the GM, am forgetful my NPCs/creatures are. They are making choices (rational ones, emotional ones, whatever best makes sense given their instincts and personalities). My forgetfulness serves the same purpose that a randomiser would!

 

[pemerton]

I'm prepping to run a 4e session tomorrow with a gargoyle in an encounter.
This is an example of something I dislike about the system.
The gargoyle can spend a standard action to turn to stone. On its next turn, it can leave stone form as a minor action and if it hits with an attack, it deals +20 damage.
In the fiction of the world, how do I convey this added threat to my players? How do the characters know the gargoyle has gotten more dangerous? How do they know to avoid the attacks or to target the super-charged gargoyle?

The canonical method is that someone makes a knowledge check.

But that's not the only way.

Because to me, the only way it makes sense is to say, "this gargoyle is a Lurker monster. It spends one round hiding or otherwise positioning itself to do additional damage to your characters." And to convey the information in this manner, you are reducing everything about the world to miniatures on a grid and statblocks.

To me, that doesn't seem to be the only way that makes sense. You tell them that the gargoyle has turned into a lifeless statue. They then do <whatever> - perhaps adopt total defence, perhaps beat up on it, hoping to get through its resistance to damage.

This will all be strengthened if there are a host of statues, and so you can plausibly narrate the gargoyle as having "vanished" or "blended in" to the statues all around. (I've never done this for a 4e gargoyle, but have done something similar for a 4e doppelganger.)

Then, when it takes its minor action you say that "Suddenly the statute comes to life", adding in additional narration about them having dropped their guard, or whatever, as makes sense given their own action declaration. Because that's what's happening in the fiction. It's no different from how you would narrate sneak attack damage in a 3E of 5e D&D game.

Now, if you worry is that the players won't anticipate the sneaky attack, and hence will leave themselves vulnerable to being beaten up by the gargoyle, well my response is "It sucks to be them!" We're talking about a RPG here, not a miniature board or skirmish game. Getting caught unawares by statues coming to life is part of the genre.

 

[pemerton]

Getting hit by what's effectively a stone mace is gonna hurt a lot more than getting hit by a flesh-and-blood limb. This is something you might give your players beforehand, or as an explanation the first time it strikes (whether it hits or not).

That's another way of doing it. More Sandman than Hammer Horror.

 

[pemerton]

I mean, you can assert that it is legacy all you want. It's good to have opinions. To me, it makes sense for class balance and design reasons. You could give every class access to every spell, but then you get a different and very homogenous system.

Not everything that has been done a particular way for a long time remains that way just for legacy reasons. Do bishops only move diagonally for legacy reasons? Sometimes, things are just good ideas that make a game work as intended. Having some class distinctions reflected in access to spells seems like a feature to me. Apparently not to you. Fair enough.

But saying it is only there for "legacy" reasons, while presenting zero evidence to support your claim, is dismissive and, like many comments in this thread, seems designed to imply that people with different opinions just haven't thought it through enough.

There are options besides "give every class access to every spell" and carving out healing as a special domain of magical endeavour. Rolemaster is one example.

Treating healing as special but not, say, teleportation; allowing wizards to have direct damage and battlefield control and enchantment and a reasonable range of buffs, but not healing; those are D&D legacies. There's no inherent design reason to bundle things in just that way, and other FRPGs - and 4e D&D - show other ways of bundling the various sorts of ability.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm prepping to run a 4e session tomorrow with a gargoyle in an encounter.
This is an example of something I dislike about the system.
The gargoyle can spend a standard action to turn to stone. On its next turn, it can leave stone form as a minor action and if it hits with an attack, it deals +20 damage.
In the fiction of the world, how do I convey this added threat to my players? How do the characters know the gargoyle has gotten more dangerous? How do they know to avoid the attacks or to target the super-charged gargoyle?
Because to me, the only way it makes sense is to say, "this gargoyle is a Lurker monster. It spends one round hiding or otherwise positioning itself to do additional damage to your characters." And to convey the information in this manner, you are reducing everything about the world to miniatures on a grid and statblocks. It's the same experience as playing Necromunda (which I'm also doing this weekend) - except with D&D, it's weekly for 4 hours and supposed to last a year or more with 6 participants.

I don't understand why you would need to tell them the mechanical description here, but not for spells or abilities that would appear in some other edition. However, in the spirit of being constructive rather than simply expressing confusion, here are some examples I would use:

• (Upon turning to stone) "The gargoyle ceases engaging with your blows, and settles into a menacing pose. Its skin, already grey, takes on a new cast, and the glow of its eyes fades as the creature turns itself into stone. It seems to draw power as it does so, perhaps communing with the earth beneath its feet." (When it changes back) "The gargoyle bursts free of its stony chrysalis! Its talons gleam as if freshly-sharpened and its eyes harbor murderous intent, ready to eviscerate the first thing it sees."
• (Turning to stone) "You know gargoyles are creatures of stone and darkness, ambush predators. This one assumes its stone form, ready to strike from the shadows." (Returning) "Almost faster than the eye can see, the former 'statue' comes to life and lunges with hungry talons and hungry eyes."
• (Turning to stone) "Some creatures infused with primal power can take stone form, either to protect themselves, heal injuries, or absorb the powers of earth to fall upon an enemy like a sack of bricks. Gargoyles may do any of those...but they delight in the last especially." (Returning) "With a crackle of green lightning, the gargoyle smoothly returns to life, like a panther slinking out of a shadow. It's ready to deal some death."

Further, if the party is encountering these things and doesn't actually have any prior knowledge of gargoyles, especially if the gargoyles get the jump on them...why should they start out knowing this? Part of the fun of many 4e combats is needing to find out what the enemy does. That's part of why PCs have relatively high HP early on, but grow it more slowly than other editions. The PCs often need a round (or maybe two) to be exposed to what the enemy does, so they can then hatch a plan and execute it. It's entirely acceptable to surprise the party with hidden gargoyles! In fact, having real gargoyles hiding amongst other (perfectly ordinary) statues sounds like an awesome, fun encounter that can ramp up player paranoia without needing to be punitive. You can get them jumping at shadows (or, I guess, statues) with just one combat.

And savvy players will be doing things like asking questions about the area and its denizens, which may or may not warrant a skill check to see how much they know. If they do some research first, then that's a perfect in-story opportunity to explain it without once referring to the mechanical description.

Ultimately, though...I just don't see why the fact that it is a Lurker means you have to tell them it's a Lurker. Let actions speak for themselves, or use poetic description when the creature acts, or encourage your players to do research before they set out. All of those are orders of magnitude better than trotting out a dry, mechanical description. Let the mechanics do their job; your job is to be talespinner and fatebinder.