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

[SteveC]

this is blatantly false, it is pretty much the exact reverse of what the numbers we do have tell us. While these numbers are not 100% accurate, they are good enough to know that this is false. At best 4e could tie with 3.5 for the worst selling edition because we do not have precise numbers for either, but that is the most level of uncertainty we do have

This just gets a sigh out of me. On the one hand, we don't have the numbers, on the other hand, we know enough to call something blatantly false. This is what you want to be true. And that's okay with me (since I know a lot of people who hated 4E with the intensity of 10000 suns). We don't know the real info. Let's leave it at that. The "edition I hated is the worst selling ever" is just tiring, especially since it's been complete for over 10 years. Do we really need to continue this discussion so far removed from the actual situation? If so, I can tell you how much I didn't like Skills and Powers from the 2E era.

 

[Aldarc]

In any case the other restriction I didn't like about the AEDU structure were the strict limitations. Why could I only use any and all encounter powers only once per encounter?

One rule that I would have in a revised version of 4e would be using Healing Surges to regain uses of Encounter Powers in combat. So you can use Encounter powers again, but there is now an associated cost. I have seen people with a similar rule. It doesn't change 4e RAW, but again, I don't think that anyone is out there saying 4e couldn't have used some tweaks.

Glancing at my runecaster fighter I have some abilities that I can use once per short rest, once per long rest, or multiple times per long rest. That flexibility opens up so many options we didn't have in 4E for reasons that never made a lot of sense to me.

What you are describing is not much different than 4e. Looking at your 4e fighter, you have some abilities you can use at-will, some you can use once per short rest, or once per long rest.

 

[Oofta]

warriors rogues and every other class in every edition can do things no real person can...

My swashbuckler rogue is a great Erol Flynn type. My arcane trickster rogue had magic. My champion fighter (first PC in 5E) didn't have anything supernatural, my runecaster does. In most cases, if a subclass is using magic they call it out as magic.

Some subclasses for fighters and rogues have supernatural abilities, others do not. At the same time I'm perfectly okay with action movie hero reality for my champion fighter. Various athletes, especially gymnasts, seem to defy physics but it's just because they are far more skilled than I am.

There are some dumb things in the rules, such as heavy crossbows getting multiple attacks on a single turn but that's an issue with implementation not giving everyone supernatural abilities.

 

[Oofta]

One rule that I would have in a revised version of 4e would be using Healing Surges to regain uses of Encounter Powers in combat. So you can use Encounter powers again, but there is now an associated cost. I have seen people with a similar rule. It doesn't change 4e RAW, but again, I don't think that anyone is out there saying 4e couldn't have used some tweaks.


What you are describing is not much different than 4e. Looking at your 4e fighter, you have some abilities you can use at-will, some you can use once per short rest, or once per long rest.

One of the things I disliked about the AEDU was the lack of flexibility. The fact that my runecaster doesn't have to fit the same AEDU pattern is a good thing. The people creating the classes were hamstrung by an artificial limit.

 

[Aldarc]

The people creating the classes were hamstrung by an artificial limit.

That is certainly how you feel, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[niklinna]

I have run every edition of this game... and there are game mechanics that are like this for newbies in each. Your SA analogy hits well with me.

I was running a store game of 5e back pre covid. I had 1 player that knew 2e, 1 player that had played and run 5e, and 4 newbies that 3 of them (including my then GF now Wife) never having played ANY TTRPG. I had an NPC/villian rogue. she was a kobold assassin, with a 3d6 SA. none of the players were playing rouges (If I remember it was fighter monk sorcerer ranger... and I don't remember others) so when they fought there way through kobolds, and made it to thiss big encounter, and the fighter almost got dropped by a knife sneak attack that was 100% a sneak (from hidden) attack... BUt the next round the kobold moved next to an alley and got SA again and everyone was like "Hey wait, we can see the kobold, why do they get to add sneak attack" and yeah the rules say when you have advantage or when you have an adjacent alley (and with pack tactics she had both) but how do I explain why a small rouge hits for 1d4+2+3d6 just cause someone is next to them, but the fighter with a magic two handed sword only hits for 2d6+4?

My understanding of Sneak Attack is that you take advantage of the target being distracted or unaware to make a strike where it's gonna hurt the most—you can hit an artery or other vital spot, or get through chinks in armor. Regardless of edition, mapping that to HP remains fraught, of course. Meanwhile the fighter with the magic two-handed sword (lacking a similar special of course) doesn't get to do that, it's just chop, chop. But they can, at appropriate levels, swing that sword many times; it's only 2d6+4 per swing, but that adds up fast.

 

[dbolack]

You'd better sit down for this.

My point.

 

[Oofta]

That is certainly how you feel, but that doesn't make it true.

Hence the part of my post that you didn't quote "One of the things I disliked...". I don't understand why they thought it was a good idea to be so limiting other than being easy but it wasn't my decision. It was also one of the things I personally didn't care for.

 

[niklinna]

For me, every single class played the same with the exception of the 4 combat roles. They all had at-will, encounter, and daily powers. Sure, the powers changed the way they played and felt in game but the core was they every class fundamentally operated the same base way. I know that is simplistic and a generalization but that was how 4e felt to me.

Every single D&D class I've played rolls a d20 to attack, or makes the target roll a saving throw. Sure, the attacks changed the way they played and felt in game but the core was that every class operated the same base way. Every 5e class has abilities that are at-will, x per short rest, or x per long rest. It's all so samey.

If you combine that with what I grew to hate in 3.5/PF1, which is all of the fiddly bits such as as you have this +2 or this -2 or this half-dozen situational effects going on at any time. Or movement by squares. I had players that refused to play 3.5 and 4e without a battle map. Sure, in theory, you can play without one and I saw it happen, once, but the tactical game was so prevalent that players always insisted on a battle map so they could make full use of their class abilities.

On fiddly math and piles of +/- I'm totally with you. I never like the fiddly math crap in any game. Grids, depends on what I'm in the mood for, but I sure haven't missed them in Blades in the Dark or Stonetop. I generally do not want a game swinging between comparatively light mechanics and round-by-round, tactical, HP-ablation combat, especially with players who don't pay attention and then have to get recaps or explanations of what the tactical situation is and do all their thinking on their turn rather than as the round progresses (which I faced much too often).

Games that can do combat either way depending on narrative significance of the battle give me the best of both.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I think this thread, and others, has shown me that maybe, if WotC ever were to release a 4e SRD into creative commons, that a 3rd party might have some success marketing a system based on it.

I don't think WotC has any interest in such things, as 5e is far to popular for any major change.