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

[Belen]

This is a point of no small disagreement, and I'm sure you can find any number of Fighter threads...but yeah, this is precisely the problem. The archetype the Fighter represents is both too broad and too narrow. It's defined by mundanity, so suffers from being the yardstick against which other exceptional abilities are compared, and it's expected to cover such a broad swathe of content (seen clearly in the "how do I be an archer Fighter?" problem in 4e) that it doesn't have any room to be exceptional by drawing on archetypal abilities. A Weaponmaster is a good example, but even the existing martial+ archetypes that D&D has, the Paladin, the Ranger and the Barbarian are all fighter+ something, fighter+divinity, fighter+nature powers, fighter+supernatural anger, and get the cachet they need to have exceptional power from that bonus bit.

Weaponmaster is probably a decent call, because arguably D&D did have better fighter abilities at some points, they were just all attached to magic swords. "Guy who finds magic swords" would be a very D&D way out of the mundanity trap.

I am working on a blademaster subclass for fighter close to the old Wheel of Time PrC.

I think it will be cool.

 

[pemerton]

Just wrapped up a pretty dreadful session of 4e tonight.

I'm sorry to learn that.

Had a 6th level encounter for 6 7th level characters. It dragged on. And on. The main target got taken out at the beginning of Round 2. The worthless mooks were boring to play and not much of a threat. I told the group that they could intimidate them into a surrender, but the party wanted to leave no prisoners.

I did eventually narrate the end because I got so bored. There were still 3 enemies remaining. I was making overtures of the mooks surrendering when there were 6 remaining.

I don't own Madness at Gardmore Abbey, so I don't know the composition of this 6th level encounter. But I'm a bit puzzled that it would take 6 7th-level PCs very look to "clean up" some minions. Even if that was 8 minions, I'd expect the PCs to take them down at at least one per turn (maybe more than that with immediate actions, OAs if the minions try to flee, etc).

If the minions have surrendered and the PCs want to kill them anyway, I would advise not resolving that as a combat - the minions have ceased to fight. It seems more like something you could just narrate ("We execute the prisoners") or frame into a skill challenge.

The first fight (at the gatehouse) was after an extended rest. The second (entering the wizards tower) was after a short rest.

The second fight had a 10th level elite enemy. And it completely demolished them.

Again, I don't really understand this. A 7th level PC should hit a 10th level elite about 50/50, and it should take around 8 to 10 hits to take down the elite. So that should be around 20 attacks, which is around 3 rounds for your 6 PCs (given they will have action points, maybe a ranger, etc). How were your PCs taken down in 3 rounds?

I get the impression that your players may not actually be playing the game in its full technical sense - like, are they using encounter and daily powers sensibly, making decisions about their action points, using healing efficiently, etc? If they are not - eg if they are "casual" players who are not really interested in the technical demands of 4e play - then maybe you are using the wrong system.

Have you tried a less technical system with your group? In A Wicked Age, or Dungeon World, would both be examples of that.

 

[billd91]

There is so much help out there on this subject Retreater. You just need to do some keyword searches and you should get a cavalcade of help. Look at some of my PBPs on here. Those should help. Meanwhile:

* 6 characters is far, far too many for any game (imo) and its basically a killshot for 4e. I would not GM any 4e game with more than 4 characters and optimally I would prefer 3 (which is the number for most all of my games, particularly 4e). If you have to GM for 6 players, 4e is not the game. Play something else.

* Spend some (at least 1 level worth) of your encounter budget on Hazards (which have 0 HP) that serve to eliven the battlefield array by amplifying Team Monster yet also being an interesting asset/danger which Team PC will want to interact with (eg; "force move Team Monster into").

* Reward movement, demand movement, instigate movement via interesting battlefield arrays (Hindering Terrain, central features, things to stunt with, the use of Controllers and enemies with Forced Movement, Fantastic Terrain that can be interacted with via Minor Action for a Buff which then exhausts the terrain).

* Make ample use of protected Artillery Minions that are hard to get to due to battlefield array (Blocking Terrain, Hindering Terrain, Altitude, Cover, or Soldiers) or Skirmisher Minions who can kite.

* Think about the game layer when you're generating combats first and foremost. Interesting decision points (tactical, strategic, thematic) are the beating heart of the 4e combat engine. If your personal sense of a narrow causality is how you're generating combat dynamics, its going to fall flat. Think gonzo tropes, think player character themes/goals, and think "what sort of an encounter budget and roster and array would make for a rich decision-space for each player."

* Embed an appropriate thematic Skill Challenge alternative Win Cons (like escort PCs or get to x square before the end of y round, etc) with special attention paid to the action economy of actions. Combat shouldn't always be about reducing Team Monster to 0.

* Demand your players pay freaking attention. Use a 1 minute egg timer for on-turn actions. They should be paying attention and have an action declaration ready the moment their turn comes up. If they're looking at their phones, being disrespectful to you and the other players, or generally not paying attention? Punt them to the freaking moon and bask in the glory of praise from every TTRPG ever who has had to deal with that sort of disrespectful, selfish behavior. But be sad for the moon because now it has to deal with it.

* Develop a script for your own bad guys that you can refer to quickly to resolve your turns if you're struggling with your own turns.

* Conflict ratio should be about 5 Skill Challenges to 2 Combats.

* Everyone should be playing goal-forward. Players should know what goals their PCs have and they should be put on an index card as a Minor or Major Quest that everyone can access (and should access as a refresher; perhaps as a beginning of session prologue the players each read aloud their pending Quests).

This whole post reads like “the beatings will continue until morale improves”.

 

[billd91]

Just wrapped up a pretty dreadful session of 4e tonight.
Had a 6th level encounter for 6 7th level characters. It dragged on. And on. The main target got taken out at the beginning of Round 2. The worthless mooks were boring to play and not much of a threat. I told the group that they could intimidate them into a surrender, but the party wanted to leave no prisoners.
The second fight had a 10th level elite enemy. And it completely demolished them.
I'm running the highest reviewed official 4e adventure. I just don't get it.

Time to stick a fork in it. It’s done.

 

[Retreater]

I don't own Madness at Gardmore Abbey, so I don't know the composition of this 6th level encounter. But I'm a bit puzzled that it would take 6 7th-level PCs very look to "clean up" some minions. Even if that was 8 minions, I'd expect the PCs to take them down at at least one per turn (maybe more than that with immediate actions, OAs if the minions try to flee, etc).

The enemies weren't "minions" per the game terminology. They were just mooks, grunts, insignificant enemies - not the 1 HP variety.

Again, I don't really understand this. A 7th level PC should hit a 10th level elite about 50/50, and it should take around 8 to 10 hits to take down the elite. So that should be around 20 attacks, which is around 3 rounds for your 6 PCs (given they will have action points, maybe a ranger, etc). How were your PCs taken down in 3 rounds?

They were fighting the elite AND two level-appropriate baddies. Barbarian went inside a room to try to solo the elite while the rest of the party was dealing with two other enemies - so the enemies just divided and conquered.

Have you tried a less technical system with your group? In A Wicked Age, or Dungeon World, would both be examples of that.

Nothing that less technical. We've done 5e and Savage Worlds. Looking forward to the next campaign.

I just hate this. The only interaction I had with one player tonight was asking her "what defense were you attacking?" and "did you have a Minor action for this round?" She leaves for college in two months - is this the kind of game I want to leave her with?

 

[pemerton]

I just hate this. The only interaction I had with one player tonight was asking her "what defense were you attacking?" and "did you have a Minor action for this round?" She leaves for college in two months - is this the kind of game I want to leave her with?

I mean, I'm not at your table (it is in person?), don't know the personalities involved, etc. But it seems like you are interested in GMing or playing a technical wargame - eg I don't get the sense that the fiction/story are a high priority for you - while maybe those you're playing with are not?

If that's the case, I don't think it's a good match.

 

[niklinna]

I mean, I'm not at your table (it is in person?), don't know the personalities involved, etc. But it seems like you are interested in GMing or playing a technical wargame - eg I don't get the sense that the fiction/story are a high priority for you - while maybe those you're playing with are not?

If that's the case, I don't think it's a good match.

I've heard there's a little guide to helping figure that out.

 

[overgeeked]

I just hate this.

So stop. Play something else.

 

[Chaltab]

It's better to play a game that you like then continually bash your head against a game that you don't. I'm sorry that this game isn't working for you, @Retreater

 

[GrimCo]

Not to pick on this particular post, but I've seen this before and completely disagree that 4E would ever be accepted as an evolution of the other versions of D&D. It was a different game that carried over a handful of properties and core lore. How the rules were implemented and expressed, what various classes could do or targeted at was completely different.

We can agree to disagree. It's only opinions after all. I think it would be accepted if it was ever seen as a evolution, if there were enough elements that were familiar or at least resemble something familiar. People tend to like comfort of known.

People that rejected the game didn't reject it because it was too big a change and they just couldn't handle something new. They rejected it because it was a game they didn't want to play.

They rejected it cause it was radical shift from all previous editions. While 3e was more complex in some ways than 2e, you could clearly trace skill system to NWPs, fighter was still guy with sharp stick boinking baddies, wizard was still squishy guy with couple of spells and lousy sling/crossbow wielder (no at will magic). But most of all, it was still accommodating to all the playstyles 2ed was accommodating.

EDIT:
The problem with statements like this is that it's always implying that if people were just not stick-in-the-mud grognards unwilling to change they would accept how amazing 4E was. It's just not true, people simply like what they like and different isn't always better.

4e was amazing. It did what it was designed to do amazingly well. Problem is, outside of that, it didn't do that well. It was designed around one specific play style. If it was your preferred play style, it was great. If it wasn't, then it was mixed bag. FE if you liked ToTM non tactical combat, 4e was horrible. But if you liked grid based miniature team oriented tactical combat, then 4e was excellent.

I agree, people like what they like. Some people like 4e. I personally don't cause it's not my cup of tea, but i can still acknowledge that it was good game, with singular vision. 4e was iOS of D&D, once you accept how it works, it works great. Too bad D&D as a brand is more like Android, customize it to your own preference.