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

[niklinna]

Nah they made it clear what was At-Will, Encounter or Daily. The readability made it super easy to use at the table and that was the goal. 4e power lists were just NOT designed for a casual read through. Wether that's good or not is up to preferences.

Ah, whoops, I didn't mean the red/black/green bands (which are bad choices for color-blind folks). I meant the alternating bands of color in the power entry. For example, sometimes the Effect text is on a white band, sometimes on a shaded band.

 

[Kaiyanwang]

Sorry but I still don't understand how that links to what we were talking about how the rules feel too gamist and how I said they do because they're presented clearly and don't pretend to not be game rules. I'm not sure how that relates to the spells that weren't turned into rituals? We were addressing the presentation of the rules being sterile? That doesn't have anything to do with the effects.

Sorry but at this point I have to ask - are you doing this intentionally?
Could you please reread the original post? Thanks.
The initial answer was about framing the "rule clarity" as the perceived issue, while the issue is what and what not the rules describe. Some rules for specific spells and actions were not there, and this was probably because they did't fit the "clear" and sterile, because LIMITED IN GAMEPLAY format.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Despite the use of a $20 word (which honestly I don't even know how diegesis applies), I am not actively hostile nor do I control the narrative flow of the game. Yet I don't find it that hard to balance things out.

You must artificially ensure that the opposition is timed juuuuuust perfectly so three hours of resting never ever causes problems (otherwise you punish those people far more than you punish the long-resters), but always so that the time pressure makes long-resting so risky it should never be done unless it can't be avoided anymore. That's not grounding things in what really exists in the world. That's tailoring opposition to suit the mechanical needs of the game. The opposition doesn't exist because it needs to be that way to make sense in world. It exists that way so that it can counter the game design that made spellcasters powerful unless intentionally countered.

Assuming you aren't also catching your allies, assuming they're all approaching from the same direction, assuming that this is an indoor location that is fireproof, on and on and on.

1: Most Wizards don't care, and Evokers genuinely couldn't care less.
2: You literally only need three people within a 20' radius, or two as long as at least one fails the save. This is not a difficult thing to achieve, even if the only come from one side.
3: Why indoor? That's completely irrelevant. I was actually imagining an outdoor location, like the fight in Hussar's 5e game recently where we had three bandits attack from the front, three from behind, and a few weak ones scattered amongst the trees.

Buildings made of wood aren't flammable? Trees? The McGuffin the party needs to retrieve?

Most adventures occur in stone buildings (castles, temples, dungeons, etc.), caves, ruins (where no one cares that you set a wooden thing on fire), or wilderness areas. Only the last is potentially a risk. A six-second fireball is not going to set a rainforest on fire. It probably won't even set most ordinary forests on fire. You are creating an unrealism (forests so prone to lighting ablaze, a single storm could make them disappear in a puff of smoke) solely to counter the power of spellcasters. Very few combats actually occur inside a wooden building.

Assumes that you know what you're going to be facing and then have time to take a long rest.

Not at all. I've personally prepared such spells and never once encountered something that resisted both. Even if I had, chromatic orb is your friend.

Apparently you've never had a fighter using sharpshooter or GWM.

Nope! Too many people ban them for being OP, or intentionally avoid them because they're boring.

I think there should be options for spell and resource recovery based on the type of game you play, but even 4 fights per day can tax a wizard's resources.

Only if the Wizard is being utterly profligate with useless puff spells. Which isn't really relevant as a rebuttal.

 

[Oofta]

You must artificially ensure that the opposition is timed juuuuuust perfectly so three hours of resting never ever causes problems (otherwise you punish those people far more than you punish the long-resters), but always so that the time pressure makes long-resting so risky it should never be done unless it can't be avoided anymore. That's not grounding things in what really exists in the world. That's tailoring opposition to suit the mechanical needs of the game. The opposition doesn't exist because it needs to be that way to make sense in world. It exists that way so that it can counter the game design that made spellcasters powerful unless intentionally countered.


1: Most Wizards don't care, and Evokers genuinely couldn't care less.
2: You literally only need three people within a 20' radius, or two as long as at least one fails the save. This is not a difficult thing to achieve, even if the only come from one side.
3: Why indoor? That's completely irrelevant. I was actually imagining an outdoor location, like the fight in Hussar's 5e game recently where we had three bandits attack from the front, three from behind, and a few weak ones scattered amongst the trees.


Most adventures occur in stone buildings (castles, temples, dungeons, etc.), caves, ruins (where no one cares that you set a wooden thing on fire), or wilderness areas. Only the last is potentially a risk. A six-second fireball is not going to set a rainforest on fire. It probably won't even set most ordinary forests on fire. You are creating an unrealism (forests so prone to lighting ablaze, a single storm could make them disappear in a puff of smoke) solely to counter the power of spellcasters. Very few combats actually occur inside a wooden building.


Not at all. I've personally prepared such spells and never once encountered something that resisted both. Even if I had, chromatic orb is your friend.


Nope! Too many people ban them for being OP, or intentionally avoid them because they're boring.


Only if the Wizard is being utterly profligate with useless puff spells. Which isn't really relevant as a rebuttal.

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.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Feats are technically an optional rule.

If the fluff effect of flammable things getting set on fire happens often use other spells. As I said earlier today I'm not sure fireball is better than any of lightning bolt, Hunger of Hadar, or spirit guardians.

 

[MockingBird]

I played a few sessions of 3e when it was new. I sat out out most of 3e/3.5e. Not because I disliked it, just because of my own interest migrated away from TTRPGs. I had noticed new books in the RPG section at my local BAM. I floated the idea of starting a D&D game with my roommate and our friends. My roommate had only dabbled in D&D in high-school (2e). The rest of our friends had never played it. It was a super casual group with me being the only "engaged" of the group. I picked up the starter set and once I knew the game would go on I picked up the core rules. Really the majority of my group didn't have any preconceived notions about the rules. I was probably the only one who knew of any differences. After we played through the starter set (don't remember the packaged adventure) we picked up a few more players and made characters. We played through the DMG intro and moved into Keep on the Shadowfell. In general we had fun. The issues I saw didn't have anything to do with setting. No one other than ne was invested or even knew about FR. None of the players wanted to fool with "powers". They just wanted to hit things and move along. We finished Keep but it dragged on with encounter after encounter. It was also very different from how I remembered D&D so it clashed with my particular style of play. After Keep it just fell apart. No one was interested. Someone said it up thread, you only get the one time to make an impression. 4e failed at making a good impression with new and casual gamers. I pretty much gave up on running D&D after that. When Essentials came out with its nostalgic starter set I was suckered back in. I made another attempt to start a game up but it was in vain. I dabbled with another group as a player in 4e and we all disliked it. We eventually jumped to PF and had fun. It wasn't until 5e came out that I was able to successfully run a game with a casual group. So I'd have to hard disagree with the setting being the reason it failed, at least in my experience.

I would say 4e didn't connect with casual gamers. Without a dedicated tool, running and updating characters was a chore for new players. I would also say there was too much choice or an illusion of too much choice. No one bothered with their powers. We also didn't have minis or grids (just the tokens the starter set came with). All this is my opinion of course and taken from my very anecdotal experience.

 

[niklinna]

Well, I mean I did experience it in that my players did not look at their class's powers lists and almost ever use them outside of combat. They appeared to be combat powers so the players used them in combat (and usually only in combat). Even many of the utility powers seemed to be combat-centric than anything to use for exploration or social, so when it came to exploration and social parts of the game, looking at their powers was pretty far down the list.

And all this being said doesn't make 4E "bad". I'm not putting a value judgement on it. It just is what it is. My players did not see 4E powers as things to be used out of combat and based on how I remember people talking about 4E (here and elsewhere) that it seems many others felt the same way. Like I said, if you and your group were able to make that jump, then that's great for you and it probably made 4E more interesting and palatable. My players didn't tend to do it, but then again my particular style of DMing didn't ask it of them usually anyway. You know me... game mechanics are the last thing I tend to be concerned about, LOL.

This is odd to me, because I recall a goodly number of powers being clearly of use outside of combat (and not so much in combat!). Particularly the utility powers.

But oh, I am so familiar with the type of player who can't be bothered to know what their character is capable of, mechanically. It's particular un-fun when such people choose the most complex class or archetype....

 

[Vaalingrade]

Can things with darkvision read street signs on a moonless night without a light?

If one is reading street signs, one has already failed at being a demonic monster.

(Is there a way to pain them so that Daredevil couldn't read them by touch?)

Since her 'reads' and senses color based on the heat produced by different wavelengths coming off the material, you could come up with a means of heating the surface so as to be entirely uniform or too hot for him to touch.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Since there is no 4e SRD, not really actually. No OGL, remember? OGL bad!
But as an example, I can think about Suggestion - it was completely transformed into "make an arcana check for diplomacy" which is horrible to say the least.

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.

 

[SteveC]

Since there is no 4e SRD, not really actually. No OGL, remember? OGL bad!
But as an example, I can think about Suggestion - it was completely transformed into "make an arcana check for diplomacy" which is horrible to say the least.

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.

I play spell casters in 5E, and I use both Suggestion and Mass Suggestion in them. They're another example of an encounter-ending effect. In our Shackled City game, I used the Mass Suggestion, "Hey, are they paying you enough? I suggest all of you give up and have a drink at a bar with the money I'm willing to give you." That's something you don't do in 4E.

Is one way better than the other? Just as in my Hypnotic Pattern example, it's just different. I'm sure the fight would have been fun, but we got through it and on to what happens next.

Also, there is a 4E SRD. It's not great, but it exists.