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

[niklinna]

I just want to second this. If you want to see where 4E could have gone, I think this is a great product. Now I'm not overly fond of the production values for the game, but the design really gives you something to think about.

I have the preview, but I couldn't find anything about character creation in it! Production values definitely matter. (Or maybe there's actually nothing about character creation in the preview.)

 

[SteveC]

I have the preview, but I couldn't find anything about character creation in it! Production values definitely matter. (Or maybe there's actually nothing about character creation in the preview.)

Now you're making me go back in memory, so from what I remember, you had two classes. One of them was your Role, straight out of 4E, but the other was the character class. This meant you could have a character who was a fighter-controller, for instance.

The presentation is an issue for me, but I'm willing to overlook that for the ideas. The core PDF is currently $15. If you want to see some really interesting developments down the 4E rabbit hole, I think it's worth it. But it definitely needs someone to redo the layout completely.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't.


Because they repeatedly did so all throughout the D&D Next playtest, talking about how past games had influenced future games, about how they were staying true to what was great about what came before.

Except 4e.

That reminds me of one thing - when I read the D&D 4 rules, and played them, I realized in what way it was in a tradition of D&D very well: It was pretty much a response to D&D 3E, and fixing all the problems we experienced after playing it for many, many years, so for me it felt like "in the tradition of D&D, but improved in all the areas that bothered me after a few years of play"

Like D&D 3E skill system or Base Attack Bonus system might have been seen as the more elegant solution to AD&D profiency rules or THAC0, I think 4E had solutions for most of the issues I experienced as D&D 3 players (not everyone played like we did, of course, but it seemed kinda popular way to do it on EN World).

As examples: Healing Surges? Ah, so now we can heal to full as in 3E, but don't need to do it with loads of Wands of Cure Light Wounds anymore, we can just do it - but now there's a daily limit! Clerics being incredibly improtant because they are the best combat healers, but being the best combat healers means they don't get to use anything "fun" (and as "CoDzilla", if they really do, they hog the spotlight)? All Leaders have two guaranteed heals per combat that don't even cost them their attack! Combat Matrixes detailing all the possibible buff combinations and their values - almost entirely removed, only temporary bonus exist and they are more rare, you don't need that long tables anymore, and you also have a lot less buffs overlapping (like Enhancement bonus from spells and items) that you need to constantly keep in mind when your Wizard and Cleric do the pre-combat buffing mini-game. Magic Item Christmas Tree? Gone. (The only sacred cow with magic items they didn't kill were +X weapons and armor, but there was an optional rule to make them less relevant.)

But of course, 3E was just one game edition of many, and in a "longer" context, so to speak, it wouldn't see such a coherent "consequence" of all of D&D as it was to specifically D&D 4. OF course, I don't care, because I never played the previous editions. But even if you were familiar with only 3E, some of these solutions also changed how the game was played in unexpected ways perhaps - for example, in 3E it often felt like you played a game in character-generation, and then later executed a script for your character to roll off (Cast these buffs after breakfast, cast these buffs at the start of combat, if Bodak possible cast Death Ward; Improved Trip on enemy; end of combat count how many charges you need to heal everyone to full), while 4E had a lot less in the earlier phases but constantly demanded you to make decisions each turn, responding to the shape of the battlefield, the positioning of everyone, and your available power options, and even between your character's turns, you might have to think about immediate actions. I usually found this fun and more enjoyable, but I know it sometimes lead to analysis paralysis (myself included) and there wasn't really a "simple" character anymore (at least not until Essentials, which came way too late to actually make a difference, I think.)

But well, all this isn't really new stuff to the discussion. Sometimes I just like to remiscenence the old days. Heck, how many people even still remember "Magic Item Christmas Tree" (or "Rangers got the shaft") from the old3n days?

 

[Retreater]

I picked up Strike! in a PDF/print combo. The layout is fine if you consider it from an indie/zine lens. Not so much compared to WotC, Paizo, Chaosium, Cubicle 7, etc.
It's a short little book. Looks like a lot of fun but I haven't tried it yet.

 

[mamba]

I keep seeing this. Multiple people from WotC who were there at the time have said that each editions core books have sold more than the one before it

given the numbers we have access to, they are wrong, even about core books.

I only ever heard them talk about initial sales, not totals sales however. They might have been correct there and the total was still lower.

 

[SteveC]

given the numbers we have access to, they are wrong, even about core books.

I only ever heard them talk about initial sales, not totals sales however. They might have been correct there and the total was still lower.

I get that you believe that, but if I have a choice between a developer who was there across multiple editions, and you, I guess I know who I will believe. I know what Ben Riggs said. At the same time, he doesn't have access to the full WotC's sales. No one who's not internal does. So we have two conflicting claims, and I believe one of them.

 

[Minigiant]

Again a lot of the animosity to 4e seems to be based on the honesty about what stories the mechanics allow.

"I want to be a Dex based Fighter"
"You are better off as a rogue"
"But I want to be a fighter!"
"But the fighter lacks any synergy with the rapier"
"But it's the fighter! It's a weapon"
"But you decided that it lacks synergy with the fighter. Well except for marking"
"I hate marking"
"See. And that's the problem. One thing you want prevents another thing you want. 4e just is nice and doesn't let you pick the bad option by not having it exist."


Whereas 3e or 5e can allow utterly underpowered fighting styles and obfuscate that they aren't good choices.

Everyone is mad GWM and SS are so powerful. Nobody but me is saying "just make the other combat feats as powerful".

 

[Undrave]

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.

I don't trust this philosophy to not result into a ton of options becoming traps and failing to synergize, resulting in tons of characters who try to do too much at once because the individual ability sounded cool only to result in somebody who isn't good at anything.

5e is too slow. It took too long to hit the notes people desired and only recently got to its creative stage only to halt with the 2024 core

The lead up to Tasha's was FINALLY getting weird! And then NOPE! We gotta do a new Champion and a new War Cleric! Booooring.

I mean, that dissonance makes perfect sense. You want a moderate (whatever that is) release schedule in order to be sustainable, sure. But you want them to get to That One Thing you want, like, yesterday.

A lot of people seemed to REALLY care about the Half-Orc and the Gnome all of a sudden when the PHB1 came out... And a lot of people were asking where were the Bard, Barbarian, Sorcerer and Druid.

Suggestion itself is usable in as "open" a fashion as the Diplomacy skill. I have no idea why you say that it is "oversimplified" compared to the versions found in other editions of D&D.

I think he wanted an auto-win from Suggestion?

Previous editions supported many different styles of the game and was elastic enough that they could all be D&D.

I'm curious what style of game is available in 5e that wouldn't be possible in 4e. To me, I'm just not seeing the big gulf on that front between the two.

And you've already lost anyone who is playing D&D more for the character performance experience than for a tactical combat experience. You don't start with the decision to use the Kuleshov effect. You start with the needs of the narrative and the emotional content.

It's simple, you come up with your character's backstory and then ask yourself: "A fight breaks out, what do you do?" and then that helps you focus on the role you think fit that character. Someone who is likely to act like a defender or a leader is fundamentally different from someone who would act like a Striker or a Controller. I don't see how different that is than picking between a class in 5e, it's mostly a shift in perspective and angle of approach but it's fundamentally the same thing: putting yourself in your character's shoes and trying to figure out how they would accomplish their goals.

For a lot of people who play D&D, it's an incredibly narrow and specific and largely irrelevant aspect of playing D&D.

I really don't understand people who don't like combat playing DnD. Like, I'm sorry, it's always been a pretty major part of the game and if you don't care for it, surely you'd like to find a game where it's not as much of a part of the rules? I do understand though that 5e has way more character options for people who don't care about combat than base 4e, but it still feels a little weird to me to be so loyal to a brand where you don't care about a major chunk of it.

I also wouldn't characterize fun combat as a 'narrow and specific' aspect of playing D&D.

Yeah, I mean, we can all have hobbies outside of our job, but 4e was pretty clear that Defender was a Fighter's job. And if I played my Dex fighter as a bow-using damage dealer who ignored marking, I'd be doing a bad job at doing the Ranger's job, and a bad job at doing my job as the party's defender.

If you don't start your character creation at 'which class do I pick' then why care about the Fighter label and not just play a Ranger to realize your bow wielder? The 4e Ranger is not forced to pick up the Nature skill, and has no 'Favoured Terrain' stuff and even has a generic Battlefield Archer paragon path. It's, in all aspect but name, a perfect Bow fighter. Seems like a catch-22 to me.

5e's iteration (roles are things you can choose mechanics for if roles are important to you) isn't perfect, but it's better for more people than 4e's iteration (roles are things classes do), which itself was an improvement on 3e's iteration (roles aren't something the rules really need to worry about at all). The lesson that 5e has appeared to learn is that people don't need to care about combat role to choose a class. Combat role can be part of it, but it really doesn't have to be. This seems like a correct assessment from where I'm sitting.

Eh... I don't know if 5e really has actual combat role.

Seems like everybody is just a different kind of DPS. If you happen to be a Spellcaster you can sprinkle some support or control, but specializing in support in particular is either inneffective (healing in combat is never a good idea) or incredibly uninteresting. If I want to support as a Cleric I can drop a Bless on the party... and then do nothing. There is literrally no way to support as a Cleric that doesn't take up my concentration or is limited in usage and you need to keep backup slots for that healing that's useless in combat. The number of support ability for martials can be counted on like... two hands if I'm generous, otherwise your choice of secondary roles are Skill Monkey and Guy Who Can Take Hits.

There's only two options to even have meaningful Defender-like abilities because otherwise enemies are perfectly free to ignore you, especially if your one OA has already been triggered. We're back to relying on DM fiat to make enemies too stupid to realize this.

If 4e Combat was American Football, 5e Combat is like... COD Zombie or something.

It has taken awhile before designers were even willing to publicly admit that they were influenced by 4e, let alone like the game. I think that 4e, for whatever flaws attributed to the game (merited or not), did scratch a new itch for a number of people, which became increasingly clear with its relative absence. We are seeing more games out there where the designers are pointing to 4e as a strong influence on their designs.

God that itch is so unscratched for me...

I never choose a character based on combat role. I choose based on the type of character I want to play.

A DEX-based fighter is easily viable in 5e. They can be a much better archer than a ranger.

I never, ever think about the combat role I play when picking a character. The concept of defender, controller, leader, or striker is so foreign to how I go about choosing what to play.

So how do you pick your class and subclass, which ASi to get, and how do you decide what to do if a fight breaks out?

The sense to be made here is that marking - or even DEFENDING - was not something that a big portion of the player base associated with fighters in the narrative of what a fighter was.

Weren't Fighters always 'meat shields'?? Now they had an actual mechanic to make them hard to ignore and people complained... You didn't even need to be conscious of your ally's position, you OA was just a vector for more damage. 4e roles clearly played into clichés that already existed in DnD.

And for the record, a bow-using wizard, a tank-y rogue, and a bow-using fighter are all relatively viable builds in 5e.

'relatively' is doing a lot of work here (well, not for the Fighter, that one works). The Wizard isn't gonna have enough attacks to keep up and the Rogue not enough HP to soak up hits and will need to spend feats to improve their AC.

God this thread is a blast from the past and not in a good way. Maybe the Edition War is a chapter that shouldn't be re-opened.

I dunno, I got nothing going on this weekend so this is a nice distraction.

By the time we're getting to Martial Power 2

You know, I only realized recently I never picked up Martial Power 2. I was sure I did but I guess that was one of my friend? I have all the other ones. Primal Power was my favorite.

given the numbers we have access to, they are wrong, even about core books.

I only ever heard them talk about initial sales, not totals sales however. They might have been correct there and the total was still lower.

It doesn't really seems fair a comparaison considering 4e had a much shorter shelf life.

 

[Undrave]

I picked up Strike! in a PDF/print combo. The layout is fine if you consider it from an indie/zine lens. Not so much compared to WotC, Paizo, Chaosium, Cubicle 7, etc.
It's a short little book. Looks like a lot of fun but I haven't tried it yet.

You know, I'd love to be able to try new system but everybody I've ever played RPG with was always super resistant to learning game system from independant publisher and a lot of them just outright considered it a chore and would only do it on rare occasions.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't trust this philosophy to not result into a ton of options becoming traps and failing to synergize, resulting in tons of characters who try to do too much at once because the individual ability sounded cool only to result in somebody who isn't good at anything

It's not hard due to how roles are defined.

Defenders got a Mark
Strikers for a Xd6 damage bonus or +STAT damage bonus
Leaders got Xing Word
Controllers got...well controllers were weird.

The only Traps in 4e were classes that broke the mold.

So a fighter choosing between Mark or +1d6 damage would not likely lead to a trap.

The lead up to Tasha's was FINALLY getting weird! And then NOPE! We gotta do a new Champion and a new War Cleric! Booooring

Sometimes I wonder if Wizards actually does want my money.