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

[Oofta]

...

Sometimes I wonder if Wizards actually does want my money.

Your money, specifically? Maybe not. You may just not be the target audience.

 

[Retreater]

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.

I understand. That's why I try new games at conventions or find them being played on online communities. That way I've learned the system and can be ambassador to my group.

 

[Minigiant]

Your money, specifically? Maybe not. You may just not be the target audience.

I probably am not.

 

[niklinna]

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.

I'm down for learning new systems, from independent publishers or no.

 

[niklinna]

Sometimes I wonder if Wizards actually does want my money.

Well! They want money, and don't care much who it comes from, as long as it comes from the most people and in large amounts. You & me, I guess we're not most people.

 

[Staffan]

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.

Those tended to be the defining traits of the roles, but you sort of need the support structure to go with them as well. For example, defenders had the ability to Mark foes, and usually some sort of punisher ability for foes that decided to attack their buddies despite the Mark. But that meant that the enemies would attack them instead, and they need the AC, hp, and healing surges to deal with that. Leaders don't just need Xing Word, they also need powers that buff, give saves, and so on.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Meanwhile if I play my 5e monk as a strength based brawler that stands in the front lines and tries for direct mano-a-mano beatdowns I'm going to be bad at it and have a bad time. And if I try to play my 3.X or 1e monk as ... just about anything really I'm going to have a bad time and be bad at it.

The only differences between 4e here and literally any other edition was that by having class roles 4e

1. Told you what a class was supposed to be good at up front
2. Told the designers to make sure that if they wanted to design a class it should be able to do something well out of the box (so no 1e/3.x monks)

None of this prevented you from drifting roles. My Feylock might have officially been a striker but in reality was a hardcore controller doing mediocre damage but causing the DM to tear his hair out. Meanwhile my friend's Invoker of Wrath at the same table was officially a controller but in practice easily topped the damage charts for the party and did very little control.

The roles were simply design notes for classes with no direct mechanical weight. And said "if you play the class in the orthodox way here is what they should be good at".

It's not fun for those players for it to be something you need to pay attention to when selecting a class.

So don't. You don't have to look at design notes. And some of the best parties were unbalanced.

Why do you object to design notes being published? Seriously, do you think designers should present the illusion that classes should spring fully formed from Zeus' brow?

So if as a D&D designer you tie your classes to combat roles, you're going to wind up having a lot of players see that as a problem. As restrictive. As "like an MMO." As purely combat-focused. As artificial.

Meanwhile people who care about reality know that in practice the 4e fighter was far more flexible and less combat focused than the pre-Tasha's 5e fighter. Their trained skills matter more until high leel, they have far more feats, and have non-ribbon utility powers, and they aren't completely overshadowed by mages. And both of them leave the 3.x fighter in the dust.

So your problem here is that by presenting design notes for the class a group of people jumped to a wrong conclusion.

And the lesson 5e learned at launch was to treat the players like mushrooms and not fix the underlying problems.

 

[Clint_L]

And the lesson 5e learned at launch was to treat the players like mushrooms and not fix the underlying problems.

I'm not sure what you're going for here, but it seems insulting to the myriad of folks who have actively chosen and enjoy 5e. Including me. You seem to be implying, as have others in this thread, that we're just a bunch of rubes who don't understand why the game we enjoy is actually bad/other versions are better. What's up with that?

I assure you that I am very aware of 5e's strengths and weaknesses, and those of every edition of D&D, and on balance, think 5e does the best job of delivering what I am looking for in a D&D game. That is not to say that it cannot be improved, or isn't being improved (c.f. the updated monk). Or that other people are wrong for liking what they like. Arguments are generally more convincing if you assume that the folks who disagree with you have good reasons for their opinions.

Telling me that I'm a "mushroom" doesn't exactly predispose me to look on your equally subjective opinions about the game with a lot of charity.

 

[mamba]

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 have never heard a dev statement that was not about initial sales, but you are of course free to believe whatever you want. To me the path 4e took only makes sense when it did sell very badly, so to me WotC’s reaction matches Riggs’ statement, it does not match 4e being their best selling edition however

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.

and not everyone that is internal does either, so I’d take that dev claim (if it even was about total sales…) with a grain of salt as well

 

[mamba]

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

So instead of fixing the OP stuff, you want to break the game by making everything else OP as well…

I guess that also explains why you presumably like 4e when most did not