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

[Oofta]

This is not my experience. The martial classes in my last game were better than the optimized caster.

It depends on a lot of things. Focus on DPR? Well, do you have a 5 minute work day and have a lot of relatively low level monsters always showing up in fireball formation or do you have relatively low number of monsters that can't easily be targeted simultaneously. I play Solasta now and then (it's a D&D based video game that tracks DPR over several levels) and fighters have effectively always come out on top even with frequent long rests. Yet for some reason I was told that it doesn't count even though it more accurately implements the game than BG3. Why didn't it count? Not sure, I assume because it doesn't fit the expected narrative.

Utility? Well, how much is it worth to be able to teleport from A to B and is the teleport required only because the DM knows you have teleport? Make scrying more powerful than just a magical drone pointed directly at your target from 10 feet away? Does the scrying show something useful instead of the target eating lunch reading some papers you can't see? Cast dimension door to get across a chasm that the rest of the party can't cross? Great. Have fun fighting the enemies by yourself.

A lot of the caster supremacy seems to be either confirmation bias or white room analysis assuming the caster always has exactly the right spell prepared and spell slots available. Then again, other tables play differently. Just because I've never seen it with a couple dozen different groups at various levels doesn't mean it doesn't happen sometime somewhere.

In my experience, the classes are different, sometimes one PC shines sometimes another. Sometimes the fighter just keeps plugging along doing more than anyone else but it's slow and steady so people don't notice.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I mean true, but it's also a false dichotomy. A system can be asymetrically designed while still being mostly balanced. 'All classes feel samey' in 4E was never really accurate in play, it was an impression. Similarly the computer game Starcraft has three very different enemy factions that are still quite well balanced.

You can argue impression is more important than reality, in many areas of life.

 

[Oofta]

I mean true, but it's also a false dichotomy. A system can be asymetrically designed while still being mostly balanced. 'All classes feel samey' in 4E was never really accurate in play, it was an impression. Similarly the computer game Starcraft has three very different enemy factions that are still quite well balanced.

Feeling samey is a matter of perspective. The play loop was the same for all classes with the AEDU structure, exactly what you did of course was different. Whether it felt like there was enough distinction likely depended on what mattered to the person.

 

[overgeeked]

I could be weird. But sharing the spotlight as a player and giving players equal opportunities to shine as a DM are, from my understanding, common practice. I think stretching common practice to "working hard" is odd.

One class has the dinky light on the back of most smart phones. The other class has the searchlight you see in prison break movies. To then argue equal spotlight time is all that matters is missing the point at best and disingenuous at worst. It's not about spotlight time. It's about the spotlight each class gets. To actually balance things out you'd need to give the class with the smart phone light about 1000x the spotlight time as the class with the searchlight. Giving them equal spotlight time only shows there's a problem, it does not resolve the problem.

It might be different, if greater balance wasn't a zero sum game. It's not possible to both maintain individuality of things while balancing them past a certain point. There is an inherent tradeoff.

The "all classes feel samey" argument in regards to 4e is an example of that. Making fighters just re-skinned wizards would be a huge negative to the game - in spite of being objectively better balanced. You can balance the game by just reskinning the best class - or any class for that matter. Very few would play it, but you can do that.

Well, when 4E did it it was the best selling edition of D&D at the time and it outsold all competitors until the edition change drop in sales. So there's clearly an audience for it.

 

[overgeeked]

You can argue impression is more important than reality, in many areas of life.

You could, but it would be a terrible argument. A lot of people got the impression when they looked at the moon that it was made of cheese. Doesn't make it so. It's only "more important than reality" to those people who hold those impressions. You know, like conspiracy theorists and flat earthers.

 

[Cadence]

You could, but it would be a terrible argument. A lot of people got the impression when they looked at the moon that it was made of cheese. Doesn't make it so. It's only "more important than reality" to those people who hold those impressions. You know, like conspiracy theorists and flat earthers.

And companies/politicians that understand how consumers/voters actually spend/vote.

[I am not in favor of this part of how reality seems to work ]

 

[DinoInDisguise]

You could, but it would be a terrible argument. A lot of people got the impression when they looked at the moon that it was made of cheese. Doesn't make it so. It's only "more important than reality" to those people who hold those impressions. You know, like conspiracy theorists and flat earthers.

This is off topic. But first impression bias is real. And its very strong. This is a limitation on the human brain's ability to process information. It causes us to make quick and incomplete observations. We also have a hard time overcoming this bias. This has implications throughout society.

So it may be flawed from a objective point of view. But in human behavior, it's a real thing. If someone has an impression of a game - that impression is largely more important than the reality.

 

[Undrave]

Which is funny because at one point in the thread, I was told, role does not matter in 4e and players can pick whatever they want, then later in the thread, people were aghast that Retreater had no defenders in his game.

Just because you can doesn't always mean it's a good idea

 

[Clint_L]

It depends on a lot of things. Focus on DPR? Well, do you have a 5 minute work day and have a lot of relatively low level monsters always showing up in fireball formation or do you have relatively low number of monsters that can't easily be targeted simultaneously. I play Solasta now and then (it's a D&D based video game that tracks DPR over several levels) and fighters have effectively always come out on top even with frequent long rests. Yet for some reason I was told that it doesn't count even though it more accurately implements the game than BG3. Why didn't it count? Not sure, I assume because it doesn't fit the expected narrative.

I assessed all three campaigns from Critical Role, because Crit Role Stats exists. Same result: martial classes are consistently ahead on damage dealing. Which is also what I observe in my home games. That's only one metric, but it's an important one for a lot of players, I suspect.

Utility? Well, how much is it worth to be able to teleport from A to B and is the teleport required only because the DM knows you have teleport? Make scrying more powerful than just a magical drone pointed directly at your target from 10 feet away? Does the scrying show something useful instead of the target eating lunch reading some papers you can't see? Cast dimension door to get across a chasm that the rest of the party can't cross? Great. Have fun fighting the enemies by yourself.

A lot of the caster supremacy seems to be either confirmation bias or white room analysis assuming the caster always has exactly the right spell prepared and spell slots available. Then again, other tables play differently. Just because I've never seen it with a couple dozen different groups at various levels doesn't mean it doesn't happen sometime somewhere.

Or that the BBEG doesn't just use a legendary resistance, etc. That saving throws will be failed. When magic works, it can be amazing. When it doesn't, it really doesn't. It's a high risk choice.

In my experience, the classes are different, sometimes one PC shines sometimes another. Sometimes the fighter just keeps plugging along doing more than anyone else but it's slow and steady so people don't notice.

Same. Though sometimes the fighter or barbarian explode the BBEG in one crazy turn, too. We've all seen those crazy rounds where the action surge seems to go on forever.

 

[Undrave]

Since D&D is fundamentally a cooperative game,

We are all in agreement on that point, but it's really weird on 5e feels like a VERY selfish game. There's near zero occasion where spending your action improving an ally is more optimal than inflicting damage yourself. Adventurers work together but they very rarely feel like a team. It almost feels purposefully designed to enable single PC games.

I don't think people are really looking for perfect balance. The only concern on the balance front is the appearance of tradeoffs (well, he doesn't get spells, but he does have more hit points!) and for no option to completely eclipse another, similar option.

The goal is always to avoid making options for feature B that are "feature A, but just better".

I think everybody's got a certain tolerance for imbalance, wether consciously or not, and 5e lands in the sweet spot for the majority of players, while still being imbalanced enough to generate a lot of discussion on the topic from those with lower tolerance.

For example in games I've played or run, Wizards don't really overshadow other characters. They have their moments. They're flashier. But if you're looking at overall DPR the fighter usually wins. Utility? Depends on what the player focused on and nature of the challenges. Frequently rogues and bards do more.

I will admit that it's usually much harder for Casters to accidentally overshadow the non-Caster as long as they pick spells more for fun and aesthetic than synergy and power.

MY problem overall is that 4e was a revelation, and brought the core game closer to what I have always wanted... It was FAR from perfect, but what it needed was another year or two and a 5e that built from it up not throwing it out for a retro game.

4e walked so... nothing 4e stumbled alot and all the (well most of the) lessons learned got gutted for 5e.

5e is an okay game... but one that just doesn't fit what I want from D&D. 2e is great as long as you keep your rose colored nostalgia glasses on. I would not go back to a 3e/3.5/PF game if you payed me, and 1e/basic fall between 3e and 2e for me (since my nostalgia is for the 90s)
4e was my game... it is my game, it's just hard to code into virtual tables.

I feel ya! Nothing's hit the same since, especially in term of tactical combat. Even board games don't quite hit right in that department. I'd really like a lighter version of 4e where there's less analysis paralysis.

The "all classes feel samey" argument in regards to 4e is an example of that. Making fighters just re-skinned wizards would be a huge negative to the game - in spite of being objectively better balanced. You can balance the game by just reskinning the best class - or any class for that matter. Very few would play it, but you can do that.

You know, it's odd. In 4e I don't mind AEDU, I rather really like it... but in 5e I like when class, and especially subclass, have new mechanics of their own. Maybe I just like mechanics for the sake of them.

Except the daily casters. Screw spell slots, I hate them. Spells are a pain in the butt to use because of all the page flipping, and they're more often than not too boring.