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

[MichaelSomething]

Square Blast areas are easier to use then cones and circles made from squares. I didn't mind but some people must have found them to be a hassle.

 

[Zardnaar]

And I think, at least at this time, far too many D&D fans would refuse to accept a game that lacked a Fighter than you'd gain from such a move. Dramatically, overwhelmingly more, in fact.

We've already seen what people can do just with misinformation. Actually deleting the Fighter--whether or not that would be a productive idea in game design terms--would be a catastrophe of epic proportions. I really, really wish I didn't have to say that. But I can't see any other possibility in light of what happened with 4e.


The problem is, by still having a broad spectrum of potential options, but both (a) getting fewer of them and (b) getting to use those options less frequently, both the Warlock and the Sorcerer actually cry out for more optimization than the Wizard, not less. You need to be absolutely sure that every spell and metamagic/invocation you pick is going to be useful, consistently, or else you've been hobbled for an entire level, perhaps more. (And given how stingy DMs are with XP IME and from what I hear from others...)


Yeah. The idea of Warlock seems simpler, but the actual practice is merely shuffling the complication away from day-by-day play and into chargen-play. Running a pregen Warlock would be a breeze relative to a Wizard because you have far fewer choices to make and what choices you do have are, usually, pretty straightforward. By comparison, levelling up a Wizard is a breeze because you have no class features and just pick two new spells you don't know from the list of highest-level spells you can cast. Sorcerer is kind of in the middle, less build-complicated than Warlock but more build-complicated than Wizard, less in-play complicated than Wizard but more in-play complicated than Warlock.


I have often thought about how to go about building a truly, genuinely simple spellcaster. Taking leaves from the Battlemaster, actually, though not copying the exact Expertise Dice subsystem. My checklist of requirements is:

• No "memorizing" spells. You just have a set of them available all the time. If you have a set of pick-able magic actions, whatever you've picked, you can always do it so long as you have the juice.
• No lengthy list of flexible options. If there are choices, it's "pick half of these 8 things" or "choose 1 of these 4 things as your core focus." Save flexible alternatives for a subclass.
• Basic "do a magic thing" action, almost like an upgraded merger of various cantrips (mage hand, prestidigitation, minor illusion, etc.)
• "Magic burst" effect that you can use X/SR, probably half proficiency or full proficiency. Charges may be used to power other things, and subclasses might hook into other stuff (e.g. a haemomancer using their own HD to fuel their magic)

That would produce an actually simple spellcaster.

I wouldn't cut any class or race from the 5E phb moving forward.

I don't care about Gnomes a all. Page count on races are fairly minimal there's around 20-30 pages one coukd cut.

In 4E I would cut level 21+ if I made 4E 2.0.

 

[Chaltab]

In 4E I would cut level 21+ if I made 4E 2.0.

You might have to if you wanted to include all the species and classes from the 5E PHB but I really like having the basic game assumption be that epic tier is a thing that can happen. Since 5E doesn't have any real rules for it (and has trouble keeping the game sane at 17th+ anyway) there's no consensus on what epic play is supposed to look like in the homebrew/3PP community.

 

[Zardnaar]

You might have to if you wanted to include all the species and classes from the 5E PHB but I really like having the basic game assumption be that epic tier is a thing that can happen. Since 5E doesn't have any real rules for it (and has trouble keeping the game sane at 17th+ anyway) there's no consensus on what epic play is supposed to look like in the homebrew/3PP community.

Well no one really players epic time at level 1
5+ or 21+.

Can't really design adventures.

4E really only stretched level 3-10 over 30 levels to do it. Ho have a look at the 4E phb again they're similar to 5E 5th level spells at level 29.

It's kind of why it failed. They locked everything into roles, stretch out the sweet spot and designed a game to sellloot boxes minis to push said minis around the board.

They didn't really fix 3.5 which is arguably what people wanted but nuked it from orbit. All tests gonna do is alienate your current fans. Added bonus the majority of D&D players are casual and 4E won't appeal to them either.

Alot of the diatribe about 3.x was mostly online noise. Most groups didn't play that way, had th books to break the game, played that way or knew the combos.

 

[Chaltab]

Well no one really players epic time at level 1
5+ or 21+.

Can't really design adventures.

4E really only stretched level 3-10 over 30 levels to do it. Ho have a look at the 4E phb again they're similar to 5E 5th level spells at level 29.

It's kind of why it failed. Tgey locked everything into roles, stretch out tge sweet spot and designed a GA.e to sellloot boxes monis to push said minis around the board.

They didn't really fix 3.5 which is arguably what people wanted but nuked it from orbit. All tests gonna do is alienate your current Dan's. Added bonus tge majority of D&D players are casual and 4E won't appeal to them either.

Alot of tge diatribe about 3.x was mostly online noise. Most groups didn't play that way, gad tge books to break the game, played that way or knew the combos.

I'm sorry... I only understood about 2/3rds of what you said because of the typos but as to the general gist of it... I'm not sure how accurate that is. Granted, I only really started playing RPGs regularly around 2008 but at the time the zeitgeist was hugely about how busted 3.5 was on numerous levels. Even among its biggest fans, the solution often boiled down to 'don't play Fighters/Monks/Bards at the same table as Clerics/Druids/Wizards'.

The raw damage numbers of spells across editions aren't exactly the best metric of comparison, especially considering spells in 5E have hugely increased damage numbers to compensate for them getting fewer spell slots and the increased effectiveness of martials compared to 3.5

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm sorry... I only understood about 2/3rds of what you said because of the typos but as to the general gist of it... I'm not sure how accurate that is. Granted, I only really started playing RPGs regularly around 2008 but at the time the zeitgeist was hugely about how busted 3.5 was on numerous levels. Even among its biggest fans, the solution often boiled down to 'don't play Fighters/Monks/Bards at the same table as Clerics/Druids/Wizards'.

The raw damage numbers of spells across editions aren't exactly the best metric of comparison, especially considering spells in 5E have hugely increased damage numbers to compensate for them getting fewer spell slots and the increased effectiveness of martials compared to 3.5

Online yes but they weren't a majority.

It's the equivalent of designing something for Twitter and then surprise surprise your product bombs.

Worst thing you could do is design a D&D version based on ENWORLD for example. We're not remotely representative of the players.

Personally I would cut 10 levels from D&D. If I was in charge though I would not. I don't even need a survey to guess how that would go down.

I wouldn't cut any race or class from the 5E phb. Similar reason.

If 5.5 bombs we''re looking at the 5E paradigm next 5 years at least. If it's a hit more like 10 years before they do a potential redesign. Game will be around 20 years old by then so yeah.

 

[Chaltab]

Online yes but they weren't a majority.

Citation? The widespread dissatisfaction (and many of the misconceptions) regarding 4E also largely came from online! That's just how public discourse works in in the 21st century; coming from online doesn't mean it's not a thing people are actually saying.

The designers of 4E obviously underestimated how divisive many of the changes would be, but it's selling the massive amount of work they did to rethink the game short to say they designed it based soley on the opinions of optimizaiton boards.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You might have to if you wanted to include all the species and classes from the 5E PHB but I really like having the basic game assumption be that epic tier is a thing that can happen. Since 5E doesn't have any real rules for it (and has trouble keeping the game sane at 17th+ anyway) there's no consensus on what epic play is supposed to look like in the homebrew/3PP community.

Perhaps an alternate approach:

If most people never make it to level 12+ in a given game, and even when they do it takes multiple years to get there...

Why not chunk the game into three separate 10-level brackets? You'd cut down enormously the amount of cognitive load new players need to take on in order to learn, create massively more space to include more options without overloading the core books, and be able to focus really hard on making those first 10 levels the best they can possibly be. Include options for how to spool out the fun even once folks are level 10, so they can get that feeling of the final level or two (perhaps with some "powerful boons" that are equivalent to being a level 11-12 character) without actually needing such levels printed.

Then, a year or two later, add Paragon tier, 10 more levels to play with, with an emphasis on grander, more fantastical, more high-octane stories. And, finally, a year or two after that, add Epic tier. Without needing separate chapters on races, and being able to just extend out the class feature tables for classes, each book should have plenty of room for its own new bits and bobs, while still permitting a relatively streamlined structure.

That way, not only are you focusing on only the stuff people can realistically use early on, you're keeping things light and simple, and giving direct support for those folks who prefer a low-magic experience. And with all that extra page space, you can have actual "novice level"/"zero level" rules baked right into the PHB, so players can see them and be able to use them if they want a more tailored introductory experience.

I hadn't really thought about doing things this way before, but the more I think about it, the better it sounds. Especially because you can attempt to fix the "Fighters just fall short" problem in P/E tier with various beyond-the-mundane additions (a la 4e's Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.)

 

[Chaltab]

Perhaps an alternate approach:

If most people never make it to level 12+ in a given game, and even when they do it takes multiple years to get there...

That's also something I had considered and I'm personally cool with that. It's another one of those things like nixing simple martial classes and... a bunch of what 4E... did that I would expect to be met with controversy.

Like, even now the 2024 5E books are being called pointless cash grabs despite being the longest gap between revisions ever. (Even 2E got a revised version after 6 years)

 

[Zardnaar]

Citation? The widespread dissatisfaction (and many of the misconceptions) regarding 4E also largely came from online! That's just how public discourse works in in the 21st century; coming from online doesn't mean it's not a thing people are actually saying.

The designers of 4E obviously underestimated how divisive many of the changes would be, but it's selling the massive amount of work they did to rethink the game short to say they designed it based soley on the opinions of optimizaiton boards.

Well there were 6 million D&D players the main forums combined didn't have remotely that many people on them.

That's the big ones combined and they weren't all active accounts.