WoTC Interview with Rob Heinsoo

[Mournblade94]

~ I've made a general warning. Drop the arguments, or you'll get suspended - PS ~

 

[Ariosto]

Kids these days. We were glad to get a pointy stick In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords!

 

[Mournblade94]

So lets get this straight... you allowed MCs with no level caps, but somehow, magically, the 15th level thief was just as useful as the 14/13 thief/mage?

Yeah man, and grogs are just as powerful as magi in Ars Magica...

Considering the required experience necessary for a 15th level thief was much less compared to a 14/13 thief, no it was not as effective.

Nor did I ever imply anywhere that multiclass characters were more/less effective.

 

[Mournblade94]

Kids these days. We were glad to get a pointy stick In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords!

HAH that was GOOD! So true.

That was one of my favourite series ever.

 

[Mournblade94]

Interesting. In AD&D, Rangers were martial (only) until 8th level when they started getting a small number of druid and magic-user spells. I would keep this spirit by having a ranger take the Ritual Caster feat.

Right. But the class was built as a mystic class. you were not mystic until 8th level or 7th in 3rd edition (I am mostly arguing pro 3rd edition here) but entering the class you knew there was a mystic component to it. If anyone can take the ritual casting feat than it is not unique to the ranger.

Yes. The Wizard is nerfed. Good.

I don't see this as good, and I didn't always play the wizard, I favoured the ranger. I could of dealt with a power down, but I think the balance actually shifted more to the martial classes.

Fighter is a defender with parts of striker if they go 2-handed weapon and take the "lots of damage" exploits. They've never, ever been a leader or controller. The only area where I think they're weaker is as ranged combatants; most "fighter-archer" characters I would convert as straight rangers without difficulty.

I can deal with a fighter not being as good at ranged combat. The leader role however, I saw more as a player role than a character role. i often took on this 'leader' role, even as the wizard.

if I had a heater shield and broadsword fighter I still could not convert them well. There is difference between honest conversion, and redefining. From 1st or 2nd edition to 3rd edition there was some redefining, just not as much as from any of these to 4e.

Yes, the cleric is actually well-thought out rather than being Mr Healer.

I would have to agree with this statement, and the rogue did not change much as well.

There's a little truth in that as the number of options for certain characters have been reduced... although it becomes a lot less true once the expansion books are taken into account.

I did not like alot of the expansion books, so most of what I argue is with core in mind. Pretty much I limited my campaigns to core, Forgotten Realms, and complete (class X) guides. Incarnates, Monster characters, and Book of Nine swords I did not allow.

 

[Remathilis]

Considering the required experience necessary for a 15th level thief was much less compared to a 14/13 thief, no it was not as effective.

Nor did I ever imply anywhere that multiclass characters were more/less effective.

You are correct of course: a 15th level thief (1,100,000 xp) is equal to an 11th level mage(375,000)/12th level thief (440,000) assuming he divides all XP evenly, has no class-specific bonuses from the DMG, has a 16+ in both scores for 10% bonus and never gets level-drained.

Still, that 11/12 gives up:
* 120 points of skill advancment (spread evenly, 15 points a skill).
* x4 instead of x5 backstab
* 1 potential hp/level (thief 1-6, thief/mage 2-5)
* Weaker save vs. Para/Pois/Death (10 vs. 11)
* Lower Thac0 (15 vs. 13)
* Ability to wear mundane armor (which was a wash, since not wearing armor raised certain thief skills and didn't stop you from using magical methods of AC improvement like spells of items).

But gains
* 4 first, 4 second, 4 third, 3 fourth, and 3 fifth-level spells per day
* Access to wide variety of skill-boosting magic (invisibility, knock, spider climb), defensive magic (shield, armor, stoneskin) and offensive (magic missile, sleep, fireball) to boost, aid or augment skills.
* No penalty when using wizard scrolls (vs. 15% for a thief)
* Improved Saves vs. R/S/W (7 vs 8), Breath (11 vs. 13) and Spell (8 vs. 9).

Stays the same
* Petrify/Poly Save: (9)
* Thief Followers

Worth the Trade? Good. I'm glad we agree. There was no point to Single Class Thieves if multi-class options existed, and you don't need to be a min/maxer to know that 18 spells a day =/= 15% to all thief skills and an extra one dice on backstab.

 

[Mournblade94]

Then your experience is much different than mine. Most of the gamers I know aren't internet gamers or forum readers. Most are just guys and girls that play D&D and don't have the same level of fandom as a user that spends their time on D&D related boards.

Fair enough. I only really started to pay attention to boards when 3rd edition was cancelled for 4e.

And most of them like 4e D&D. Sure, I know some that prefer older editions, but I would hardly say they are the majority.

My experience is the opposite, even from the younger gamers in the group. The 4e is starting to bore them, and many of them are trying new systems. Specifically SAGA and M&M.

How do you define "simplified"? I can still run a challenging and satisfying game in 4e, and rules allow for that. Yes, the rules have streamlined some things and for some, well, that isn't what they wanted. I can understand that.

I do not mean to say that adventures cannot be complex. I can make a complex adventure out of Marvel Superheroes TSR system.

I believe that they made some mechanics more elegant. If by that definition, then yes they have been simplified. If you mean "dumbed down", I respectfully disagree.

There is probably no politically correct way to address this:

On the simulationist end it is not elegant. What you said above is how I honestly feel. To attract new gamers NOW however, things have to come very quick and very easy. If it so happens that method works for you that is fine.

Other editions were just as fun as this one, I just find these new definitions of fun from WOTC as off the mark. How could a product that was NOT fun have lasted from 1974-2008?

Homogenization? I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

homogeneity - the quality of being similar or comparable in kind or nature;
homogeneity - the quality of being of uniform throughout in composition or structure

The 4e classes are far from similar to each other. Even same roles within the same power source feel different. Just ask a 4e Rogue player and a 4e Ranger player.

I see the classes, the tier levels, and the monsters as the same. I do not think there is ultimately that much difference between a rogue and a ranger. Ranger is more direct, but the rogue is sneakier. Tactics are different but output is still the same.

A fighter and a paladin... well good the fluff is different but they still rely on the aggro mechanic.

I am saying that 4e is a drastic enough change to make many people that were fine with 3rd edition and its easy mechanics, to see it as a different game altogether. In this area, the gamers I talk to seem to agree.

 

[TerraDave]

Darnmod warning...I had some good snark...(KM a better DM then JoT, really?...you can still get your ass hammered by kobolds in 4E, try it some time..ok, ok, I'll stop)

Anyways...I have met Rob once, great guy, and this interview is totally him. I love the opening quote: "My goal designing 4th Edition was to make a game that played the way I thought D&D was going to play, back before I understood the rules." And I agree with pretty much everything, though I did find some of the dropped alternatives intriguing. I am still not convinced that they couldn't have pooled powers a little more or allowed some sharing across classes. But that is a detail.

 

[Mournblade94]

You are correct of course: a 15th level thief (1,100,000 xp) is equal to an 11th level mage(375,000)/12th level thief (440,000) assuming he divides all XP evenly, has no class-specific bonuses from the DMG, has a 16+ in both scores for 10% bonus and never gets level-drained.

Still, that 11/12 gives up:
* 120 points of skill advancment (spread evenly, 15 points a skill).
* x4 instead of x5 backstab
* 1 potential hp/level (thief 1-6, thief/mage 2-5)
* Weaker save vs. Para/Pois/Death (10 vs. 11)
* Lower Thac0 (15 vs. 13)
* Ability to wear mundane armor (which was a wash, since not wearing armor raised certain thief skills and didn't stop you from using magical methods of AC improvement like spells of items).

But gains
* 4 first, 4 second, 4 third, 3 fourth, and 3 fifth-level spells per day
* Access to wide variety of skill-boosting magic (invisibility, knock, spider climb), defensive magic (shield, armor, stoneskin) and offensive (magic missile, sleep, fireball) to boost, aid or augment skills.
* No penalty when using wizard scrolls (vs. 15% for a thief)
* Improved Saves vs. R/S/W (7 vs 8), Breath (11 vs. 13) and Spell (8 vs. 9).

Stays the same
* Petrify/Poly Save: (9)
* Thief Followers

Worth the Trade? Good. I'm glad we agree. There was no point to Single Class Thieves if multi-class options existed, and you don't need to be a min/maxer to know that 18 spells a day =/= 15% to all thief skills and an extra one dice on backstab.

Thanks for the post, but I never even argued for or against this. I said I never kept racial level caps in first edition D&D and someone decided to extrapolate this too, me thinking there was no benefit to multiclassing. The thief comment was made by someone misunderstanding what I was saying. Apparently though the post I addressed that in was deleted.

 

[tomBitonti]

kids these days. We were glad to get a pointy stick in the dungeons of the slave lords!

rofl

EDIT: I think that was a classic dungeon. A question: How well does that dungeon convert to 3.5E? To 4E? Also: How would you map skill challenges onto this dungeon?