D&D 4E Mike Mearls on how D&D 4E could have looked

Shasarak · Nov 13, 2018

darkbard said:
I think you're confusing what happens at the table with what happens in the fiction.

How does that help the fighter pick which one of his spells he wants to cast?

rmcoen · Nov 13, 2018

I'll throw out there that wizard "training" in Basic D&D (and I think AD&D, maybe later) took about 5-8 years longer than Fighter training. A 1st level human fighter was like 15-18 years old; a 1st level wizard was 22+. Anyone who's ever done martial arts or athletic training of any kind knows "repetition breeds habit" (aka "practice makes perfect") - do something a thousand times in training, when it comes time to do it in a stressful situation, your body just does it without thinking. (And if you did it *wrong* a thousand times... well, then you do it wrong then, too.) So the fighter practices for 4-8 years to engage in melee (or missile) combat without leaving himself open and getting gutted in his first fight (one hopes), while the wizard practices for 16 years to make sure the first time he casts sleep in combat, he doesn't stutter or fumble the components.

All of which rules and concepts became irrelevant as soon as the multiclass doors were thrown open...

Garthanos · Nov 13, 2018

rmcoen said:
I'll throw out there that wizard "training" in Basic D&D (and I think AD&D, maybe later) took about 5-8 years longer than Fighter training.

And still felt utterly like an apprentice "1 spell a day???" and thank your stars the DM gave sleep you lucky dog won the spell lotto you could ask for your own sleep anytime you want ... but the the fighter honestly also felt like a page or something in just 1 level your characters ability doubles .... really all those years training and boom you are double the value on a battlefield????

And speaking of lotto your level 1 characters might have 1 hit point each. Congrats for having a larger die size!!!!

Garthanos · Nov 13, 2018

Lanefan said:
Most of these, however, relate to casting in combat; and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] 's example was based on out-of-combat no-pressure casting.

And he's right - in no-pressure situations the casters are likely to rule the roost. Fair enough

Or just tie utility spell casting to skill checks ...

Manbearcat · Nov 13, 2018

Lanefan said:
Most of these, however, relate to casting in combat; and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] 's example was based on out-of-combat no-pressure casting.

And he's right - in no-pressure situations the casters are likely to rule the roost. Fair enough

So the question then becomes how to further rein them in in-pressure situations; and to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] 's list I'd add: any disruption interrupts the spell...risk of dangerous wild magic surges on interruption...do away with the very notion of 'combat casting'...spell placement not automatic (e.g. need to roll aim for AoE spells and risk hitting allies or even self)...make spells take longer to cast (in 3-4-5e terms e.g. start casting on rolled init. but don't resolve until end of round, and you can be interrupted during this time)...etc.

Lan-"wizardslayer weapons are a handy answer too"-efan

If I have time tonight, I’m going to flesh out the last session that I GMed 5e (18th level game with a Diviner Wizard, Fighter, and Thief). We aren’t getting anywhere the way we’re going so I’d be curious what people thought about the absolute domination of individual gamestates and overall play trajectory by the Diviner.

5e design could have changed the scope of play at all levels and scaled it so endgame Wizardly magic becomes extremely volatile (potentially changing the gamestate badly against the PCs).

If they didn’t want to use a conflict resolution mechanic subsystem, they could have easily included the following resolution architecture:

1) All spells require an Arcana, Religion, Nature, Perform Check. Success and you’re good to go. Fail by 1-3 (I much prefer this than the DMG 1-2) and there is a complication (I mentioned some possibilities way upthread) ) but spell goes off. Failure equals no spell, but Complication. The maths should probably put it at something like 17 % Success, 66 % Success with Complication, 17 % Failure w/ Complication.

2) Saving Throw maths should be rescaled accordingly so spellcasters aren’t hit with compound probability double whammy.

That would make spellcasting (a) more interesting (in terms of impact on the gamestate), (b) more balanced as spells become more powerful and loadouts become more proliferate, and (b) more genre appropriate.

This would have been a simple thing to do at the design phase and would have made the game infinitely more fun to GM.

Shasarak · Nov 13, 2018

Manbearcat said:
If they didn’t want to use a conflict resolution mechanic subsystem, they could have easily included the following resolution architecture:

1) All spells require an Arcana, Religion, Nature, Perform Check. Success and you’re good to go. Fail by 1-3 (I much prefer this than the DMG 1-2) and there is a complication (I mentioned some possibilities way upthread) ) but spell goes off. Failure equals no spell, but Complication. The maths should probably put it at something like 17 % Success, 66 % Success with Complication, 17 % Failure w/ Complication.

The concerns that I would have with inconsistant spell casting is that narratively it is not accurate and mechanically it is not fun leaving you with a pretty niche solution.

Garthanos · Nov 14, 2018

Manbearcat said:
If I have time tonight, I’m going to flesh out the last session that I GMed 5e (18th level game with a Diviner Wizard, Fighter, and Thief). We aren’t getting anywhere the way we’re going so I’d be curious what people thought about the absolute domination of individual gamestates and overall play trajectory by the Diviner.

5e design could have changed the scope of play at all levels and scaled it so endgame Wizardly magic becomes extremely volatile (potentially changing the gamestate badly against the PCs).

If they didn’t want to use a conflict resolution mechanic subsystem, they could have easily included the following resolution architecture:

1) All spells require an Arcana, Religion, Nature, Perform Check. Success and you’re good to go. Fail by 1-3 (I much prefer this than the DMG 1-2) and there is a complication (I mentioned some possibilities way upthread) ) but spell goes off. Failure equals no spell, but Complication. The maths should probably put it at something like 17 % Success, 66 % Success with Complication, 17 % Failure w/ Complication.

2) Saving Throw maths should be rescaled accordingly so spellcasters aren’t hit with compound probability double whammy.

That would make spellcasting (a) more interesting (in terms of impact on the gamestate), (b) more balanced as spells become more powerful and loadouts become more proliferate, and (b) more genre appropriate.

This would have been a simple thing to do at the design phase and would have made the game infinitely more fun to GM.

Is the idea to have a complication table perhaps .... I personally like how some 4e spells had repercussions when cast In particular those from the Malediction Invoker.

Malediction Invokers make for great thematic witches.

Ratskinner · Nov 14, 2018

Shasarak said:
The concerns that I would have with inconsistant spell casting is that narratively it is not accurate and mechanically it is not fun leaving you with a pretty niche solution.

What does "narratively it is not accurate" mean? There's lots of relevant fiction with unreliable spellcasting, and plenty of fantasy lit where casting in combat is not even an option (or at least, doesn't happen). The D&D version of a magic wielder (almost any of them) has become so much of its own thing that it seems to be warping what people see and write in the genre.

As far as "not fun" goes...well I suppose it wouldn't be for the caster players who are expecting to have everything work automatically, but...a) I've run other games where this was not the case with no problems and b) how is it any more disappointing than when a Fighter or Rogue rolls low damage or misses?

Sadras · Nov 14, 2018

Essentially we are advocating for Zummi Gummi?

Shasarak · Nov 14, 2018

Ratskinner said:
What does "narratively it is not accurate" mean? There's lots of relevant fiction with unreliable spellcasting, and plenty of fantasy lit where casting in combat is not even an option (or at least, doesn't happen). The D&D version of a magic wielder (almost any of them) has become so much of its own thing that it seems to be warping what people see and write in the genre.

I dont know though. Is there a lot of fiction? I can not think of anything off the top of my head about unreliable magic. Certainly mythologically you do not have unreliable magic.

As far as "not fun" goes...well I suppose it wouldn't be for the caster players who are expecting to have everything work automatically, but...a) I've run other games where this was not the case with no problems and b) how is it any more disappointing than when a Fighter or Rogue rolls low damage or misses?

Does a Fighter or Rogue have 10 sword blows that they can use per day? A Fighter missing an attack seems to be a completely different situation.

D&D 4E Mike Mearls on how D&D 4E could have looked

Shasarak

Banned

rmcoen

Adventurer

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Manbearcat

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Ratskinner

Adventurer

Sadras

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

Similar Threads

Related Articles

Latest threads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Recent & Upcoming Releases