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

[Manbearcat]

My general experience with AD&D is that even in combat, at higher levels (say 7+) it was the MUs who determined the flow of play: it was the MU players who decided whether or not to strike a decisive blow in the combat (by using a spell) or to leave it as something for the fighters to mop up. Again, even within combat, only spellcasters can inflict conditions - a blow from a sword can't maim a limb (unless the sword is one of the most powerful magical items in the game), a blow from a mace can't daze or stun.

And until fighters get to 7th level, only casters can attack multiple foes per game-unit-of-action. Conan can mow down were-hyenas by the truckload; Captain America drops multiple foes with ricocheting throws of his shield; but an AD&D fighter (unless fighting kobolds, goblins or the weakest men-at-arms) is stuck with attacking one or (at levels 7+) two foes per minute.

Once we look outside of combat, spells (and magic more generally) were the principle means of engaging and impacting the fiction.

This is why (to quote Lewis Pulsipher from a 1980-or-so White Dwarf article) "The magic-user class is the overwhelming favourite of experienced players" (BoWD v2 p 14).

This is roughly the case with 5e (as should be expected as it is effectively AD&D 3e). This is why discussing lower tier play and surveys relating to lower tier play, when the discussion at hand is regarding the lack of parity of martial features + 5e's GM-mediated action resolution mechanics with spellcaster's overwhelming and player-fiat payload in noncombat resolution at high/epic, is basically a price of tea in China moment. Its utterly unresponsive and irrelevant.

The overwhelming majority of my 5e GMing is level 11+ (I started filling in for my friend randomly due to his arbitrary schedule at level 7 and continued through level 18) in a game that featured a Diviner, a Champion, and a Thief. To say the Diviner dominated play from level 11 onward (because I don't pull out the pathetic, eye-rolley, classic blocks that Illusionist 2e GMs routinely pull to rein in/"balance" spellcasters), particularly noncombat resolution and obstacle obviation, would be an understatement. These are all young kids of roughly the same IQ and creativity (which is not insignificant on any of their parts).

The resources of high level spellcasters in 5e, particularly Diviners, is extreme. They aren't 3.x extreme, but that is a VERY low bar to set. Further, in some ways (probably several), they're more fun to play than their 3.x analogue.

I've run these same kids through a Dungeon World campaign (same players ran the same playbooks; Wizard, Fighter, Thief). The difference between the power levels on a per-level basis goes without notice in DW. I've also run them through some Beyond the Wall.

This isn't a 4e vs all other editions issue. This is an all other editions issue conditioning a mental framework within the player-base that has completely ossified due to long-term exposure and lack of perspective (due to perception bias and lack of exposure to other play paradigms). The fact that spellcasting-by-fiat (with no roll required for action resolution in the "martial + mundane" components of the obviously unbelievably difficult craft) gets a complete pass while preoccupation with vertical jumps by martial characters is orthodox GMing is the complete_smoking_gun. The conversation should absolutely end there and a new one should begin that starts with "yeah...that blinkered double standard is utterly irrational...what now?"

 

[Parmandur]

I feel that talking about the death-dealing abilities of a PC build isn't explaining how that build contributes to non-combat resolution ie overcoming obstacles and resolving conflicts that don’t involve HP ablation.

My general experience with AD&D is that even in combat, at higher levels (say 7+) it was the MUs who determined the flow of play: it was the MU players who decided whether or not to strike a decisive blow in the combat (by using a spell) or to leave it as something for the fighters to mop up. Again, even within combat, only spellcasters can inflict conditions - a blow from a sword can't maim a limb (unless the sword is one of the most powerful magical items in the game), a blow from a mace can't daze or stun.

And until fighters get to 7th level, only casters can attack multiple foes per game-unit-of-action. Conan can mow down were-hyenas by the truckload; Captain America drops multiple foes with ricocheting throws of his shield; but an AD&D fighter (unless fighting kobolds, goblins or the weakest men-at-arms) is stuck with attacking one or (at levels 7+) two foes per minute.

Once we look outside of combat, spells (and magic more generally) were the principle means of engaging and impacting the fiction.

This is why (to quote Lewis Pulsipher from a 1980-or-so White Dwarf article) "The magic-user class is the overwhelming favourite of experienced players" (BoWD v2 p 14).

Well, 5E at least gives all PCs solid options for narrative action outside of combat. The Level 5 Champion, when not being a tidal wave of damage, can also be a great Actor, a grizzled Sailor, a canny Merchant or well-connected and charming Noble. Bounded Accuracy, the Skill system in general and Backgrounds go a long way.

A Tier 2 Fighter can attack 20-30 times a minute, give it take. This escalates to 30-40 and eventually 40-50. Most 5E comvats are supposed to last 12-18 seconds, in narrative time.

 

[Parmandur]

This is roughly the case with 5e (as should be expected as it is effectively AD&D 3e). This is why discussing lower tier play and surveys relating to lower tier play, when the discussion at hand is regarding the lack of parity of martial features + 5e's GM-mediated action resolution mechanics with spellcaster's overwhelming and player-fiat payload in noncombat resolution at high/epic, is basically a price of tea in China moment. Its utterly unresponsive and irrelevant.

The overwhelming majority of my 5e GMing is level 11+ (I started filling in for my friend randomly due to his arbitrary schedule at level 7 and continued through level 18) in a game that featured a Diviner, a Champion, and a Thief. To say the Diviner dominated play from level 11 onward (because I don't pull out the pathetic, eye-rolley, classic blocks that Illusionist 2e GMs routinely pull to rein in/"balance" spellcasters), particularly noncombat resolution and obstacle obviation, would be an understatement. These are all young kids of roughly the same IQ and creativity (which is not insignificant on any of their parts).

The resources of high level spellcasters in 5e, particularly Diviners, is extreme. They aren't 3.x extreme, but that is a VERY low bar to set. Further, in some ways (probably several), they're more fun to play than their 3.x analogue.

I've run these same kids through a Dungeon World campaign (same players ran the same playbooks; Wizard, Fighter, Thief). The difference between the power levels on a per-level basis goes without notice in DW. I've also run them through some Beyond the Wall.

This isn't a 4e vs all other editions issue. This is an all other editions issue conditioning a mental framework within the player-base that has completely ossified due to long-term exposure and lack of perspective (due to perception bias and lack of exposure to other play paradigms). The fact that spellcasting-by-fiat (with no roll required for action resolution in the "martial + mundane" components of the obviously unbelievably difficult craft) gets a complete pass while preoccupation with vertical jumps by martial characters is orthodox GMing is the complete_smoking_gun. The conversation should absolutely end there and a new one should begin that starts with "yeah...that blinkered double standard is utterly irrational...what now?"

Dungeon Crawl Classics has a good approach to this. All Spells are Skill checks, and failure is very dangerous. Warrior types are encouraged to stunt, with but action rewards, and usually less dire consequences.

 

[Shasarak]

My general experience with AD&D is that even in combat, at higher levels (say 7+) it was the MUs who determined the flow of play: it was the MU players who decided whether or not to strike a decisive blow in the combat (by using a spell) or to leave it as something for the fighters to mop up. Again, even within combat, only spellcasters can inflict conditions - a blow from a sword can't maim a limb (unless the sword is one of the most powerful magical items in the game), a blow from a mace can't daze or stun.

And anecdotally that is true for you. My personal anecdote was that Magic-Users husband their magical resources and were much more likely to use Darts (or Crossbows later on for that sweet Armour Penetration).

But in any case conditions in DnD were oddly specific relying more on DM rulings then anything else and on the other hand if you followed Dragon magazine there were always extra rules you could layer on top of the game. I remember using non-magical dust to blind someone and non-magical arrows with special abilities (when people actually used arrows).

And until fighters get to 7th level, only casters can attack multiple foes per game-unit-of-action. Conan can mow down were-hyenas by the truckload; Captain America drops multiple foes with ricocheting throws of his shield; but an AD&D fighter (unless fighting kobolds, goblins or the weakest men-at-arms) is stuck with attacking one or (at levels 7+) two foes per minute.

So as you explain Conan, Captain America and a ADnD fighter can all "mow down" multiple foes at a time and at the same time only casters can attack multiple foes? I guess I am just not seeing the problem with everyone being able to attack multiple foes.

You never see Captain America mowing down truck loads of Thanos's or Conan multiple Thulsa Dooms so why try and hold ADnD Fighters to a higher standard?

Once we look outside of combat, spells (and magic more generally) were the principle means of engaging and impacting the fiction.

If a Magic-user uses her spells outside of combat to "impact" the fiction as it were then she does not have those spells available to use in combat. So she can choose to Fly or to Fireball but not both so that sounds like the game working as intended to me.

Dont forget about the magic items that essentially anyone in the party could get that also could be used out of combat. In fact the way that the magic item treasure tables were set up favoured Fighters with greater chances of getting items only they could use so chances are your Fighter had a much better set up then your Magic-User.

This is why (to quote Lewis Pulsipher from a 1980-or-so White Dwarf article) "The magic-user class is the overwhelming favourite of experienced players" (BoWD v2 p 14).

This "Lewis" sounds like a knowledgeable fellow, I wonder if he would write any articles in 2018?

 

[Kramodlog]

Numuem nocte! Sacralicious dubioustus! Fakus latinus! Dark Powers hear me. I wish to raise from the dead the most heinous and toxic of all editions. The 4th one. - Mike Mearls on Twitter.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

That's something I wouldn't have liked (and hated about the Essential classes). Imho, it was one of the greatest achievements of 4e to make all classes equally complex by using the same mechanical framework.

The problem is that there are a lot of folks who didn't want to play a complicated character. They played fighters because they liked not having to think like a caster and worry about expendable abilities. Just thinking of the fighter, 5E provides a useful option in the form of the Champion (simple, few expendable class resources) and Battlemaster (complicated, lots of expendable class resources).

I think the background powers they introduced later (iirc, they showed up first in the Dark Sun setting) were a big step in the right direction: Since you could choose backgrounds independently from your class, they allowed you to mix and match roles to a certain degree and the powers scaled, i.e. there was a version of every background power for each tier. All powers should have worked like that.

Yeah, those were pretty cool.

 

[pemerton]

And anecdotally that is true for you. My personal anecdote was that Magic-Users husband their magical resources and were much more likely to use Darts (or Crossbows later on for that sweet Armour Penetration).

Even at 7th level and above? With double-digit spells per day + scrolls, wands etc?

So as you explain Conan, Captain America and a ADnD fighter can all "mow down" multiple foes at a time

No. An AD&D fighter can make 2 attacks in a round (3 if very high level in the post-weapon-specialisation era). There is an exception for kobolds, goblins, giant rats and basic men-at-arms. Conan does this with were-hyenas. I don't think I've ever seen these statted up in AD&D, but I take it as given that they would not be less than 1 HD - more likely 4 to 6 HD, given that wolves are 2+2, werewolves are 4+3 and hyenas are 3 HD.

You never see Captain America mowing down truck loads of Thanos's or Conan multiple Thulsa Dooms so why try and hold ADnD Fighters to a higher standard?

Have you GMed AD&D? Or played much of it? If you had you'd be aware that there is a significant range of foes between giant rats and liches.

Also, Conan is typically able to kill a lich in one blow. In AD&D a lich has 11 8-sided HD. No one-blow kills for AD&D Conan!

If a Magic-user uses her spells outside of combat to "impact" the fiction as it were then she does not have those spells available to use in combat. So she can choose to Fly or to Fireball but not both so that sounds like the game working as intended to me.

If the intention is that the player of the MU should be the one who gets to shape operational decision-making and determine the flow of play, then yes!

 

[pemerton]

The problem is that there are a lot of folks who didn't want to play a complicated character. They played fighters because they liked not having to think like a caster and worry about expendable abilities.

Here's a question: are champion fighters (clearly modelled on the classic AD&D figher) an option for those who don't want to play "complicated" characters or equally as capable as wizards and other casters of shapeing the flow of play? I find it hard to believe that the answer is both, given the significance of resource expenditure to shaping the flow of play in the standard D&D paradigm.

EDIT to add: A player whose approach to the game is "wake me up when there's a fight"; or who just wants to turn up, shoot the breeze a bit and make some attack rolls; is clearly not the one who is making the decisions that shape the operational and tactical flow of play.

In 4e a player could be the one who makes those decisions and be a fighter player.

If there aren't any such decisions for the players to make, because eg the GM makes them all by manipulating pacing, outcomes, etc behind the screen, ensuring every PC build gets some spotlight, etc, then we're talking an entirely different sort of RPGing experience from the one that 4e was designed to provide. For players looking for that particular approach to RPGing - whose heyday was in the second half of the 80s through the 90s, but which certainly seems to be experiencing a resurgence - then of course 4e is not giving them anything that they want.

 

[Jester David]

Here's a question: are champion fighters (clearly modelled on the classic AD&D figher) an option for those who don't want to play "complicated" characters or equally as capable as wizards and other casters of shapeing the flow of play?

Yes.
The champion fighter in my 5e game is often the mvp. The more complicated battle master is also often the best damage dealer and most effective PC, dependant on the rolls.

I find it hard to believe that the answer is both, given the significance of resource expenditure to shaping the flow of play in the standard D&D paradigm.

And yet it’s true...

 

[Parmandur]

Here's a question: are champion fighters (clearly modelled on the classic AD&D figher) an option for those who don't want to play "complicated" characters or equally as capable as wizards and other casters of shapeing the flow of play? I find it hard to believe that the answer is both, given the significance of resource expenditure to shaping the flow of play in the standard D&D paradigm.

EDIT to add: A player whose approach to the game is "wake me up when there's a fight"; or who just wants to turn up, shoot the breeze a bit and make some attack rolls; is clearly not the one who is making the decisions that shape the operational and tactical flow of play.

In 4e a player could be the one who makes those decisions and be a fighter player.

If there aren't any such decisions for the players to make, because eg the GM makes them all by manipulating pacing, outcomes, etc behind the screen, ensuring every PC build gets some spotlight, etc, then we're talking an entirely different sort of RPGing experience from the one that 4e was designed to provide. For players looking for that particular approach to RPGing - whose heyday was in the second half of the 80s through the 90s, but which certainly seems to be experiencing a resurgence - then of course 4e is not giving them anything that they want.

If the Champion Fighter is a rugged outdoorsman with a decent Charisma, then yeah, very easy to be the driver in all three pillars.

Mearls spoke to 4E again on his Twitch show today: one of the issues in real terms he brings up, was the game style you mention was always dominant. He said that 4E was the best edition ever...for the given playstyle that was being attempted. But that isn't what most people were doing or looking for.