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

pemerton

Legend
The DM provides the scenario: if the scenario is designed to let a Fiviner shin when there is no Diviner in the party, that would be odd.
If the keynote ability of a diviner is turning fails into successes, then any scenario lets a diviner shine!

Likewise if the scenario involves any fighting at all, then an abjurer can shine by absorbing hp or an evoker can shine by blowing things up.

I'm not sure what a scenario would look like that wasn't designed to let a diviner shine - it would have no dice rolls, no information to be obtained, no decisions to be taken?

In any event, as I said, the human element that you seem to have described is not one that is ubiquitous to RPGing, and it's not even ubiquitous to GMing D&D.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
If the keynote ability of a diviner is turning fails into successes, then any scenario lets a diviner shine!
If a class can be that good in any situation then that sends up a red flag that the class - or certainly that ability of that class - might be considerably overpowered.

Likewise if the scenario involves any fighting at all, then an abjurer can shine by absorbing hp or an evoker can shine by blowing things up.
But if it doesn't involve fighting then this doesn't apply, which is a bit more reasonable than the always-the-best diviner.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Some of those I dont recognise but, Harry Potter? Their spells never fail and are also ridiculously easy to cast.
Their spells do fail. Their magic is generally more reliable, especially given that it is an entire culture and society built around magical wizardry, but their spells can and do fail. Sometimes this is the result of verbal failures, technical failures (e.g., wands), mental failures, or as a result of other magic. We do often see this, however, from the perspective of trainees, which may represent the sort of expected failures for young wizards-in-training.

Ron was injured for a large swath of Book 7 because his botched Apportation spell caused him physical injury. (If we were playing in Fate, we may say that Ron's PC failed their Overcome check when attempting Apportation. As getting out of the Ministry of Magic was critical for the story, the PC chose "Success on a Failure" and accepted - in a consultation with the GM - an appropriate Consequence that required multiple sessions for it to slowly clear.)

Yet one of the best series of spell failures from an adult wizard that comes to mind is Gilderoy Lockhart in Book 2, who fails a spell for mending broken bones, a spell disposing of a conjured snake, and fails a memory wipe spell (though this last one has more to do with him using Ron's malfunctioning wand). There may be a few other spells he fails, but I can't recall. So spell failure (or spell incompetence) is most definitely a thing even for adults in Harry Potter. (Here as well, we may also give Lockhart a Fate Aspect reflecting this failure - e.g., "Magical Celebrity Fraud" or "All talk but no game" - that accounts for this failure.)

All that said, Harry Potter's franchise imagines a different sort of wizarding class fantasy for its young adult world. The characters in such a world would presumably be all wizards. So distinctions between characters would likely be represented in other ways. These are the sort of scenarios that are appropriate for Fate Accelerated games, which adopts Approaches (e.g., Force, Careful, Smarts, Flashy, etc.) that prioritizes how a character does things over specified ability scores reflecting physical/mental characteristics.
 

Sadras

Legend
Well now it seems like a combat challenge rather than a non-combat one (with the horn as terrain).

I agree.

This is fairly abstract. It's not really pointing me to a procedure for resolution.

The procedure of rolling against a DC does not change from low to high level.

But are you saying that every challenge ha to involve the threat of hp loss because that's where the "tiering" of capabilities across levels is found?

The examples I provided did not necessarily have to reflect hp loss but their loss could lead to serious repercussions and/or outright failure in the quest.
Perhaps the wrestling with the Nalfeshnee results in earning some respect (Social Pillar/Reputation);
Perhaps the bursting out of a rabble of orcs is necessary so he/she does not miss the teleportation spell activated by the pc wizard (Time Cost);
Perhaps the shoving of a stone statue reveals the entrance to a secret passageway (Exploration Pillar).
 
Last edited:

Sadras

Legend
Other posters (eg [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION], [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION]) seemed to be disagreeing with me when I said that in this respect 4e differs from 5e (because what you say is not generally the case in 4e, at least as I have experienced it).

If in fact they do agree with you that in 5e casters have the advantage in these non-combat, no-time-pressure situations, then most of the discussion is over. Because that's the whole difference I've been talking about with the discussion of DC-by-level, skill challenges and the like.

If I'm recalling correctly for me it was that 5e did not necessarily need a DC by level table and the supers issue. My memory could be failing, but it was not about the bolded part.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Wonder what resource fighting types have that limits their workday.... and which might be lost if they were able to over exert by force of will.

In fact such as system was one of the first alternate D&D magic systems i designed - wizards were given more hit points.... and spells cost hit points to cast.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I would like to respond to one of the subtopics regarding wizards and fighters over the past few pages, more as a general impression and reaction rather than something directed at any one individual. Class mechanics and class fantasy are often tied together but over the editions, both of these things have obviously changed for fighters and mages. And these mechanical changes, I suspect, reflect a shift in D&D culture that has been both for the better and worse for the wizard and fighter. And these changes have some fairly large impacts in the sort of play issues that we have been discussing. (Not entirely, but some.) Through the editions, fighters have lost a number of their advantages at the same time that wizards (and most other magic users) have lost their disadvantages or have had their advantages increased.

Fighters no longer gain followers and keeps. Both of these things are means by which the PC fighter could potentially exert a greater control over the breadth of the narrative world. It reflects them gaining secular (martial) power and resources at their disposal, much as the wizard gains cosmic power.

In contrast, wizards (and sorcerers) have bumped up from a d4 to a d6 HD at the same time the game has become less punitively lethal overall. Their slower leveling progression has been normalized with other classes without any offset losses. In 3rd Edition, they gained a ridiculous amount of bonus spells. Though this was taken back in 4-5e, spellcasters also gained rituals at this time. Spell failure in armor and such mostly stopped being a thing. AoOs are less of an issue. A number of groups I have played in or read about forget about spell interruption and such. Concentration is the primary spellcasting issue, when remembered. The primary losses are Save-or-Die and some spell nerfs. Spellcasting has on the whole become much easier and far more lucrative.

While some may rightfully say "yes, but when the game is played correctly...", I place greater value in praxis here. How are games commonly being played? I find that more informative. Because this does and will impact the reception of the game and its trajectory going forward.

Now, the justification for "improving" the ease and reliability of spellcasting was for the sake of fun. I think that's fair. And I do find it enjoyable myself. But these burdens were often explicitly used in the past to justify the scope of their cosmic power and "win button" limited resources. And there has not really been anything that offsets the loss of these burdens. The increased technologizing of magic - its industrial automation? - has overwhelmingly favored spellcasters in this game. Meanwhile, the fighter... (see above).

Just to be clear, likely to the disappointment of [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] ;), I am not advocating here a return to the normal of 1e and AD&D. But I do think that the shift in the class fantasy, class mechanics, and advantages/disadvantages between spellcasting classes and the fighter over time do reveal an imbalance of consideration with the respective classes. And these changes do impact the sort of narrative control options at the disposal of the wizard and fighter across editions. 4e was undeniably a controversial autocorrective regarding this imbalance, but few would dispute that it presented the most even playing field over any edition. So I am at the very least sympathetic to 4e for what it accomplishes in that regard.
 


Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Fighters no longer gain followers and keeps. Both of these things are means by which the PC fighter could potentially exert a greater control over the breadth of the narrative world. It reflects them gaining secular (martial) power and resources at their disposal, much as the wizard gains cosmic power.

I am actually working on introducing something like that in 4e ... in effect the use of troops efficiently and effectively is a very martial practice and in the context of skill challenges I think it has a potential to work better than well.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
If the keynote ability of a diviner is turning fails into successes, then any scenario lets a diviner shine!

Likewise if the scenario involves any fighting at all, then an abjurer can shine by absorbing hp or an evoker can shine by blowing things up.

I'm not sure what a scenario would look like that wasn't designed to let a diviner shine - it would have no dice rolls, no information to be obtained, no decisions to be taken?

In any event, as I said, the human element that you seem to have described is not one that is ubiquitous to RPGing, and it's not even ubiquitous to GMing D&D.

As a (very) limited resource, as with spell slots. Especially at high levels, the Diviner ought to be concerned with resource expenditure, which the Fighter and Rogue are not. Again, plenty of folks have fun without pushing the resource game to the limits, such as Critical Role. And on Critical Role, the martial PCs are major fan favorites. So, while the resource game is how D&D is intended to be played, it can be perfectly fun when played in a relaxed manner without worrying about it.

Whether Fighters and Wizards have equal value in the resource economy in games where the resource economy is being ignored is not terribly useful. Yes, Fighters have a lot to contribute outside of combat, and no resource management to be concerned about. And yes, Wizards who are not jealous of their spell slots have options, though their options usually have limits (like lead with the Diviner) that give room for the Martial to shine if used wisely by the DM.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top