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

OK on this "I would’ve much preferred the ability to adopt any role within the core 4 by giving players a big choice at level 1, an option that placed an overlay on every power you used or that gave you a new way to use them."
Basically have Source Specific Powers and less class powers. But I think combining that with having BIG differing stances to dynamically switch role might be a better idea so that your hero can adjust role to circumstance. I have to defend this NPC right now vs I have to take down the big bad right now vs I have to do minion cleaning right now, I am inspiring allies in my interesting way, who need it right now.

and the obligatory
Argghhhh on this. " I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules"

And thematic differences seemed to have been carried fine.

 

[Aldarc]

Oh, hey, I get that. 5e is FAR more accessibly written. And it comes paired with really excellent adventures that take advantage of the best parts of the system. 4e's biggest failure was in how it was presented. Skill Challenges are a fantastic idea, but, the first 4e DMG didn't present them that way at all. Rituals were a fantastic idea that never really went anywhere.

I'm now curious how 4e would fare if it was given a revamp or rewrite that properly/more naturally communicated its design principles. Though it would still be lipstick on a pig for some, it seems like it would be an "ah ha!" moment for others. The closest we may have to that end is likely 13th Age, which is not purely 4e or 3e, but certainly has a degree of familiarity for both.

So, for some, the notion that you'd use the skill system and a "fightery" character to produce magical effects makes intuitive sense. These are fantasy heroes and legendary ones at that. Of course they can wrestle death. Of course they can hold a weapon in the forge. So on and so forth. That's what legendary heroes do.

I suppose this is a question of what D&D should simulate.

The problem with things like Paragon path and Epic Destiny IMO is that they force players to think way too far ahead at or around the char-gen phase...and that they also put players in the mindset that their PCs are of course going to survive long enough to reach these fine ends.

It's an extension of the same issue I had with 3e where players would plan out their PC's whole 1-20 progression and development before the end of session 0, and then expect it to happen.

I'd far rather have these sort of things arise naturally out of the ongoing run of play, if they are to arise at all, and maybe get worked into the fiction as the game goes along. Or maybe not - not everyone's dreams come true. In the current game I play in, one of my PCs has a long-term goal of getting a Senate seat or maybe even becoming Empress (it's a quasi-Roman culture) but there's no guarantee whatsoever that any of this will ever happen...and nor should there be, and nor should there be any in-built expectations that it will.

Unfortunately, Paths and Destinies come with - or certainly imply - expectations of success that really shouldn't be there.

I think that the problem with this approach - though well-intentioned it may be (as I too love the idea of emergent play) - is that players do and will frequently think about their characters long-term, often because their sense of character concept may be tied to long-term goals that cannot be realized at the point of character creation. And we can see this problem in 5e as well. I may see my character as an Arcane Trickster, but assuming that I do not take alternative routes,* it will take me until reaching rogue level 3 before I get the bare minimum to reach my character concept.

IME with 4e, however, most players were not pre-planning their Paragon paths or Epic destinies. They would certainly have several in mind, particularly when it comes to prerequisites, but it's generally not pre-planned. Again IME, most players in 4e were looking at their next few levels of powers that they could potentially choose rather than long-term destinies.

* e.g., magical initiate feat, racial cantrips, etc.

Two PCs left, and eventually found their way off-plane and back to the prime material (though on the wrong world, and stuck there).

The rest took on the challenge, and selected a champion from among themselves. I-as-DM set the odds somewhat in the party champion's favour (at best guess he'd win about 65-75% of the time - Hel's champion had a slightly worse AC, fewer h.p., and might have been a level lower, I forget now), and the remaining party loaded their guy up with all their best magic to further tilt the field.

And even with all that, the PC lost. End of party. Happy Hel.

Sounds more like a buzzkill campaign.

 

[Sadras]

As far as theatre of the mind is concerned, whatever floats your boat. In AD&D I don't bother tracking precise distances because they don't matter - there is no tracking of in-melee movement in AD&D, so the only question is whether someone is close enough to shoot or close enough to be engaged in melee.

As [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] mentioned AoE spells very much care about precise distances. But the systems being compared were not AD&D and 4e but rather 5e and 4e.

As far as I can tell @Manbearcat and I are the only posters in this thread who regularly play non-D&D systems (like MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, Prince Valiant, and the like) that use conflict resolution mechanics that proceed as a 4e skill challenge does - first, establish feasibility in the fiction, then use the system framework to set a difficulty.

I'm not sure what this has anything to do with that what we are discussing and doesn't everyone first establish feasibility in the fiction and then use the system framework to set the difficulty? Surely our disagreement stems from what is and isn't feasible in the fiction and not necessarily yours and Manbearcat's appreciation of the skill challenge mechanic.

Instead of imputing views that have no connection to the ones I'm actually articulating

Strongly disagree. The example was raised that 10 DMs would provide 11 DC's on a simple skill check in 5e I find is similar in loose structure to a player asking the DM how many goblins will be caught in the fireball if he tried to avoid his allies and yet the latter is deemed ok but the former not. I find that curious.

 

[pemerton]

The example was raised that 10 DMs would provide 11 DC's on a simple skill check in 5e I find is similar in loose structure to a player asking the DM how many goblins will be caught in the fireball if he tried to avoid his allies and yet the latter is deemed ok but the former not. I find that curious.

That example wasn't raised by me. And as far as TotM is concerned I said whatever floats your boat. I explained what floats my boat, and under what conditions.

I don't care what 5e GMs do. I'm explaining what features that 4e has that (i) are salient to me and (ii) are absent from 5e.

doesn't everyone first establish feasibility in the fiction and then use the system framework to set the difficulty?

I've never seen that done for combat in non-4e D&D at any table. And I don't think I've ever heard of it. People work out what the AC of an orc is by looking it up in a book (either directly, or by deciding that the orc is wearing (say) mail and then looking up mail on an AC-by-armour-type chart). People work out that a 1st level fighter can't beat a pit fiend not by thinking about the fiction and then assigning the pit fiend appropriate AC and hp, but by looking at the pit fiend stats in the MM.

4e is an exception: various of the devices discussed in this thread, like treating 1st level standard goblins as 10th (or whatever) level minions, minionising a lich, treating a phalanx of hobgoblins or a swarm of were-hyenas as a swarm, etc, all depend upon first making a decision about feasibility in the fiction, and then assigning stats (level, monster type, etc) on that basis. I have seen 4e criticised a lot for adopting this approach to the combat-statting of opponents ("Schroedinger's minion" and the like).

As far as non-combat is concerned, this thread hasn't revealed (to me, at least) a consistent approach in 5e for setting DCs. But there does seem to be a general if not uniform view that if it is DC 15 for a 15th level fighter then it is DC 15 for a 1st level fighter also ("bounded accuracy"). That seems to be a reading of feasibility of prior mechanics rather than vice versa.

 

[Sadras]

I think for me it is not so much that 5e does not have supernatural martial characters as I'm not so much of a fan of that genre. It is more that casters do not have as many setbacks and have too many auto abilities as well as non-cost powers (cantrips).

Thankfully 5e allows for a fair amount of system tinkering and so that issue, if it is an issue at one's table, can be solved.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Think of it as a circadian rhythm thing <...> Or getting in the groove... <...> Actually that reminds me of the 13A thing of the die which counts through the turns as the battle heats up.

I'm familiar with both rationales as well as the Escalation Die. IMO that's an example of a very functional and simple to implement game mechanic that I just don't like. It just feels very forced to me, although I get the point of it, which is to prevent the immediate Nova or the problem that 4E battles often settled down to grinds as monsters and PCs were reduced to at wills. This is to say nothing of needing a milestone to gain magic item uses... bleh. I really hated the milestone in 4E as a player. 13A has a number of interesting ideas and is a much lighter implementation of a lot of the 4E concepts. This is despite the fact that I actually like the rather meta Doom/Momentum mechanic in Modiphius 2D20. In many ways it is similar but it's very integrated into the system and tends to ebb and flow, not just go in one direction and the entire game was built with it in mind.

Of course, different strokes for different folks.

 

[Imaro]

I don't read any Adventure Paths or Adventures or anything kindred. The overwhelming majority of them (but not all of them), regardless of D&D edition or system, are examples of the worst sort of GMing possible. They typically preconcieve endpoints in immediate scenarios and long-term campaigns and in-so-doing instruct and/or encourage GMs to deploy Force to achieve outcomes. Further, the writing is typically either terrible for the system or incoherent with the primary themes of the system.

Scenario Packs or premises, sure. Adventures and APs. Absolutely not.

What I do read is the GMing advice/principles and the game's play agenda.

This is akin to choosing the sources that support your assertion and choosing to ignore those that don't. I'm not sure this does anything except strengthen the observatrion that this isn't an inherent 4e thing but instead fiction that an individual DM can choose to overlay their camapign with. Or that it is inherent and being consistent in it's application just sucked when it came to official sources out side the rulebooks.

D&D 4e's DMGs are very clear on what Epic Tier is about and what you should be doing as GM:

1) "...characters have truly superheroic capabilities, and their deeds and adventures are the stuff of legend. Ordinary people can hardly dream of such height's of power."

From the 5e DMG... Levels 17-20 Masters of the World

"...characters have superheroic capabilities, and their deeds and adventures are stuff of legend. Ordinary people can hardly dream if such heights of of power...or such terrible dangers."

It's nearly the same description word for word. The only difference here I would say is that level 20 is considered the pinnacle and when true Epic (as I understand it in 4e) takes place in 5e.

2) Regarding content, the instruction on Epic Tier tells GMs (as it does with Paragon Paths et al) to take cues from the players' Epic Destinies.

Relating to (2), here are a smattering of Epic Utilities that do not have any magic power source keywords (therefore, they aren't "magic-derived" in the D&D technical sense):

snipped for brevity...

And 5e's description directs the DM to use Epic Boons to represent the powers and abilities of Epic tier/mythical PC's. Referencing the section on Epic boons one is told what types of things these abilities are supposed to represent...

"...Many of the boons are extraordinary and represent the gradual transformation of a character into something resembling a demigod."

5e's boons also take the stance of allowing the particular table to flavor the fiction that surrounds these abilities as opposed to providing it and gives on just the mechanics behind each one. Which is consistent with how the system in general is presented.

D&D 4e's Epic Tier has been routinely derided by detractors as "Superheroes" because of these things above. Until now I suppose?

Well I've heard the entirety of 4e derided as a fantasy superhero game by those who take iussue with it... but that bears no relevance to this discussion which is whether 5e can emulate a mythic tier... which it can. the biggest differences between it and 4e are...

1. It is purely optional not a mandated part of the game (as 4e Epic Destinies were), even to the point that if one wants to play at level 20 and above with more grounded and less powerful/mythical alternatives to epic boons you can as they are also provided in the DMG.

2. The flavoring/exact fiction of the abilities, even whether they are magical or non-magical is not defined in 5e so the descriptions can be tailored to the feel of the particular campaign... or even the particular character.

Note that 5's level 17-20 Epic Tier advice cribs 4e's (1) exactly, though doesn't follow through as (a) there are no Epic Destinies to take heed of, (b) there are no actual superheroic abilities for martial characters that are non-magic (like the 4e utilities above) to guide content generation/genre tropes, and there is no attendant advice to look to the absent (a) and (b) for content generation. Further still, contrast the second sentence of (1) above with the design impetus (and related impacts on play) of bounded accuracy (which strives to keep low tier obstacles/threats relevant at endgame play).

a.) Epic destinies are not a requirement for mythic fantasy... Epic boons serve the same function.

b.) Nothing defines Epic boons as magical. They are specifically called out as "special powers". The flavor and designation is left open.

b. 1/2) The content generation is both addressed in the description of the tier as well as the section on mythic fanatsy in the DMG. I think that 5e avoids locking all this down at the level of specificity that 4e does (well except in adventures for some reason) because it is purposefully giving you the room to flavor to one's own tastes... as an example one person's Mythic may be Gilgamesh, Beowulf and Hercules while another groups may be Goku, Vegeta and Trunks. While the mechanical capability of these two groups would be similar the fiction would probably be colored totally differently

c.) The whole point of epic boons is to break bounded accuracy. 5e recognizes if you've chosen (and that is the really important distinction here that the group and DM must buy into it vs. it being integral to the game ) to play with Epic boons you are choosing to toss bounded accuracy out the window.

 

[Sadras]

I don't care what 5e GMs do. I'm explaining what features that 4e has that (i) are salient to me and (ii) are absent from 5e.

Fair enough.

I've never seen that done for combat in non-4e D&D at any table. And I don't think I've ever heard of it. People work out what the AC of an orc is by looking it up in a book (either directly, or by deciding that the orc is wearing (say) mail and then looking up mail on an AC-by-armour-type chart). People work out that a 1st level fighter can't beat a pit fiend not by thinking about the fiction and then assigning the pit fiend appropriate AC and hp, but by looking at the pit fiend stats in the MM.

So what would you do in 4e with a 1st level PC attempting to strike a Pit Fiend? Not use AC? Skill challenge the entire combat? Minionise the Pit Fiend?

As far as non-combat is concerned, this thread hasn't revealed (to me, at least) a consistent approach in 5e for setting DCs.

Based on 5e adventure design, the DC range most tested predominantly lies between 10 -20 for all levels (Easy, Medium, Hard). Personally I would reserve 25 and 30 for really epic level feats (not the mechanic).

 

[Imaro]

I think for me it is not so much that 5e does not have supernatural martial characters as I'm not so much of a fan of that genre. It is more that casters do not have as many setbacks and have too many auto abilities as well as non-cost powers (cantrips).

Thankfully 5e allows for a fair amount of system tinkering and so that issue, if it is an issue at one's table, can be solved.

I think this is one of the biggest difference between 4e and 5e (not that the tools, advice, etc. are absent from 5e as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] claims). 5e makes it so that you can totally ignore this type of fantasy and still play up to level 20 and beyond...or if you want a DM can implement Epic Boons and let the advice on Mythic fantasy in the DMG inform his adventures and have a game based in mythic fantasy. 4e gave you one choice... implement mythical fantasy or stop playing at a certain level... which probably rubbed those not looking for mythic fantasy the wrong way.

 

[MwaO]

I think this is one of the biggest difference between 4e and 5e (not that the tools, advice, etc. are absent from 5e as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] claims). 5e makes it so that you can totally ignore this type of fantasy and still play up to level 20 and beyond...or if you want a DM can implement Epic Boons and let the advice on Mythic fantasy in the DMG inform his adventures and have a game based in mythic fantasy. 4e gave you one choice... implement mythical fantasy or stop playing at a certain level... which probably rubbed those not looking for mythic fantasy the wrong way.

You can totally ignore that type of mythic fantasy in 4e too. Refluffing is a thing in 4e, make good choices that reflect realistic options, get table agreement that's the style of play that is supposed to happen. Done.

 

[Imaro]

You can totally ignore that type of mythic fantasy in 4e too. Refluffing is a thing in 4e, make good choices that reflect realistic options, get table agreement that's the style of play that is supposed to happen. Done.

But the mechanics of the powers still speak to that type of fantasy... earlier someone quoted something along the lines of "When you die for the first time today..." It's pretty hard to refluff casual self-resurrection as "realistic"... even D&D realistic

Honestly this is baffling me we have @pemerton claiming mythical fantasy is an inherent part of 4e but then you're saying it's casually easy to remove or ignore it... which one is it?