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.

 

[Lanefan]

Question
Would you let a rogue player use a quarterstaff to pole vault as an improvised move?

Yes, any character could try this at very limited odds of success.

Would you still let that same rogue do so if a monk ability granted you the ability to pole vault? How about a feat?

Yes and yes. The class ability and-or the feat serve only to improve your odds of success from poor to very good.

If yes, what is the benefit of taking that subclass or feat or you can just gain the benefit for free?

Improvement of the chance of success. With the feat/ability you can count pole-vaulting as one of your more reliable tricks. Without it, it's only something you'd do in desperation.

 

[pemerton]

What would be required to rebalance the game at paragon and epic levels?

[MENTION=12749]MwaO[/MENTION] has made a suggestion. I would go further and say "nothing". A PC without a paragon path ends up with 1 less encounter power, 1 less daily power, 1 less utility, and no 11th and 16th level features, which are rougly comparable to a feat.

A PC without an epic destiny ends up with 1 less utility power, and no 21st, 24th or 30th level features.

The only thing there that will affect "the maths" is losing out on the stat boost which comes with most (not all) 21st level epic destiny features. Having one fewer encounter and daily power, and two fewer utilities, is the 4e equivalent of not having as many magic items in 5e. Any given encounter will be marginally tougher, and exhaustion over the course of the day will set in marginally earlier. Given that the GM in any event has to get a feel for how hard s/he can push the players and their PCs, this difference would just be another element in getting that feel.

If one PC has an epic destiny and another doesn't, then that first PC will be more mechanically effective, but even then the game would probably cope. The chaos sorcerer in my game is permanently down two utility powers and one daily power (because they were sacrificed in the process of sealing the Abyss) and doesn't suffer in mechanical effectiveness as a result.

 

[Sadras]

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.

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.

I can't imagine that even coming up.

A question that makes more sense to me would be what would you do in 4e with a paragon gropu of PCs fighting a pit fiend? And the answer is, to rewrite it as a solo creature: a pit fiend is the sort of foe that can be defeated only if a whole group of paragon characters gives it their all.

Bolded for emphasis - mine.
You cannot even imagine it coming up and yet it did for your example for non-4e D&D? If 4e treats it the same as any other edition by looking at the stats then I see no difference. In 5e we have lair and legendary actions/saves to assist with the solo mechanic.

As for goblins/orcs and fighting them at 10th level that was a thing back in D&D Basic nevermind 4e.
King Thar of the Broken Lands was like level 32 or something and he wasn't the only one. The Broken Lands gazetteer had class levels for humanoids and these were not just for PCs but for NPCs too.

With regards to feasibility as I said I believe it to be no different than anyone else.
You certainly structure challenges on tiered feasibility which is really no different than how the monsters have been compiled with challenge ratings in their MM. CR is a sort of tier.

 

[Aldarc]

First and foremost, the same as the superheroic abilities of a 17th level fighter in all other editions:

- to be able to withstand being hit ten times with an axe, each one of which blows would outright kill a typical innkeeper or farmer;
- to be able to deliver blows faster, harder, and more accurately than any typical army soldier; and to keep doing so long after said soldier's arms would have tired out.

Is the first unique to the fighter though? Even without magic, for example, a 17th level wizard could likewise be hit with an axe ten times that would kill commoners ten times over. This is less likely in earlier editions you play given that MUs have a d4 HD, but this does become a d6 in later editions. And this is one extreme. If we pick a higher HD class, such as the d8 HD cleric who is also a full caster, then this becomes even more plausible.

In 3rd edition, which featured gradual iterative attacks for everyone, then the second point would also apply to a 17th level wizard, though they would presumably have less martial training or stat capabilities.

 

[pemerton]

Bolded for emphasis - mine.
You cannot even imagine it coming up and yet it did for your example for non-4e D&D? If 4e treats it the same as any other edition by looking at the stats then I see no difference.

I talked about how it is that we know a 1st level fighter can't beat a pit fiend. In 4e, as I said, I know that from the fiction - a character at the bottom of the Heroic Tier is not going to succeed in the sorts of adventures that are described (in the PHB and DMG) as pertaining to Paragon and Epic Tier heroes. Eg from p 29 of the PHB:

In the epic tier . . . [y]ou navigate otherworldly realms and explore neverbefore-seen caverns of wonder, where you can expect to battle savage pit fiends . . .​

Whereas p 28 tells us that, in the heroic tier,

The fate of a village might hang on the success or failure of your adventures, to say nothing of the risk to your own life. You navigate dangerous terrain and explore haunted crypts, where you can expect to fight sneaky goblins, savage orcs, ferocious wolves, giant spiders, evil cultists, and bloodthirsty ghouls.​

Such a person has no hope against a pit fiend.

You asked "what would you do in 4e with a 1st level PC attempting to strike a Pit Fiend?" And I answered that I can't imagine it coming up. Therefore I don't need a theory of how to resolve that action declaration. But I don't need such a theory to know that the 1st level fighter would have no hope, as the fiction tells me that.

I will repost LostSoul's post that makes this point as clearly as I believe it can be made, about the sequence of fiction and mechanics in 4e compared to other editions (he focuses particularly on 3E, but I think the point generalises):

How the imagined content in the game changes in 4E as the characters gain levels isn't quite the same as it is in 3E. I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.

That's kind of confusing... let me see if I can clarify as I work this idea out for myself.

In 3E, climbing a hewn rock wall is DC 25. That doesn't change as the game is played (that is, as fiction is created, the game world is explored, and characters grow). Just because it's DC 120 to balance on a cloud doesn't mean that characters can't attempt it at 1st level; they'll just always fail. The relationship between colour and the reward system doesn't change over time: you know that, if you can score a DC 120 balance check, you can balance on clouds; a +1 to your Balance check brings you that much closer to success.

In 4E, I think the relationship between colour and the reward system changes: you don't know what it will mean, when you first start playing, to make a Hard Level 30 Acrobatics check. Which means that gaining levels doesn't have a defined relationship with what your PC can do in the fiction - just because your Acrobatics check has increased by 1, it doesn't mean you're that much closer to balancing on a cloud. I think the group needs to define that for themselves; as far as I can tell, this is supposed to arise organically through play, and go through major shifts as Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies enter the game.

In 5e we have lair and legendary actions/saves to assist with the solo mechanic.

But is the legendary status part of the fiction? Or just a device. In 4e solo status is just a device, for ensuring that the mechanics match the fiction which is known independently of the mechanics. That's whty the very same pit fiend can be statted as a solo or an elite, depending on the level of character opposing it. And why the very same goblin can be statted as a standard, a minion, or subsumed into a swarm.

You certainly structure challenges on tiered feasibility which is really no different than how the monsters have been compiled with challenge ratings in their MM. CR is a sort of tier.

So what is the appropiate DC for a non-cbombat hallenge that is "tiered" to be feasible for a 15th level fighter but is out of the question for a 1st level one?

 

[Sadras]

Just to answer this last part real quick.

So what is the appropiate DC for a non-cbombat hallenge that is "tiered" to be feasible for a 15th level fighter but is out of the question for a 1st level one?

An air elemental sounds the horn with its endless breath, guarded by a stone golem...(snip)...While the horn is sounding, a creature must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw the first time on a turn the creature enters a 150-foot cone in front of the horn or starts its turn there. On a failed save, the creature takes 27 (6d8) thunder damage and is knocked prone. On a successful save, the creature takes half damage and isn’t knocked prone.

 

[pemerton]

Just to answer this last part real quick.

An air elemental sounds the horn with its endless breath, guarded by a stone golem...(snip)...While the horn is sounding, a creature must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw the first time on a turn the creature enters a 150-foot cone in front of the horn or starts its turn there. On a failed save, the creature takes 27 (6d8) thunder damage and is knocked prone. On a successful save, the creature takes half damage and isn’t knocked prone.

That doesn't really seem like an action declaration on the player's part - it seems more like passive resistance - but in any event it looks feasible to a 1st level PC to me. A 1st level PC can have +4 to CON saves and thus a 50% chance to make that save. And a 1st level fighter can survive taking 13 hp of damage.

 

[Garthanos]

Pole Vaulting? are we doing it out of combat or in a low stress situation? Is it an improvised tool or one designed for it with nice spring and the right length. Generally speaking its a tool for bonus to jumping someone can use it without training and get a circumstance bonus for an individual jump.

Out of combat they were commonly used to cross bogs and similar terrains in faster safer fashions over long distance travel.

If I am not practiced with it and it was a plot significant circumstances must get to church on time cannot take safer route must do it fast (which also means not avoiding dangerous things in the bog by travel route) hence with somethings challenge level appropriate interfering I would use skill challenge considerations based on athletics/maybe acrobatics. I might spend a healing surge to assure I can get to the church on time we are heros after all and sometimes its worth it. The HS might meant a bite from the icky thing or a bruise on your forehead or similar fun... or achey muscles that make you less smooth in the important dance which follows.

Additionally
If the hero is practiced at it (Xena or Cormac McArt the lowlander perhaps) this is reliable and avoids a large chunk of the mobility problems of long distance travel through that area and reduces the likelihood of encounters with annoying icky things in the bogs. No roll required to get their promptly however depending on a skill check doing so may or may not cost a healing surge, if this is a dangerous bog with sink holes and nastier critters and time is of the essence and so part of a skill challenge it isn't a walk in the park.

Now without the skill challenge circumstances If a hero not practiced with it I have to make relatively mundane skill checks to avoid being slowed down (and hence not getting the benefit) and wont have any benefit about not encountering icky things unless I roll really well but the icky things are also relatively mundane I get teased and mildly laughed at on the other side because I have a leach attached and mom says dinner is cold. And if not challenging the practiced individual can simply narrate getting through the bog quickly and surely.

Another out of combat application is used in an athletics competition to impress onlookers and everyone will be using the tool and to win (you may need to fake losing for the sake of diplomacy and having better control can help that too). Now if that impressing onlookers is an important plot point ie to be a challenge in higher level fiction you will have very picky people who are significant to this part of the story. The class feature would also be a bonus to either.

In combat using a jumping move reliably may hinge on using a combat trick because it could be easy stopping someone (perhaps with an opportunity attack) from gaining some benefit like smashing an enemy back further or suddenly navigating across a hole out of the way of an attack or putting yourself behind enemy lines.


OK I think I just answered very similar to Lanefan but with more words and more elaboration on how system mechanics might make it fully reliable in 4e fashion.

Now if 5e had combat tricks I could only use against an enemy who hasn't seen me use it (ie real encounter powers) and ways for martial types to choose to learn and declare they have auto successes in out of combat situations.

 

[Imaro]

(mostly I agree with you but you know I think that DnD magic and DnD combat does not really evoke Sword and Sorcery Tropes well at all)

I don't think I necessarily disagree in a general sense... just not a big fan of Howard's Conan as the be all and end all of sword and sorcery (which seems to happen alot when the genre is brought up on these boards) when there is so much more to the genre... also while I can appreciate Howard's work I found Moorcock, Lieber, Saunders and a few other just more to my tastes as enjoyable reads and with less to none of the more unsavory aspects of Howard's writings.

 

[MwaO]

What are 'martial explanations'?

If a group has 'realism' limits for martial PCs, what are the definitions of those limits for martial PCs?

Or the non-casters look for and find ways in which they can still be useful, usually via covering the casters' butts while they blow apart the system.

That usually leads to option number 3 eventually, often involving the DM doing the blowing up.

Relatively easy to do what? It's unclear what you're referring to here.

It is relatively easy to build an optimized 4e Fighter who takes powers that all have reasonably realistic explanations. To the point they're probably overpowered for a typical Paragon tier game.