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.

 

[Imaro]

If the human element as you describe it, ie as including an obligation on the GM to help the players/PCs get their respective chances to shine in mechanical terms - which is what I am taking you to mean, given this is a discussion about the role of anti-magic zones, spellbook theft, etc - then while it may be key to 5e it is not key to 4e. Nor is it key to AD&D as I have GMed that system in the past.

In 4e if I have a power that functions vs. multiple opponents... aren't I reliant on the DM to provide multiple opponents vs.singular in order for my power to work? A power that pushes or shoves... am I reliant on the DM to provide enemies that can be pushed or shoved? How about a controller with AoE... don't I need the DM to provide minions? And so on?

 

[rmcoen]

Actually, 4e does state/suggest (DMG, I think) that the GM make sure to include minions for the [controller] wizard to clear. 4e considers wizards to be controllers, not DPS; rogues and rangers are (supposed to be) your DPS. Back to your question though, the 4e answer is yes. In fact, 4e goes so far as to say *DON'T* use antimagic zones, because they unfairly suppress just one PC's abilities - and there generally aren't "anti-martial zones" or "anti-cleric zones" or "anti-leader (warlord)" zones. On the flip side, if you feel you must impose some kind of restriction (it goes on to say), think instead of limiting *power level* instead of *power source*. For example, perhaps Dailies can't be used in this area (from any power source). There are definately monsters that can only be hurt by at-wills, or force players to only use at-wills. (These are generally auras yo ucan avoid, or "attacks" that must hit, though.)

 

[rmcoen]

Running an AD&D campaign in college [yes, that long ago], the most deadly foe the party faced was a lich. Not the lich itself, actually, but his slightly less powerful lieutenant, a pure fighter. A fighter encased in the heaviest armor available, carrying the biggest shield, and wielding a sword in which he was highly trained for both offense and defense. Oh, and the "Amulet of Antimagic Shell". It not only knocked out the wizard's and cleric's spells, it also removed all buffs, depowered all the fancy gadgets and items the party was carrying, and forced them to rely on brawn and brain, instead of magical power in all its forms -- while the lich stayed outside the zone, blasting anyone who tried to break free.

I'm sure many DMs have a similar story. The point I'm making here is that this was a one-shot, special encounter, with a BBEG - and partly was intended to remind the players to (a) work together, (b) think, instead of brute force; and (c) remember "the better part of valor". I did not routinely try to "balance" the power of the party spellcasters by taking away their powers with AM zones. (I did feel free to challenge *the party* with magic resistant foes, though - illithids, drow, golems, and so forth, which are intended to be high-level foes against high-level parties... which are assumed to include high-level spellcasters.

As a small tangent, I will point out that the current "God Wizard Guide to Pathfinder" specifically discourages the player from taking a Bonded Object (which allows a free use of any one spell in your book, once per day) because the GM can take away your object (the absence of which prevents you from casting spells, I think). Take a familiar, get +2 to two skills, and be secure in the knowledge the GM can't shaft you in this fashion...

 

[Imaro]

Alright, so here was the last session I GMed in 5e. Of note:

1) This was an Epic Tier Aliens Invasion scenario with actual Far Realm "Grays", War of the Worlds type bio-constructs (like pilotable golems, but made of organics), and their mother ship. However, instead of harvesting bio-material, they were harvesting time, slowly turning back the clock of this prime material plane.

2) I didn't GM the preceding session or the climax of this session. The abstract that the GM gave me for the preceding session had it featuring 2-3 encounters. The climax of the session included the showdown with The Harvester; the alien entity that consumes the time that this world has accrued and assimilates it into its own consciousness, increasing its own god-like insight and knowledge. Again, I didn't GM it.

I'm curious was the total of this session plus that of the other GM's an adventuring Day? if not what were the encounter budgets for the below encounters? I ask because I'd be interested in knowing how many encounters and at what budget (difficulty) these were taking place at...

Here is how the gamestate was changed as play progressed until the session ended. Of note:

1) All enemies had Magic Resistance so Advantage on saving throws against the Wizard.

2) The Time Reaper - machine in the belly of the ship - caused local distortion that gave the PCs Disadvantage on attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws.

3) The Wizard had cast Foresight on the Fighter (their primary damage source) to offset Time Reaper.

Quick question what level were the PC's and what was the CR of their enemies... I'd be even more interested in the stats for the enemies if you have them...

Gamestate 1:

The 3 PCs are on the ground below the mother ship, having just defeated the initial welcoming party, which included single-man "hoverpods." Two hoverpods were intact after the encounter.

The Rogue fails one of the two rolls for his Disadvantage on his Investigation check (DC 20, Reliable Talent would apply, but wasn't sufficient to hit the mark as just Proficient, not Expert). The Diviner offsets it with the 1st of his 3 Portents and, due to the Wizard, the Rogue mans a hoverpod.

The Wizard fails his +11 Arcana at Disadvantage to start a hoverpod for the Fighter. So he just uplevels his Fly spell to 4th and the two of them fly up to the mothership.

Analyzation...



The wizard must have not used his portent whatsoever in the previous combat as it hasn't been 8 hours and he has all 3 uses. Perhaps the previous fight wasn't a taxing enough encounter?? Another curious thing is that this ability, which arguably deals with time and it's flow was not affected by the fiction that was presented for this encounter... even though every other roll was. Definitely a missed opportunity IMO but not a major thing.

Gamestate 2:

The PCs are attacked by the ship's defenses; a large number of small flying aberrations from the Far Realm.

The Rogue uses the flight, HPs and multi-attack of the hoverpod to engage them (which the Wizard enabled).

The Fighter has Fly and Foresight and wrecks them (thanks to the Wizard).

The Wizard (Warcaster, Resilient, and + Int for other two feats) uses Mirror Image and mobility (to ensure that Concentration isn't an issue for he and the Fighters' Fly), and Grease (his typical Spell Mastery spells) to effectively death spell several of the flyers (prone and they didn't have hover).

The Fighter uses his bow while the Rogue uses the hoverpods multi-attack and they win the day.

Analyzation:

Does the Rogue use his own initiative, to hit bonus... if so it's not entirely Wizard enabled.

The Wizard cast his only 9th level spell to enable Foresight on the fighter. So these characters have to be at least 17th level...

Did the rogue loose his sneak attack damage in trade off for being in the hoverpod with multi-attack (assuming at least 17th level that's 9d6 extra damage... did the hoverpod do more than this?)

How many creatures were there? I get the impression it was alot and that seems to favor pure numbers ending the wizards concentration on flight... seems strange that the wizard (even with the disadvantage cancelling out his warcaster bonus was able to continually roll high enough to avoid loosing concentration... again it would be interesting to see some actual stats here otherwise it's kind of hard to read what is going on here...

Again claiming the fighter wrecks them because the Wizard gave him movement and advantage seems a gross over-simplification...

Gamestate 3:

Puzzle challenge to open the hatch. PC build neutral.

Interesting were there any rolls made?

Gamestate 4:

The welcoming party. Mass Suggestion reduces the HUGE enemy force by 1/3. Forcecage cuts them by another 1/3. The rest are obliterated by the Rogue and Fighter.

They leave one alive to interrogate to attempt to locate The Time Reaper. They don't speak the same language (the Wizard doesn't want to burn a 3rd level for Tongues when he can...see below). The Fighter tried to pantomime what they were looking for and threaten the creature, but his Intimidate failed as he rolled really low (a 3 I think).

Analyzation:

How did the Wizard use Mass suggestion on them if they don't speak the same language?

Gamestate 5:

Wizard casts Locate Object. This saved them 4 random encounter rolls during exploration so, while they ended up having an encounter on the way there (a defense system - equivalent of a Trap - that the Rogue was able to successfully deal with), it saved them another resource-depleting encounter (obviously no Long Rests, but Short Rests were fine) on this ship.

Analyzation:

Was the object within 1000 feet of them when they cast the spell?

How did they find the exact path to the object? Locate object gives a general direction from the point at which you cast it... don't you still need to navigate to the object on an giant unfamiliar ship? In other words sensing it's below them or above them doesn't tell them how to get there.

Gamestate 6:

The Time Reaper and the General. A parlay begins with the ship's commander and engineer. Tongues + Geas + 2nd use of Divine Portent to deal with the Magic Resistance and he's charmed. Fighter fails to destroy the arcane machine via Athletics and a nasty Time Warp AoE attack ensues on the PCs. Rogue with Disadvantage fails to destroy it via Expertise Thievery, but the Diviner turns his low roll into a 13 with his final use of Divine Portent and The Time Reaper is destroyed. Now, no Disadvantage for the Rogue and Wizard and the Fighter's Foresight equals Advantage.

Due to the charmed commander, they (a) get some relevant mechanical info for the combat to come with The Harvester, (b) enable a Short Rest, (c) they don't have to use their resources to fight him, (d) they avoid multiple further potential random encounters with a Take Me to Your Leader scene transition.

That is where the session ended. I didn't GM the climax.

---

Analyzation:

Down all uses of Portent (so noting left for the big bad evil guy)... (1) 9th level spell, (1) 7th level spell, (1) 6th level spell, (1) 5th level spell, (1) 4th level , (1) 3rd level spell, (1) 2nd level spell;

Geas has a verbal component and takes a whole minute of casting... why did the commander allow the wizard to cast it after casting Tongues?

Geas can be acted against... it inflicts psychic damage but can inflict that damage only once per day... again hard to understand this fully without the stats but why wouldn't the commander go against whatever the geas was take the damage and proceed to make life hell for the PC's after this betrayal? This is twice a spell helped shut down an encounter because of how you chose to rule.

Arguably you made Mass Suggestion, Locate Object and Geas more powerful than they should have been. Something especially dangerous with spells.

It was a brutal indication of the disparate might of endgame Wizardry and Diviner's specifically (Portent is incredibly awesome in terms of thematics as an ability, brilliantly conceived, but unreal how powerful in terms of dictating or salvaging outcomes).

I'm sure people will decry this for bad scenario design, not "spotlighting the martial PCs", or not being adversarial enough against the caster PC, but I obviously disagree. This is exactly the sort of scenario that should be playing out in an Epic Tier game. All kinds of asymmetrical/multi-axis problems that, unfortunately as the system is constructed and as orthodox GMing dictates (orthodox insofar as the dictates of the regular GM of that game...which comports with the spirit of GMs I see on this board), martial characters struggle to deal with.

I agree portent is a powerful and thematic ability... My biggest issues are the Mass Suggestion allowance and the commander just accepting the Geas.

Also true Epic Tier in 5e is level 20+

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]

Don’t have time to go over your post in detail, so just a quick skim and responses. I’ll review in detail tonight and get a more detailed response up.

1) 18th level PCs

2) 2 Encounters that ended their last session (where I picked up on) included:

A) Parlay that didn’t move a lot of units and led into (B). This is where the first Tongues came from for Mass Suggestion. I ruled that it was probably roughly an hour when the engineer encounter occurred, so he had to burn another 3rd level for parlay.

B) Combat with the aliens in the hoverpods. The hoverpods were a reskinned or conjoined something or other with a Multi-Attack and a Shield on Recharge, it’s own HP pool, and obviously Flight with Hover. I can probably get the stats for it if you want them. I don’t remember them off the top of my head (this was almost 1.25 years ago).

3) No rolls for puzzles. This is just classic puzzle solving (the kids like puzzles and the primary GM likes running them). The issue here mechanically was ticks on the WM/RE clock.

4) This was done Basic Style with Map and Key and Exploration Interval and Wandering Monster/Random Encounters to pressure the whole thing.

5) The initial combat wasn’t terribly bad budget-wise, but it was awkward with the potential to go really poorly (Concentration failure would have been party Wiz/Fighter death and hoverpod going down the same for the Rogue. The Welcoming Party Encounters in the ship was a bit more than Deadly * 1.5ish. Most of the random encounters/wandering monsters were reasonable budgets.

I don’t know the budget of the Legendary Encounter (I didn’t run it), but I know it was % chance of mooks coming in every round and Time-themed Legendary and Lair Actions.

Total workday was something like 10ish Encounters including 2 parlays (Social), 2 puzzles (Exploration), trap (Exploration), Combats * 4ish? (Including boss), dealing with the Y axis issue to get to the ship (Exploration). I may be forgetting one. The only resource the Puzzles cost we’re ticks (4 I believe) on Wandering Monster/RE clock.

I’ll get to the rest of your stuff later whe I can read through it and process with more attention.

 

[Imaro]

A) Parlay that didn’t move a lot of units and led into (B). This is where the first Tongues came from for Mass Suggestion. I ruled that it was probably roughly an hour when the engineer encounter occurred, so he had to burn another 3rd level for parlay.

Hey just wanted to briefly address this... You specifically state the wizard doesn't want to burn another Tongues spell in Gamestate 4 to interrogate the prisoner but you allow it for the Mass Suggestion in the same encounter (this is why this is baffling an encounter is measured in seconds but the spell just happens to end right after the combat as opposed to right before it??)... Either way as you state above this was a ruling on your part that allowed a big chunk of the encounter to be shut down by spellcasting.

 

[Shasarak]

Ron Weasley, Neville Longbottom (especially their freshmen and sophomore years) and the fact that there is a well-used nurse's ward in Hogwarts would argue with your "never fail" appraisal of magic in Harry Potter. Many full-fledged wizards can't successfully cast the Patronus charm and other magics, potions class was regularly depicted as a circus of failure. (Although I agree that the spells are often depicted as simple and swift actions, especially in the movies.) And that's not to count the number of spells that simply miss their intended targets.

So your argument is that 13 year old children learning how to cast spells with broken wands cant cast spells? Ah huh.

And of course you have some spells that some wizards can not cast, that is why you have a percentage chance to learn spells afterall. And when Harry learns to cast his Patronus he never fails to cast his Patronus.

Several Jedi fail at the Suggestion ability or have it go sideways. Luke also fails to levitate the X-Wing. There is the general failure of the Jedi Prescient ability to detect the Sith or a planetfull of clones being trained into an army. Luke tries to summon Ben at the end of Empire (at least in some edits), but then turns to Leia when that fails.

Yes, some people are weak minded and can be mind controlled. Some people are not and cant be. It was not the Force that failed.

Luke can not levitate his XWing before he was trained in the force and then after he was trained he levitated his XWing. I find in Starwars that its only the Mary Sue characters that can use the Force without training.

The Discworld Wizards demonstrate laughably (it is a comedy after all) inconsistent magic. So much so that they avoid trying to use it whenever possible. The Librarian is a fine example, or perhaps I should just say "Ook". One of the wizards in Lost Continent "loses control" of a fireball. Its unclear whether BS Johnson was using magic or just unearthly engineering.

I think you are right, the Librarian could have been a result of a miscast spell but the only reason they did not change him back was that being an Orangutan was much better for his job.

But really the Discworld wizards cast magic all the time, they even summon up Death at the proverbial drop of the hat. In fact Wizards are so proficient at magic that they need to use non-magical ways to try and work their way up the magical pyramid.

The consequences of a miscast (or perhaps poorly conceived) spell and the are the central thread of the plot in the Earthsea trilogy.

It has been so many years since I have read those books but if I was to guess it was a student casting a spell that he was specifically told not to try to cast?

I was restricting myself to human casters. Although I suppose one might look at Elves, given D&D. Then again, elves are quite varied in their depiction in legend ranging quite aways from the D&D depiction. Morgan and Circe do some shapeshifting, artifice, and illusion, but I don't recall anything similar to D&D combat casting.

They are very similar to DnD magic, their magic never fails. It is always reliable. Circe never hilariously fails to turn sailors into pigs.

Erm, those aren't exactly pre-D&D, and I disagree with your assessment.

Well yes obviously.

I'm fine with Vance, couldn't say for Lieber or Moorcock. Tolkien, though? Its unclear whether any mortal "casters" exist. (Although certainly there are mortal artificers and craftsmen that can access some kind of magic, and its unclear exactly what counts as canon or not.) Nonetheless, these sources are "modern" in the sense that they come after artillery was a common experience.

Gandalf never fails to cast his spells, Bilbos sword never fails to detect Goblins, the One ring never sometimes makes its wearer invisible. You could go on and on.

Personally, I just can't see how having some sort of Casting Check to use a spell would break D&D any more than having a Fighter make an Attack Roll or a Rogue make a skill check does, with added benefit that we could look at dropping Vancian casting. I certainly don't see how it would somehow make D&D inconsistent with fantasy literature (outside of Vance, perhaps) or unfantastic.

It would not "break" DnD, it would be a ridiculously niche version of DnD that, as I have shown, would be inconsistent with over 40 years of fantasy literature.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Imaro

It was a call I had to make as I wasn’t there for the prior session so I couldn’t take granular accounting for time into account (which is something I hate anyway). There was some haggling at the table over the time frame. I figured it was roundabouts time for the Tongues from the prior session to be up, so we settled on allowing it for the Mass Suggestion but disallowing it for any subsequent parlay (obviously “interrogate the bad guys” is rote D&D, especially for 14 year olds). They weren’t pleased with this as they were sure it couldn’t have been an hour, but so be it.

EDIT - And this is a perfect example of why I prefer durations tracked by metagame units (scene/encounter, until Long Rest etc). Yes, it’s not horribly burdensome if you’re running a game continuously, or as just a one-off, but it’s another area of mental overhead that I’ll have to assume that will invariably lead to dispute. Buffs that persist beyond clear breakpoints are a huge pain long term (which is why I typically just go with Encounter/Scene breakpoints if there is dispute).

And again, I’m certain they felt that my ruling was adversarial (because they felt Tongues had more duration and that they shouldn’t have to burn another spell).

 

[Shasarak]

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.)

I think Gilderoy was just a fraud. I dont know how they could have telegraphed that any better. I dont remember him teaching his class any spells at all.

 

[Parmandur]

I couldn’t take granular accounting for time into account (which is something I hate anyway).

“Game time is of utmost importance. Failure to keep careful track of time expenditure by player characters will result in many anomalies in the game. The stricture of time is what makes recovery of hit points meaningful. Likewise, the time spent adventuring in wilderness areas removes concerned characters from their bases of operations – be they rented chambers or battlemented strongholds. Certainly the most important time strictures pertains to the manufacturing of magic items, for during the period of such activity no adventuring can be done. Time is also considered in gaining levels and learning new languages and more. All of these demands upon game time force choices upon player characters and likewise number their days of game life…YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT.”

Per Gary Gygax Page 37 of the 1E DMG.

Now this is stated in rather extreme terms, because Gygax. But, it is still true to my experience of D&D, and how the game is designed in the strict use of the rules. The resource game relies on this, and if you don't use the rules as intended then it won't work as intended. And that can be fun, but it doesn't mean the rules don't work as intended when used as intended.