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

Morrus · Nov 6, 2018

Mearls answered this question on Twitter, describing at length how the D&D 4th edition he wanted to make differed from the one which was actually published back in 2008.

"Hard to answer, because the 4e I wanted to do and the 4e we ended up publishing were different on a fundamental level. I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules, and more thematic ties between power types.

Example - In the wizard, your daily spells would unlock words of power, the component words needed to cast the spell, as encounter powers. The idea was you’d cast part of a daily spell as an encounter power.

The 4e we ended up designing lost a lot of thematic power concepts that I think would’ve made the core design a lot stronger.

That said, skill challenges were an interesting concept, but we simply lacked the time to properly tested them and had this bad tendency to post errata for them without giving it a proper. I‘ve tinkered with a new approach in my Nentir Vale campaign that is working well so far.

There’s an entire book I could write about 4e and why it ended up the way it did. It’s a great example of a really good concept falling victim to what felt like every single land mine that plagues game development.

But peeling away from that digression - I’m a little angry at myself for not looting more of the at-will powers [for 5E]. Eyebite is such a fun toy, no idea why we did not pick that one and others up for 5e more often and for more classes.

It [each power source filling each role] was a core concept, but it was somewhat frustrating. 4e had a tendency to build matrices and try to fill them without thinking through whether that was a good idea, especially in a system where each class had an enormous overhead. Forced power design into narrow niches.

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.

Yeah, it’s brilliant at what it focused on. Best take on D&D combat across all editions. Here’s what I do - put those things [auras, force movement, shifting] in terrain features. That way, even as enemies drop you don’t lose combos or stuff that drives the action."

Jester David · Nov 2, 2018

Mearls said:
I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules, and more thematic ties between power types.

Sure. The needless symetry of all classes having the exact same number of powers, recharge, and format of powers bugged me.

Give martials more At-will and spellcasters more and Dailies. Do things like have spellcasters "recharge" Encounter powers by doing a 1 minute ritual instead of a short rest, or martials being able to boost the damage of powers once a day rather than having entirely different powers. Or having low level wizard Daily powers becoming Encounter powers at high level.

To say nothing of simpler and more complex characters.

Mearls said:
That said, skill challenges were an interesting concept, but we simply lacked the time to properly tested them and had this bad tendency to post errata for them without giving it a proper. I‘ve tinkered with a new approach in my Nentir Vale campaign that is working well so far.

I think all of the coolest stuff on skill challenges was written in blogs and forums and not official books.
The WotC never seemed to know what to do with these...

Mearls said:
It [each power source filling each role] was a core concept, but it was somewhat frustrating. 4e had a tendency to build matrices and try to fill them without thinking through whether that was a good idea, especially in a system where each class had an enormous overhead. Forced power design into narrow niches.

The grid filling was unfortunate. Having to invent a "divine controller" and "primal defender" was unnecessarily, and the flavour of those was often weak and narrow. And having to create 60 new powers minimum for each class led to some fantastically mediocre design.

Mearls said:
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.

It would have been much more interesting to pick a role and have that augment your powers.
"You're the DPS barbarian? You deal an extra 1d6 damage with at-will powers. Tanking? Gain some damage resistance and when you hit with at-wills, you mark. Controller? Your At-will powers push and Encounters stun."

Garthanos · Nov 3, 2018

Jester David said:
Do things like have spellcasters "recharge" Encounter powers by doing a 1 minute ritual instead of a short rest

Druids could have powers that only work once per 10 minutes in a particular area because they fatigue the local environment (if an encounter was constantly moving they might end up using it multiple times) ... ie they are effectively once per normal encounter.

Some martial tricks could only work once against reasonably clever/perceptive enemies or till they see them done against another. (this is also an encounter type power normally but if new enemies joint the fight or some of the enemies are really dense they might not get it even if they see it done to someone else.)

I then think both our thoughts would end up on the drawing board as they might just add needless complexity.

WRT Simple or more complex characters?

If martial gets complex too and "magic" gets simple blaster casters too...
not to mention proper development of non-combat balance and versatility yes it might be ok.

On the other hand there are always issues of simple only rarely holding its weight in the end.

Jester David · Nov 3, 2018

Garthanos said:
Druids could have powers that only work once per 10 minutes in a particular area because they fatigue the local environment (if an encounter was constantly moving they might end up using it multiple times) ... ie they are effectively once per normal encounter.

Agreed. There's no shortage of interesting ways to do "encounter" powers without actually saying "once per encounter".

Garthanos said:
Some martial tricks could only work once against reasonably clever/perceptive enemies or till they see them done against another. (this is also an encounter type power normally but if new enemies joint the fight or some of the enemies are really dense they might not get it even if they see it done to someone else.)

Yeah. Something like that could easily be handled by just saying "once an enemy has seen you use this maneuver/exploit they cannot be targeted by it".
Honestly, that's pretty elegant. I might have to incorporate that into some of my 5e design.

Garthanos said:
I then think both our thoughts would end up on the drawing board as they might just add needless complexity.

I dunno. They seem pretty simple to adjudicate at the table.

Garthanos said:
If martial gets complex too and "magic" gets simple blaster casters too...

Agreed.
That's typically the warlock, which can be presented as a magical archer.

Garthanos said:
not to mention proper development of non-combat balance and versatility yes it might be ok.

This is a tricky thing because of the effect of codification.
By the nature of martial abilities, you don't need to define what is and is not possible. Because people generally have an idea. You just set the limits (how much you can lift, how far you can jump) and people can extrapolate and fill in the blanks.
Magic is the opposite. You need to explain what it does because it breaks the rules. Each spell is the exception of reality.

The tricky design hole that 3e/4e/Pathfinder fell into was that by designing around the exceptions of martial characters there became the assumption you couldn't attempt something without an associated power/ feat/ skill trick. Kicking a sword into your hand, doing a hand-handed chin-up, performing a kip-up, parkour up a building, etc.

Garthanos said:
On the other hand there are always issues of simple only rarely holding its weight in the end.

Fewer choices tend to make them less "optimal" as gamers can't minmax through options and pick the best combination. Complexity will always be better because option creep = power creep.
But not being optimal doesn't mean it can't be balanced or effective.

MwaO · Nov 3, 2018

Disadvantage can be an elegant way to give Martials 'Encounter Powers'. They get a power that works normally the first time it is used in an encounter and then after that, they get Disadvantage on using the maneuver.

Garthanos · Nov 3, 2018

Jester David said:
This is a tricky thing because of the effect of codification.
By the nature of martial abilities, you don't need to define what is and is not possible. Because people generally have an idea. You just set the limits (how much you can lift, how far you can jump) and people can extrapolate and fill in the blanks.

We probably disagree. Because I disagree that people generally have a "good idea" about what a paragon or epic martial type can accomplish. AND it's the games responsibility to help establish that, within the context of what is enabled for magical types.

I normally say it as martial archetypes need permission to be awesome and wizards need to have their awesome limited because they have no limits inherently.

Jester David · Nov 3, 2018

Garthanos said:
We probably disagree. Because I disagree that people generally have a "good idea" about what a paragon or epic martial type can accomplish. AND it's the games responsibility to help establish that, within the context of what is enabled for magical types.

I normally say it as martial archetypes need permission to be awesome and wizards need to have their awesome limited because they have no limits inherently.

Yeah, I imagine we really look at that from very different perspectives. After years of running 3.5e then 4e then Pathfinder, I was really reluctant to allow improvisation from martial characters. Because there were feats and utility powers that did similar things, and short of memorising all the current powers, it was easier to just say "no". And it often meant that the latest splatbook could take away a cool trick the PCs had been doing as it became a power/ feat.

Given I'm almost always the one running, I'm okay with permission being required. Because I'm usually going to give it. And even when I am playing, I know my friends, and most of the time they'll let it slide too.

To me, worrying about permission being required really feels like a stop gap measure to prevent bad DMs from getting in the way of your fun. But... bad DMs are always going to be bad, and likely aren't going to entirely follow the rules anyway.

Garthanos · Nov 3, 2018

Jester David said:
it was easier to just say "no".

Just say no was the order of the day for 9th level side kick martial types in 1e land.

DMs without guidance are not bad DMs they are just poor at estimating game balance on the fly and allowing martials to do awesome improv is exactly about that.

I want my Cu Chulainn doing a flying back flip trick called the Salmon Leap AND not begging the DM for the privilege of saying something other than "I hit it with my sword".

The system which never mentions the possibility is basically advising NO to a lot more DMs than it is saying yes to. There may be systems that manage to encourage such things and can evoke the balance without explicitly enumerating.... but looking at the list of Polearm names from old D&D I do not think this has ever been that game.

Garthanos · Nov 3, 2018

A more extensive and "generous" page 42 like methodology comes to mind.

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

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Attachments

Jester David

Hero

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Jester David

Hero

MwaO

Adventurer

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Jester David

Hero

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Similar Threads

Related Articles

Latest threads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Upcoming Releases