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

BryonD said:

It says "If she makes that check, she gets a hold on the chandelier and swings to the ogre." Then it says "Then comes the kicking.".
You are not accurately describing the content as presented in the book.

The book CLEARLY states that part (1) is about the grabbing and swinging. Your interpretation is not a fair one and is not what an unbiased reader would conclude.

I agree with you 100% that it is a stupid approach. I'm glad you are rejecting it.

The bottom line remains, the words in the DMG are the words in the DMG. And another 4E could have been.

Edit: And please clarify for me. If you are right why in the world does the book explicitly reference the "character level". Both you and Pem have claimed that the ogre is understood, thus it is the monster that sets the DC. But the monster has a CR!!!! Why not simply have table 42 reference the monster and not the character? If they meant it the way you are spinning it (spoiler: they didn't) then they would say it in a much more direct way. There is a simple option of directly referring to one number which will always be right. And yet you claim it references one number which is understood as a means to imply another number which is right and readily available, but isn't actually used.
Plus, the 8th level character might not fight a L28 creature. But clearly it could be fighting a CR6 goblin wizard, or a CR11 hill giant boss of the ogre. And yet the book, in plain English, makes it abundantly clear that NONE OF THIS MATTERS. The DC to "get a hold and swing" is expressly a function of the character.

Click to expand...

BryonD said:

It says "If she makes that check, she gets a hold on the chandelier and swings to the ogre." Then it says "Then comes the kicking.".
You are not accurately describing the content as presented in the book.

Click to expand...

BryonD said:

Edit: And please clarify for me. If you are right why in the world does the book explicitly reference the "character level". The DC to "get a hold and swing" is expressly a function of the character.

Click to expand...

Hussar said:

Kinda sorta though. Because the DC's are constrained by the mechanics, which in turn are constrained by Bounded Accuracy, the narrative is also bounded by the mechanics. They can't not be. Sure, as DM, I can decide the DC based on my perception of the narrative, but, now, we're right back where we started - the non-caster classes are entirely held hostage by the DM in order to perform any task, while the caster classes can bypass the DM at any point in time, through the use of their resources.

It got lost in the scrum several pages ago, but, I made the point that while the 17th level fighter makes 12 attacks in 2 rounds, the 17th level monk can instantly kill 5 targets/short rest. Why can't my "Hawkeye" character EVER shoot that bear through the eye and kill it instantly, but, my monk character can instantly kill a giant with a single hit?

See, this is the one place where 4e actually shines. There is very, very little difference in the capabilities in or out of combat between 2 equal level characters. And, the differences that there are between those two characters are almost always down to player choices. No one at the table is more or less held hostage to the DM's whims. That's the whole point of the game. But, 5e went with DM empowerment. Which means that someone at the table had to lose power. And, yup, the casters in 5e are WAY less powerful than in other editions. Absolutely. Much more limited spell lists, much more limited number of spells at higher levels and the spells they do have no longer scale by character level. 5e is very very successful in reining in casters. But, in doing so, they also dramatically lowered the effectiveness of non-casters. I mean, my fighter in 4e, as a 17th level power, can hit everything within reach and push them back. A 17th level 5e fighter cannot do this. Full stop. He could push or he could deal damage. And, if there are more than 6 targets in reach, he can't do it at all.

And, as far as the argument, "Well, fighters can do it all day long" goes, so what? Casters get every bit as many skills as non-casters. And, as an added bonus, some of them gain bonuses on their skill checks. Your fighter gains 1/2 proficiency bonus to some skills? That's cute. My cleric gains +1d4 to every skill check all day long and I can grant this bonus to other people too. Congratulations it only took you 5 levels to still be behind what a 1st level cleric can do.

Click to expand...

Hussar said:

Just for the novelty of it, I'm going to completely agree with [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION] here. 4e's major malfunction was in the writing. Totally, 100% agree.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

These are house rules. The AD&D PHB doesn't contain either of them. Here is the rules text (from p 25) - it is a footnote to the Fighters', Paladins', & Rangers' Attacks per Melee Round Table:

This excludes melee combat with monsters (qv) of less than one hit die (d8) and non-exceptional (0 level) humans and semi-humans, ie all creatures with less than one eight-sided hit die. All of these creatures entitle a fighter to attack once for each of his or her experience levels​

There is no need to spend a round. And there is no effect on the ability if tougher creatures are present. A 3rd level fighter confronting three goblins and their hobgoblin captain can attack the three goblins. As written, the fighter could even attack one goblin three times, though I've never seen it played that way.

Click to expand...

Parmandur said:

Bless takes up a spell slots, takes Concentration and lasts one minute. Hardly "all day, every day."

Click to expand...

Hussar said:

We're talking about skills. That's Guidance which is a cantrip. Bless only affects attacks and saving throws. So, yes, all day, every day without limit.

Click to expand...

Jay Verkuilen said:

Sure, but what else was I saying that appeared like it was a troll? Do people go from trying to have a legitimate discussion immediately switch to troll a lot?

Click to expand...

BryonD said:

Completely irrelevant. If the rogue had been trying to swing from the exact same chandelier at a L25 fighter half-demon ogre, the relevant portion of the example would not have changed.
The example gives three parts:
1) Swinging from the chandelier. The character level all the matters. The example makes it completely clear that DM is to reference the character's level on the sacred chart.
2) Actually kicking and shoving the Ogre. The Ogre's fort is the DC here. Thumbs Up.
3) Dealing damage, which again is based completely on the level of the character and has nothing to do with (a) the ogre or (b) the brazier. I suppose the brazier provides the type "fire", but the exact same brazier would inflict substantially more damage had the creature been tougher than the ogre, despite it being the exact same brazier. (at least if with roll with your example that an 28th level character wouldn't be fighting an ogre).

But, the only one of these three items relevant to wooden doors is part (1). The DC to successfully swing from the chandelier is set by the level of the character. *IF* they had left out the Fort DC of the ogre in step (2) then your counter might be valid. But they have clearly established that the ogre's fiction is captured there. Part (1) has *NOTHING* to do with the ogre.

OK, and we have discussed before that I want mechanics that obey the fiction and you want fiction that obeys the mechanics. I accept that this is fun to you.

The point is not that either of us is doing "badwrongfun". The market spoke a long time ago and here in 2018 we are simply discussing the 4e that might have been.
Your justifications for why this approach is great for your game is meaningless to the conversation about why 4E missed the mark with so very many people.

And, just to be clear, the idea that a book is going to tell me that burned out shacks should have excellent doors because of the level of the characters is both boggling and repulsive to me. I don't think my opinion has the slightest merit when it comes to what you do at your table. But, that simply sounds like a terrible experience.

Click to expand...

pemerton said:

Probably nearly as much as I like it when someone tells me that my game is internally inconsistent and artificial rather than naturalistic and just like an MMO (that one's a pretty time-honoured comment in 4e discussions, of course). The difference perhaps being that the 4e books actually do have the advice I mentioned, which would mean that playing epic tier using heroic tier tropes and storylines is disregarding that advice.

Click to expand...