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

Garthanos said:

Sure there is always a certain measure of adjusting the adventures to the heros. Although it may indeed get boring if the heroes can always pick routes to success that fit their best skills.

Putting the chosen one on the hot seat with situation involving bluff is currently on my list as interesting

Click to expand...

Efy true, playing to weaknesses, in reason, can be fun. But if the mayor's cellar door is going to frustrated players...well, do something else.

Imaro said:

pemerton said:

as far as I can tell it is mechanics first: we don't have a prior, in-fiction conception of how tough a 15th level fighter is, and then set DCs and stat up creatures that respond to that. We don't know how tough a 15th level fighter is until we see what s/he can do, taking certain mechanics published in the MM as given.

That's not fiction-first. It's mechanics first.

Click to expand...

That's not true unless you are purposefully ignoring the same descriptions of tiers in 5e that are present in 4e.

Click to expand...

Parmandur said:

This seems pretty much identical to 5E in that regard: the narrative comes first, and the DM deems an appropriate DC based on the narrative.

Click to expand...

So Imaro, Parmandur - tell me more about your fiction first 5e play.

To be frank, this is why I say that I'm not getting a clear picture of how DCs are set in 5e. I'm told that it's bounded accuracy - that the AC of the hobgoblin is 18 whomever the combatant, that (as [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] has said) the DC to break down the door is 15 whoever is trying. But I'm also told it's fiction-first, and that I can set a DC for the hands-in-the-forge moment that reflects the fact that the PC is a 15th level fighter and the toughest dwarf around - and which, by implication, would therefore be a different DC (impossible!) were a 1st level fighter to try it. But then I'm told that the way to produce this doable at 15th level but impossible at 1st level thing is to set a DC of 25+. Which is not fiction-first.

Or to put it another way: if the DC follows "the narrative" (which I am taking to be synonymous with what I and others are calling the fiction - ie an understanding, prior to mechanics, of what is and is not feasible for the protagonists) then what is the role of bounded accuracy? They are different methodologies - opposed, almost.

Thus, as I said, my confusion on this point.

NomGarret said:

Right. Which is the case in 4e as well, it jut approaches it from the question of "How hard of a door would be a reasonable challenge at this level?" Sometimes the answer is the DC 15 wooden door, sometimes it's the DC 25 mithril door, and sometimes it's the DC 35 primal spirit of doors.

Click to expand...

Imaro said:

Tare you claiming in 4e the DC of a wooden door would change depending on the level of whoever interacted with it and that is an example of fiction first?

Click to expand...

4e builds in level scaling, and minionisation, and the rest. (And I see that [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] also makes this point.)

The mathematical result of keeping the door at DC 15 and scaling the bonus by 0.5 per level; and of keeping the bonus to the attempt confined to the raw STR bonus and stepping down the DC by 0.5 per level; is the same. Either way, we have a change in the fiction - ever-growing prowess of the PC - that is then expressed mechanically - the same door get easier to burst down or the same ogre gets easier to defeat.

5e doesn't have the level scaling. And it doesn't adjust the DC of the attempt vs the door (I think - see my uncertainty reported above). If it's nevertheless fiction first that means the fiction is the 15th level fighter has rather little more prowess than the 1st level fighter, as relative feasibilities change hardly at all. But to be honest there's little that I see in the design to suggest fiction first, and the most common refrain I here from 5e proponents is "bounded accuracy", which as I have said is a quite different methodology.

Parmandur said:

The DC 15 door can be insignificant at higher Tiers. The high level Rogue will be guaranteed to beat it, every time, no tisk, no resources.

There literally is no difference, except mathematical efficiency.

Click to expand...

And this is a clear illustration. The reason we know the rogue will beat it is not because we have a prior conception of the fiction, but because we know the numbers on the rogue's PC sheet. For exactly the same reason, we know that the 15th level fighter with STR 20 is only marginally more likely to break it down than the 1st level fighter with 16 STR (raw STR check: 11 in 20 vs 9 in 20; including remarkable athlete if the 15th level fighter is a champoin, 13 in 20 vs 9 in 20 ie not even 50% more likely; if Athletics applies, which I would have thought it doesn't but maybe some people think it does, 16 in 20 vs 11 in 20 and so still not even 50% more likely and looking at it from the prospects of failure still 20% chance compared to 45% for the 1st level PC).

BryonD said:

Page 42 of the DMG gives an example involving swinging on a chandelier and clearly demonstrates that the DC of this task is a function of the character's level and has nothing to do with the chandelier.

Click to expand...

Notice that the PC in the example is 8th level fighting an ogre. The fiction is built into the example.

28th level PCs don't fight ogres in chandelier-hung halls (as a general rule).

BryonD said:

it can quickly get silly to have a "particularly well built door" in every burnt out shack because the party level calls for it.

Click to expand...

There have been on "burned out shacks" in my 4e game since mid-heroic, because I follow the advice on the tiers of play that the default fiction of the game (eg power descriptions, allocation of monsters to levels, etc).

pemerton said:

So Imaro, Parmandur - tell me more about your fiction first 5e play.

To be frank, this is why I say that I'm not getting a clear picture of how DCs are set in 5e. I'm told that it's bounded accuracy - that the AC of the hobgoblin is 18 whomever the combatant, that (as [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] has said) the DC to break down the door is 15 whoever is trying. But I'm also told it's fiction-first, and that I can set a DC for the hands-in-the-forge moment that reflects the fact that the PC is a 15th level fighter and the toughest dwarf around - and which, by implication, would therefore be a different DC (impossible!) were a 1st level fighter to try it. But then I'm told that the way to produce this doable at 15th level but impossible at 1st level thing is to set a DC of 25+. Which is not fiction-first.

Or to put it another way: if the DC follows "the narrative" (which I am taking to be synonymous with what I and others are calling the fiction - ie an understanding, prior to mechanics, of what is and is not feasible for the protagonists) then what is the role of bounded accuracy? They are different methodologies - opposed, almost.

Thus, as I said, my confusion on this point.


4e builds in level scaling, and minionisation, and the rest. (And I see that [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] also makes this point.)

The mathematical result of keeping the door at DC 15 and scaling the bonus by 0.5 per level; and of keeping the bonus to the attempt confined to the raw STR bonus and stepping down the DC by 0.5 per level; is the same. Either way, we have a change in the fiction - ever-growing prowess of the PC - that is then expressed mechanically - the same door get easier to burst down or the same ogre gets easier to defeat.

5e doesn't have the level scaling. And it doesn't adjust the DC of the attempt vs the door (I think - see my uncertainty reported above). If it's nevertheless fiction first that means the fiction is the 15th level fighter has rather little more prowess than the 1st level fighter, as relative feasibilities change hardly at all. But to be honest there's little that I see in the design to suggest fiction first, and the most common refrain I here from 5e proponents is "bounded accuracy", which as I have said is a quite different methodology.

And this is a clear illustration. The reason we know the rogue will beat it is not because we have a prior conception of the fiction, but because we know the numbers on the rogue's PC sheet. For exactly the same reason, we know that the 15th level fighter with STR 20 is only marginally more likely to break it down than the 1st level fighter with 16 STR (raw STR check: 11 in 20 vs 9 in 20; including remarkable athlete if the 15th level fighter is a champoin, 13 in 20 vs 9 in 20 ie not even 50% more likely; if Athletics applies, which I would have thought it doesn't but maybe some people think it does, 16 in 20 vs 11 in 20 and so still not even 50% more likely and looking at it from the prospects of failure still 20% chance compared to 45% for the 1st level PC).

Notice that the PC in the example is 8th level fighting an ogre. The fiction is built into the example.

28th level PCs don't fight ogres in chandelier-hung halls (as a general rule).

There have been on "burned out shacks" in my 4e game since mid-heroic, because I follow the advice on the tiers of play that the default fiction of the game (eg power descriptions, allocation of monsters to levels, etc).

Click to expand...

One thing to keep in mind about "Bounded Accuracy" is that it isn't a concept used in play, or talked about in the books: that was a design principle during development, about getting a set range just right.

5E is narrative first in that a player declares an action, the DM decides the narrative difficulty, selects the DC based on that narrative difficulty and then adjudicates a check. The DC comes from the DMs narrative judgement entirely. The game is agnostic as to what is narratively appropriate in a campaign. The DMG discusses genre at length, and how what is an appropriate roll can be adjusted in ways such as making Wuxia wire-fu antics into standard Skill checks. The narrative is determined by the DM and table, the rules follow.

Breaking down a door would definitely be an Athletics check at my table, and might even be in the books as an example. If the DM and table don't think a particular challenge would need to be rolled for by Konan the Kongqurer, then the book advises not asking for a roll. DM judgement.

For the purposes of discussion, "Difficulty Class" from pp. 238-239 in the 5E DMG, the main rules/guidelines on this topic, all emphasis in the original text:

"It's your job to establish the Difficulty Class for an ability check or a saving throw when a rule or an adventure doesn't give you one. Sometimes you'll even want to change such established DCs. When you do so, think of how difficult a task is and then pick the associated DC from the Typical DCs table.

[Table showing six numbers for "Very Easy" at 5 to "Nearly Impossible" at 30]

"The numbers associated with these catagories of difficulty are meant to be easy to keep in your head, so that you don't have to refer to this book every time you decide on a DC. Here are some tips for using DC catagories at the gaming table.

"If you've decided that an ability check is called for, then most likely the task at hand isn't a very easy one. Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure. Unless circumstances are unusual, let characters succeed at such a task without making a check."

"Then ask yourself, 'Is this task's difficulty easy, moderate or hard?" If the only DCs you ever use are 20, 15 and 20, your game will run just fine. Keep in mind that a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency will succeed at an easy task around 50 percent of the time. A moderate task requires a higher score or proficiency for success, whereas a hard task typically requires both. A big dose of luck with the d20 also doesn't hurt."

"If you find yourself thinking, 'This task is especially hard," you can use a higher DC, but do so with caution and consider the level of the characters. A DC 25 task is very hard for low-level characters to accomplish, but it becomes more reasonable after 10th level or so. A DC 30 check is nearly impossible for most low-level characters. A 20th-level character with proficiency and a relevant ability score of 20 still needs a 19 or 20 on the die roll to succeed at a task of this difficulty."

"Variant: Automatic Success"

"Sometimes the randomness of a d20 roll leads to ludicrous results. Let's say a door requires a successful DC 15 Strength check to be battered down. A fighter with a Strength of 20 might helplessly flail against the door because of bad die rolls. Meanwhile, the rogue with a Strength of 10 rolls a 20 and knocks the door from it's hinges."

"If such results bother you, consider allowing automatic success on certain checks. Under this optional rule, a character automatically succeeds on any ability check with a DC less than or equal to the relevant ability score minus 5. So in the example above, the fighter would automatically kick in the door. This rule doesn't apply to contests, saving throws, or attack rolls."

"Having proficiency with a skill or tool can also grant automatic success. If a character's proficiency bonus applies to his or her ability check, the character automatically succeeds if the DC is 10 or less. If that character is 11th level or higher [Tier 3, incidentally], the check succeeds if the DC is 15 or less."

They then go into the downsides of predictability, which is probably why the playtesters didn't want this variant to be the main rule.

Parmandur said:

Breaking down a door would definitely be an Athletics check at my table, and might even be in the books as an example. If the DM and table don't think a particular challenge would need to be rolled for by Konan the Kongqurer, then the book advises not asking for a roll. DM judgement.

Click to expand...

Emphasis mine... This as part of the resolution system in 5e keeps getting overlooked by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others asking what can a 15th level fighter do that a 1st level can't... the answer being whatever the DM, informed by the fiction, decides.

In 5e it's clear that if there's no chance for an action to succeed then no roll should take place.

pemerton said:

Notice that the PC in the example is 8th level fighting an ogre. The fiction is built into the example.
28th level PCs don't fight ogres in chandelier-hung halls (as a general rule).

Click to expand...

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.

There have been on "burned out shacks" in my 4e game since mid-heroic, because I follow the advice on the tiers of play that the default fiction of the game (eg power descriptions, allocation of monsters to levels, etc).

Click to expand...

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.

BryonD said:

Page 42 of the DMG gives an example involving swinging on a chandelier and clearly demonstrates that the DC of this task is a function of the character's level and has nothing to do with the chandelier. According to the DMG a higher level character would need a higher check to swing from that chandelier and a lower level character would need a lower number.

Click to expand...

You're not trying to make an acrobatics check against a stationary chandelier in that example. You're trying to make a combat move that happens to involve a chandelier while an at-level opponent could use that opportunity to bash your head in. The DC changing represents that the harder opponent you happen to be fighting is making it progressively more difficult to attempt the same task.

This happens in sports all the time — they're essentially attempting acrobatics checks to gain freedom to be unopposed in their actions. A strong defender can make success inordinately difficult where a merely average defender is easy.

Look at 3pt shooting in the NBA as an example — practice vs. game vs. playoff. Stephen Curry can average above 90% in practice(stationary chandelier), lifetime 43.8% in games(chandelier in normal combats), and then 40.8% in playoffs(chandelier in tough fights). 40.8% is below even his worst shooting performance in 3p shooting in any season.

That 3% difference might not sound like a huge number, but for many players, that's the difference between being an effective shot and an ineffective one.

Parmandur said:

One thing to keep in mind about "Bounded Accuracy" is that it isn't a concept used in play, or talked about in the books: that was a design principle during development, about getting a set range just right.

5E is narrative first in that a player declares an action, the DM decides the narrative difficulty, selects the DC based on that narrative difficulty and then adjudicates a check. The DC comes from the DMs narrative judgement entirely. The game is agnostic as to what is narratively appropriate in a campaign. The DMG discusses genre at length, and how what is an appropriate roll can be adjusted in ways such as making Wuxia wire-fu antics into standard Skill checks. The narrative is determined by the DM and table, the rules follow.

Breaking down a door would definitely be an Athletics check at my table, and might even be in the books as an example. If the DM and table don't think a particular challenge would need to be rolled for by Konan the Kongqurer, then the book advises not asking for a roll. DM judgement.

Click to expand...

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.

MwaO said:

You're not trying to make an acrobatics check against a stationary chandelier in that example. You're trying to make a combat move that happens to involve a chandelier while an at-level opponent could use that opportunity to bash your head in. The DC changing represents that the harder opponent you happen to be fighting is making it progressively more difficult to attempt the same task.

Click to expand...

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] used that principle and came up with a rather innovative way to use caltrops for those in the caltrop field with no adjacent enemies they can move carefully and take no damage(shift) or quickly and take minor hazard damage however with an adjacent enemies interfering its more like the Caltrops are an extra attack from the enemy interfering with you being careful of the caltrops.

MwaO said:

You're not trying to make an acrobatics check against a stationary chandelier in that example. You're trying to make a combat move that happens to involve a chandelier while an at-level opponent could use that opportunity to bash your head in. The DC changing represents that the harder opponent you happen to be fighting is making it progressively more difficult to attempt the same task.

Click to expand...

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.