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

Shasarak said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've only seen the movie, but from watching it that guy was totally a fraud. It was like he failed to learn any spell other than enchantments which is what he used to mind wipe and steal the credit of others.

I'd describe him as an enchanter specialist in 2e terms since they had a bonus to learn enchantment spells and penalties to learn any others that weren't prohibited. I'd probably give him a fairly low intelligence as well, maybe not 9 but probably no more than a 13.

cbwjm said:

I've only seen the movie, but from watching it that guy was totally a fraud. It was like he failed to learn any spell other than enchantments which is what he used to mind wipe and steal the credit of others.

I'd describe him as an enchanter specialist in 2e terms since they had a bonus to learn enchantment spells and penalties to learn any others that weren't prohibited. I'd probably give him a fairly low intelligence as well, maybe not 9 but probably no more than a 13.

Click to expand...

Probably 13 - Suggestion is 3rd level. Forget is 2nd level, but he appears to be Heightening it. ;-)



On the topic of game time -- I only use this when there are specific deadlines or campaign clocks that matter. Otherwise I tend to handwave time away. "Shopping takes the party three days. Researching the X took you a week. Your three-week adventure on the demiplane actually took a year due to time differential." (But this has nothing to do with the thread topic...)

Sadras said:

IThe procedure of rolling against a DC does not change from low to high level.

Click to expand...

I had hoped that it was obvious that I was talking (i) about the process for setting a DC, and (ii) the process for determining how many successes are required to succeed in a scene.

FOr the past 500+ posts these are the two featurs of 4e (DC-by-level, skill challenges) I have been pointing to as different from 5e. Do you agree that they're different?

Sadras said:

If I'm recalling correctly for me it was that 5e did not necessarily need a DC by level table and the supers issue. My memory could be failing, but it was not about the bolded part.

Click to expand...

My claim was and is that the above-mentioned features explain why, in 4e, non-spell-casting characters can match casters in non-combat. To reiterate, because (a) feasibiity is determined in a fiction-first way, and then (b) a DC is set which - in mechanical/mathematical terms - underpins feasibility, and (c) the skill challenge framework tells us when things are over.

In my 4e exprience the only time "the maths" has broken (ie step (b) has not worked) is with the Sage of Ages epic destiny (+6 to all knowledge skill). I would probably rewrite it as advantage on all those checks, and a +2 boost to player's choice of INT or WIS. But even with this, step (c) keeps the game functioning, because even if the Sage of Ages succeeds automatically on a knowledge check the overall resolution is still in play.

Parmandur said:

As a (very) limited resource, as with spell slots. Especially at high levels, the Diviner ought to be concerned with resource expenditure, which the Fighter and Rogue are not. Again, plenty of folks have fun without pushing the resource game to the limits, such as Critical Role. And on Critical Role, the martial PCs are major fan favorites. So, while the resource game is how D&D is intended to be played, it can be perfectly fun when played in a relaxed manner without worrying about it.

Whether Fighters and Wizards have equal value in the resource economy in games where the resource economy is being ignored is not terribly useful. Yes, Fighters have a lot to contribute outside of combat, and no resource management to be concerned about. And yes, Wizards who are not jealous of their spell slots have options, though their options usually have limits (like lead with the Diviner) that give room for the Martial to shine if used wisely by the DM.

Click to expand...

What are you inviting me to take away from this?

Are you telling me I am wrong in thinking that 4e plays differently from 5e? That I am right? Something else?

Are you telling [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] that 5e isn't well suited to running the scenario he described? Or that it is, but that he used th system wrong? Something else?

pemerton said:

What are you inviting me to take away from this?

Are you telling me I am wrong in thinking that 4e plays differently from 5e? That I am right? Something else?

Are you telling @Manbearcat that 5e isn't well suited to running the scenario he described? Or that it is, but that he used th system wrong? Something else?

Click to expand...

Something else, I suppose. My experience is that they do not play differently in regards to out of combat skill resolution, but I reckon that's because we just played 4E according to tradition as much as anything.

Certainly 5E can run the scenario as laid out; it did. However, by not using the resource game, the resource game does not come into play, which is where the Fighter outpaces the Wizard. The best part about tautologies is that they are necessarily true. It is not a lack of balance, so much as choosing not to use the tools as presented. Which I guess isn't too different than my experience of 4E outside of combat being basically identical to 5E.

A further thought: one of Mearls design theories is that the rules for Dungeons & Dragons are descriptive of how people play, rather than prescriptive as the rules for Monopoly or Poker.

In terms of rules description, 4E is different from 3.x and from 5E. In my experience as played, the only difference is that I didn't have to fiddle with Skill points after 3.x and the math in play got way easier and more fluid with 5E; but in play, no essential difference.

Imaro said:

Don't agree with your summary of what was expressed. the game provides tools to challenge high level spellcasters just like high level martials. If you choose not to employ all of said tools for challenging spellcasters you shouldn't be surprised that they are more powerful because of it.

Click to expand...

[MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] was responding to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] mentioning some particular tools - anti-magic zones and spellbook issues. Here is [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post:


And here is [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION]'s reply to those words:


There is only one possible reading of this: Parmandur things that it is literally the GM's job to deploy anti-magic zones and spellbook-stealing thieves and other similar devices that block the use of spells by the player of a high-level wizard.

Imaro said:

This is bull... ritual caster alone makes casters more effective than martial PC's in 4e.

Click to expand...

Is this based on your actual play experience?

(1) Not all casters in 4e have ritual casting.

(2) I have played a fair bit of 4e. I have posted a lot of actual play reports. One repeated element in replies to those posts is that rituals are a much bigger part of my game than their experience of 4e. And I can report that it is simply not tue that ritual casting means that the invoker/wizard in my 4e game is more effective at non-combat scenarios than other PCs.

Imaro said:

So again this seems to be a case of ignoring what doesn't fit a particular conception of the game vs. looking at the game in it's entirety. 4e does define fiction in relation to DC's and you can in fact look at said DC's and mechanically tell whether you are capable of doing something or not based on your score... yes you can choose to ignore it or not (as you can in any edition of D&D) but claiming it doesn't do this and it's up to the individual table as a default isn't true.

Click to expand...

So, to be clear: you think that 4e doesn't play any differently from 5e - except that it does?

You think that there is no difference between the way DCs are set in 4e (DC-by-level) and 5e (GM chooses a DC from a list; bounded accuracy) - except that there is?

I've posted what I think the difference is, and how it manifests in play. You and [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] and others disagree - but you also think that 4e plays differently from 5e. Is it the case that's those who prefer 5e to 4e are allowed to articulate what's different, but those with the opposite preference are not? I frankly don't know what you guys are trying to show, because every time someone who prefers 4e to 5e articulates the differences that underpin that preference, you tell them they're wrong! What's your theory of the difference? If there's no difference, why do you prefer 5e?

pemerton said:

[MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION] was responding to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] mentioning some particular tools - anti-magic zones and spellbook issues. Here is [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s post:

​

And here is [MENTION=6780330]Parmandur[/MENTION]'s reply to those words:

​

There is only one possible reading of this: Parmandur things that it is literally the GM's job to deploy anti-magic zones and spellbook-stealing thieves and other similar devices that block the use of spells by the player of a high-level wizard.

Is this based on your actual play experience?

(1) Not all casters in 4e have ritual casting.

(2) I have played a fair bit of 4e. I have posted a lot of actual play reports. One repeated element in replies to those posts is that rituals are a much bigger part of my game than their experience of 4e. And I can report that it is simply not tue that ritual casting means that the invoker/wizard in my 4e game is more effective at non-combat scenarios than other PCs.

Click to expand...

The job of the DM is to provide a scenario with party-appropriate challenges. If that means clever use of anti-magic zones and lining rooms with lead when a Diviner is around, so be it.

Imaro said:

Was there anything comparable to raising the dead? opening portals to other planes

Click to expand...

Here's an actual play report:


Here's another one:

Parmandur said:

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

Click to expand...

The resource game in 4e doesn't - or, alternatively, it has no "resource game". As I've frequently posted over the last decade or so, this is one of the features of 4e that makes it suited to scene-framing play: it does not have the duration tracking, healing tracking, etc features of AD&D, 3E, Rolemaster, and other typical 70s-80s-style RPGs.