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

[Garthanos]

EDIT: You seem to want a one size fits all solution to what can a 15th level fighter do that a 1st level fighter can's when the truth is 5e doesn't give that to you. It gives your group systems to resolve that question but leaves the application up to your particular group.

It leaves everything up to the DM not the group.

Yeh looks at Wizards again... uh - huh it really gets back to this exact point, the DM being forced to dynamically try and balance this question against mage ability with jack all for guidance sucks because improvising what higher tier martial in particular seems to be able to do "particularly out of combat" is at best erratic as hell.

That is a game duty as far as I am concerned.

But really I am just repeating myself...

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.

 

[Manbearcat]

DIfferent 5e players in this thread seem to be taking different views about whether or not there are level-appropriate DCs/actions in 5e. I think that at least shows that it's not clearly the case that there are.

My guess is, the overwhelming majority of 5e GMs wouldn’t make “reaching your hands into a forge for crafting an artifact” a permissible action declaration.

I’m 100 % certain the GM whose game I would stand-in for would not.

Even if it was permissible and the DC was set at 30, the stoutest Dwarf in the land has an extremely remote chance of success without aid.

Meanwhile your Epic Wizard friend can accomplish this feat a number of ways through a singular lower level resource (for them...and they’ve got many, many resources at this point, and Cantrips, and the ability to continually cast some lower level spells...and Cast as Ritual) ; Conjure Minor (Fire) Elementals or Animate Objects and have them hold the artifact (this should for sure work) and possibly Fire Shield, Protection from Elements.

Which cuts to the crux of the issue at Endgame 5e play (which was at the heart of my DC 30 or 30+ thread a few years ago). Non-combatant conflict resolution of any consequence is not going to be the purview of Fighters when we’re still quibbling over feet on vertical and long jumps as their Wizard counterparts (who are steeped in powerful fiat abilities) are deploying a myriad of unbelievably powerful supernatural effects that don’t engage with the maths of an unkind task resolution system.

 

[Garthanos]

My guess is, the overwhelming majority of 5e GMs wouldn’t make “reaching your hands into a forge for crafting an artifact” a permissible action declaration.

I’m 100 % certain the GM whose game I would stand-in for would not.

Even if it was permissible and the DC was set at 30, the stoutest Dwarf in the land has an extremely remote chance of success without aid.

Meanwhile your Epic Wizard friend can accomplish this feat a number of ways through a singular lower level resource (for them...and they’ve got many, many resources at this point, and Cantrips, and the ability to continually cast some lower level spells...and Cast as Ritual) ; Conjure Minor (Fire) Elementals or Animate Objects and have them hold the artifact (this should for sure work) and possibly Fire Shield, Protection from Elements.

Which cuts to the crux of the issue at Endgame 5e play (which was at the heart of my DC 30 or 30+ thread a few years ago). Non-combatant conflict resolution of any consequence is not going to be the purview of Fighters when we’re still quibbling over feet on vertical and long jumps as their Wizard counterparts (who are steeped in powerful fiat abilities) are deploying a myriad of unbelievably powerful supernatural effects that don’t engage with the maths of an unkind task resolution system.

ya know I bet they do not even consider suggesting a DM look at the things a wizard can accomplish at similar levels when trying to gauge what might be possible, even that would be a step.

Then yes that fiat minor resource expenditure for completely reliable functionality means martial remain behind. (and yes it is why I have been investing the energy on developing "martial practices")

 

[Imaro]

It leaves everything up to the DM not the group.

Eh the DM can choose to include the group in these decisions and at the very least should be giving the players an idea of the genre, tropes, themes, etc of their game so that a player can tell if it's just not their cup of tea.

Yeh looks at Wizards again... uh - huh it really gets back to this exact point, the DM being forced to dynamically try and balance this question against mage ability with jack all for guidance sucks because improvising what higher tier martial in particular seems to be able to do "particularly out of combat" is at best erratic as hell.

That is a game duty as far as I am concerned.

It's a damned if you do... damned if you don't situation. Not everyone is going to want the abilities of martials and magic users defined in such a hard way especially if it doesn't align with the type of game they are tryng to run. I personally don't feel it's a game's duty to define the balance of those two except in a rough sense (unless your game is based on a specific world which has the nature of martial and magic already defined).

Ultimately this type of balance comes down to the type of campaign world the DM is setting his game in, spotlight balance, skill usage and what it encompasses, attrition and knowing your players... most of these are things a game book can't account for at least not if it wants to stay flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of playstyles. But all of these and more are discussed in the 5e DMG... so I don't necessarily agree about there being no guidance... at least at a high level.

But really I am just repeating myself...

*Shrug* it's the nature of discussion on forums.

 

[Parmandur]

Which is my whole point. My only quibble with this is that when you say it is within the genre of "D&D" performance, I would respond that - given my actual play experience was from a D&D game - it is a particular take on "D&D" performance (one that I would particularly associate with 2nd ed AD&D).

I wouldn't disagree with that, but I will say that it covers my entire experience with 3.x as well as 5E. The broader point is, that covers the majority of folks experience of 3.x, and goes a fair bit to explain some of the "genre shock" 4E induced in many quarters.

 

[Garthanos]

Ultimately this type of balance comes down to the type of campaign world

Nope they nailed down Wizard abilities very tightly that flexiblity is a pretense its very much already incredibly inflexible and honestly it was why the magic system was always back in the day the very first thing people house ruled into oblivion when they were actually wanting a game that fit "Their game world".

 

[Imaro]

My guess is, the overwhelming majority of 5e GMs wouldn’t make “reaching your hands into a forge for crafting an artifact” a permissible action declaration.

I’m 100 % certain the GM whose game I would stand-in for would not.

Even if it was permissible and the DC was set at 30, the stoutest Dwarf in the land has an extremely remote chance of success without aid.

Meanwhile your Epic Wizard friend can accomplish this feat a number of ways through a singular lower level resource (for them...and they’ve got many, many resources at this point, and Cantrips, and the ability to continually cast some lower level spells...and Cast as Ritual) ; Conjure Minor (Fire) Elementals or Animate Objects and have them hold the artifact (this should for sure work) and possibly Fire Shield, Protection from Elements.

Which cuts to the crux of the issue at Endgame 5e play (which was at the heart of my DC 30 or 30+ thread a few years ago). Non-combatant conflict resolution of any consequence is not going to be the purview of Fighters when we’re still quibbling over feet on vertical and long jumps as their Wizard counterparts (who are steeped in powerful fiat abilities) are deploying a myriad of unbelievably powerful supernatural effects that don’t engage with the maths of an unkind task resolution system.

So serious question... If the DM in your example wouldn't allow this, what makes you think he would buy or run a game of D&D that forced him to allow it?

 

[Sadras]

Out of interest how would reaching into a forge for crafting an artifact affect Conan?

 

[Imaro]

Nope they nailed down Wizard abilities very tightly that flexiblity is a pretense its very much already incredibly inflexible and honestly it was why the magic system was always back in the day the very first thing people house ruled into oblivion when they were actually wanting a game that fit "Their game world".

No that's a baseline for resolution of magical actions which has to be something, especially seeing as how we have no basis to make any type of inference or judgement on this from the real world. What 5e has done, at least IMO is make one axis, resolution of non-magical actions, less concrete so that those who want it to be on par with the baseline of magic can allow it to be and those who don't... don't.

 

[Imaro]

Out of interest how would reaching into a forge for crafting an artifact affect Conan?

Well see that's the thing... you don't get to play a Conan or Achilles under this paradigm. You have to play someone like Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Sundiata or Heracles... someone with blatant supernatural or divine powers but who doesn't use spells per se.

EDIT: Personally I have a multitude of games (Exalted, Godbound, Gods of the Fall, etc.) whose whole premise is this so I'm not necessarily looking for that in D&D... though I wouldn't be adverse to a supplement or add on for these types of heroes in 5e.