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

[Parmandur]

True, you're right but it really ends up undermining other characters due to the fact that DC creep means there's no point for them even trying things after a while, which I think is really problematic.

I would have been much happier if they'd done something like having Expertise grant automatic advantage on checks, some number of rerolls, or rolling D10+10 instead of a D20. That way the overall bonus wouldn't get so high but the character would be able to perform more reliably. This would reinforce just how insanely difficult achieving DC 25 or 30 is even for highly proficient characters.

IMO fearing multiple advantage (roll three take the better of them) isn't really worthwhile. The effect on the expected value isn't that huge and diminishes but it represents just how much more reliable a character with advantage is compared to one without.

I think that skill proficiency could well have worked with advantage instead of there being a flat bonus. WotC's big mistake when they implemented bounded accuracy for skills and saves was not to have an analog of hit points (i.e., requiring multiple successful rolls to complete many tasks) and relying on high static modifiers.

They wanted Proficiency to be a dice pool system (which they did put in the DMG as a variant rule). Expertise adds another die to the pool in that set-up. This I like.

 

[cbwjm]

Well since anecdotes suck.

WoW is an example where I can give data/you can easily look up, lol sure its a very different game but as high fantasy or epic fantasy genre

The most played two classes in WoW are basically Hunter(Ranger) and Fighter(Warrior).... and the Hunter I suspect out shines the Warrior slightly because having an animal companion

They really do not massively defeat other classes so its not definitive evidence .. the game qualifies as very different implementation... with the top two being dominantly martial.

Paladin also comes in pretty high.

The most popular caster class is Druid and they melee as beasts even more than casting.,

I might have mixed up European realms and US ones.

Hunter is the WoW class used by the majority of gold farmers so not really a good metric. They load up wow, set off their AI program and let it level.

Warrior was initially the only class that could effectively tank. If you wanted to run dungeons or raids, you needed a warrior.

 

[Garthanos]

I guess I would be a slightly toned down D. I liked 4e and still think it had some great ideas (tougher 1st level PCs, at-will powers, evolving characters through paragon classes and epic destinies, the world axis with the gods vs. primordials). I like 5e and probably like it more than 4e I think because it feels similar to 2e and BECMI which are where I first started playing. I don't think either of them are perfect but if someone were to come to me and ask if I want to join a game of either then (assuming nothing else is going on in my life which, sadly, there isn't) I'm probably going to say yes.

I loved 4e but am rather Meh about 5e ... not hate which is way too extreme parts of it very much intrigue me.

 

[Garthanos]

Hunter is the WoW class used by the majority of gold farmers so not really a good metric. They load up wow, set off their AI program and let it level.

I have a hunter who is a look a like for odin named Wotan a spear using eye patch wolves and ravens for pets.

What makes them better for gold farming?

 

[Shasarak]

That seems true but orthogonal. The fighter in my actual play example is not very competent at acrobatics or chess or diplomatic negotiations. But he is an extremely tough dwarf - the toughest one around - and so seems like he should be rather competent at tests of endurance.

So your Dwarf wants to help in the creation of a magical artifact and the most appropriate skill that you can think of to fit that situation is Endurance. How does how tough your character is narratively apply to this situation?

 

[Parmandur]

I loved 4e but am rather Meh about 5e ... not hate which is way too extreme parts of it very much intrigue me.

I put the broadstrokes categories in extremes, but as I said I think it is a continuum with lots of shades.

 

[MwaO]

2. A fair way back in the thread there was talk - from [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] I think but I could be mistaken - about how the genre of play is expected to change by tier in 4e. To me this would be a bug, not a feature, as it represents a built-in reduction of the system's flexibility for running different types of campaigns and-or storylines. If for example I want to run a courtly-intrigue campaign - limited combat, lots of skill challenges, mortal foes - yet still has the PCs advance through the levels I'd probably be fighting the system most of the way to prevent the PCs from becoming godlike in the setting by 12th level.

Not sure why they would become all that powerful. All the systems, 1e-5e do kind of poorly at non-combat scenarios. They're basically about roleplaying with 3e-5e layering some concrete skill checks to be able to made on top of them and 4e having skill challenges.

If you're saying that players would invest in solely ways of optimizing skill challenges, that's really not that hard to deal with — you simply ask the players to build the characters as they would normally and not go overboard.

3. Following on from 2, above: one very common type of story / campaign that 4e couldn't do very well was a true zero-to-hero progression. Sure it got the hero end right, but in 4e even at 1st level you're already something of a hero with abilities far above those of the average commoner - the system just doesn't do the 'zero' end well at all. So how to make these simple Fighters as powerful/useful at mid-to-high levels as everyone else? The game as designed wants to boost them to match the rest. I say the answer is the reverse: rein in everyone else until they (more or less) match the simple Fighter. Flatten the power grade.

Zero end is also easy to do in 4e. Just increase damage output/reduce hp of monsters. Things will get very swingy, but that's kind of the point if you want to do it.

And simple Fighter for 4e: Get rid of all options except hp, weapons, armor, utility powers, and skill choices. Then give them the following power:
Fighter's Strike. A 1w+Str for melee weapons or heavy thrown weapons. Dex for a 1w+Dex for light blade or projectile weapons. Counts as a melee basic or ranged basic attack.

Then the following feature:
Dual Fighter's Strike. Make two Fighter's Strikes

That's it. Done.

 

[Imaro]

I have no interest in being prescriptive, but am rather interested in understanding, in descriptive terms, what has happened and is happening, to better comprehend what may happen.

Setting aside the rather huge number of players who have only ever played 5E at this point, there are four logical extreme categories of players:

A.) Hated 4E, hate 5E

B.) Loved 4E, hate 5E

C.) Hated 4E, love 5E

D.) Loved 4E, love 5E

Obviously, there is going to be a great deal of nuance and shade here, but this is the basic square of opposition. C & D are the two most common reactions, with A probably being a distant third most common.

What I am interested in from these sorts of conversations, is understanding where people fall on this spectrum, and why.

I fall somewhere between D & C... with much stronger leanings towards C. Truth be told I started out fairly positive about 4e but the more I ran it the less I liked it (won't get into the why's because I'm not trying to edition war). I think right now I'm at a point where I would probably never run 4e game again but would have no issues playing in someone else's campaign if they invited me. 5e however is my D&D of choice for both running games and playing by a pretty wide margin.

 

[Shasarak]

I may be misunderstanding, but my reason for my ask is because I'm not familiar with Conan and his abilities hence my question. I was under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that Conan, whom [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has described as being able to one-shot a lich, is the pinnacle fighter i.e. level 20.

I just finished reading The Tower of the Elephant. Conan fought three enemies in that story:

A Professional Kidnapper - One shot
A Lion - One shot
A Giant Spider - Two shot (One sword blow, one thrown chest)

Taurus of Nemedia, the Prince of Thieves fought three enemies:

A Soldier - One shot
A group of Lions - One shot
A Giant Spider which killed Taurus with....One shot

So from this very small sample size it seems that within the Conan universe any enemy can be effectively one shot - a very deadly place indeed!

 

[Garthanos]

I just finished reading The Tower of the Elephant. Conan fought three enemies in that story:

A Professional Kidnapper - One shot
A Lion - One shot
A Giant Spider - Two shot (One sword blow, one thrown chest)

Taurus of Nemedia, the Prince of Thieves fought three enemies:

A Soldier - One shot
A group of Lions - One shot
A Giant Spider which killed Taurus with....One shot

So from this very small sample size it seems that within the Conan universe any enemy can be effectively one shot - a very deadly place indeed!

Yes atleast for the NPCs it could be a RuneQuest game

I also wouldnt put Conan as a level 20 in 5e ... honestly you could play Conan in 4e from level 1 up to level 15... ie Conan the King is Paragon level in my opinion.