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

[rmcoen]

The Sword of Truth series has wizards. Wizards who primarily work subtle spells (Wizards's First Rule), but can also participate in warfare. One casts a spell that seeds the air with microfibers of glass, to slice up the lungs of an opposing army... which is then blown backwards by (a really big) gust of wind, prompting the saying "a war wizard's primary purpose is not to inflict harm on the enemy army, but to negate the other army's war wizard..." I.e. most of the wizards' time is spent cancelling each other's spells, so it comes down to martial power anyway. But an unopposed wizard rules the day. And no, I don't recall any failed spells by wizards (excepting the main character, who refuses to accept his wizardry for, oh, the first 5 books).

Most other fiction that I recall has the enemy spellcaster always successfully casting a spell, but sometimes it fails to affect the hero because Hero (saving throw / fiat / deus ex). Unless it's the world-altering BBEG Evil Ritual (tm) that the story is all about stopping, in which case, they generally stop it. Most of the time, though, story Heroes are the brawn, struggling against the powerful mage.

I like that 4e martial characters have similar power and options to 4e spellcasters. The fighter and his magic weapon can hurl one foe back 20' to 30' with an at-will attack (depending on the item's level), draw all foes within 15' to adjacency, then spin around slicing all of them for one hit. (an encounter power). If he wanted to spend an Action Point, he could spin around and hit them all again (a second encounter power). The wizard can cast fireball, of course, or a lightning bolt that hits any 3 targets, or several other variations of damage dealing, including an at-will that causes 15' diameter explosions. Or he can move foes around with magic, push them away with magic, summon them to a specific square (not his own) with magic, and so on. The wizard can impose and remove vulnerability, or summon a couatl, abilities beyond the fighter; in contrast, the fighter can shrug off a 20-damage hit, or "armor up" and give himself Resist All 5 or 10. The Cleric can reverse killing blows, heal the whole party at once, and even cause constant damage to foes. But everyone has things they can do of equivalent power.

And they are always successfully *attempted*, failing to achieve results based only on the target's defenses. Wizard spells are just as reliable (or unreliable) as fighter powers as cleric powers as...

Out of combat... even in 4e, spellcasters tend to have an advantage. The Wizard can reroll some skill checks, or substitute Arcana for certain skills (like Diplomacy, i.e. Charm Perosn) -- but this is because he sacrificed a combat power slot for a more generally applicable power. But there is still potential balance -- any character has the option of taking a Skill Power for a skill they are "Trained" in. The simplest are at-will "Advantage on this skill roll"; some are more varied and useful in and out of combat (like Endurance's "Third Wind", or Stealth's "end your move 3+ squares from a foe, you can reroll Stealth despite not having Full Cover").

If you introduce "chance of failure" with magic, then increase the wizard's "uses" of magic. Even if it's just "cantrips" (pick your edition/game for level of power). But really what you're going to do it just incentivize players to maximize their success chances. "Oh, I need an Arcana check to succeed in merely casting my spells? Okay, I'll put all my points into Arcana, get Skill Focus Arcana, and look for items/spells that increase my Arcana skill." (Which, honestly, is no different from the martial characters "Okay, I'll put all my attribute points into my accuracy-increasing stat, get Weapon Focus, get masterwork/magic weapons, and look for items/spells that increase by accuracy...")

 

[Parmandur]

I would like to respond to one of the subtopics regarding wizards and fighters over the past few pages, more as a general impression and reaction rather than something directed at any one individual. Class mechanics and class fantasy are often tied together but over the editions, both of these things have obviously changed for fighters and mages. And these mechanical changes, I suspect, reflect a shift in D&D culture that has been both for the better and worse for the wizard and fighter. And these changes have some fairly large impacts in the sort of play issues that we have been discussing. (Not entirely, but some.) Through the editions, fighters have lost a number of their advantages at the same time that wizards (and most other magic users) have lost their disadvantages or have had their advantages increased.

Fighters no longer gain followers and keeps. Both of these things are means by which the PC fighter could potentially exert a greater control over the breadth of the narrative world. It reflects them gaining secular (martial) power and resources at their disposal, much as the wizard gains cosmic power.

In contrast, wizards (and sorcerers) have bumped up from a d4 to a d6 HD at the same time the game has become less punitively lethal overall. Their slower leveling progression has been normalized with other classes without any offset losses. In 3rd Edition, they gained a ridiculous amount of bonus spells. Though this was taken back in 4-5e, spellcasters also gained rituals at this time. Spell failure in armor and such mostly stopped being a thing. AoOs are less of an issue. A number of groups I have played in or read about forget about spell interruption and such. Concentration is the primary spellcasting issue, when remembered. The primary losses are Save-or-Die and some spell nerfs. Spellcasting has on the whole become much easier and far more lucrative.

While some may rightfully say "yes, but when the game is played correctly...", I place greater value in praxis here. How are games commonly being played? I find that more informative. Because this does and will impact the reception of the game and its trajectory going forward.

Now, the justification for "improving" the ease and reliability of spellcasting was for the sake of fun. I think that's fair. And I do find it enjoyable myself. But these burdens were often explicitly used in the past to justify the scope of their cosmic power and "win button" limited resources. And there has not really been anything that offsets the loss of these burdens. The increased technologizing of magic - its industrial automation? - has overwhelmingly favored spellcasters in this game. Meanwhile, the fighter... (see above).

Just to be clear, likely to the disappointment of [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] , I am not advocating here a return to the normal of 1e and AD&D. But I do think that the shift in the class fantasy, class mechanics, and advantages/disadvantages between spellcasting classes and the fighter over time do reveal an imbalance of consideration with the respective classes. And these changes do impact the sort of narrative control options at the disposal of the wizard and fighter across editions. 4e was undeniably a controversial autocorrective regarding this imbalance, but few would dispute that it presented the most even playing field over any edition. So I am at the very least sympathetic to 4e for what it accomplishes in that regard.

No, this is a theoretical discussion, not one focused on praxis. In practice, the Fighter is the most played Class by a long shot, and gets high satisfaction marks.

 

[Garthanos]

If you introduce "chance of failure" with magic, then increase the wizard's "uses" of magic. Even if it's just "cantrips" (pick your edition/game for level of power).

Combat casting can fail to overcome the target (that doesnt need much tweaking)...ritual casting in 4e is pretty much I have paid my price now give me my stuff at low levels the price is arguably too high for people and it seems eventually to be equivalent to unlimited low level tools.

In Ritualville However what if alarm started failing unless it was cast in more potent forms for higher level adversaries? You want your alarm to trigger on teleporting enemies there is a higher level version for that.

This thinking came about actually for redoing the price of practices where I am thinking wait if the value of a ritual used in a skill challenge shouldn't it be an appropriately leveled practice?

 

[Imaro]

OK, this is the first time in this thread that anyone has posted that the way 5e is "intended" to work is by having the GM block a high level wizard player's capabilities in various ways.

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.

Personally I don't enjoy that sort of play, either as GM and player. So let me note another strength of 4e not yet commented on in this thread: it preserves an intraparty balance of mechanical effectiveness even when every player is doing his/her thing in accordance with his/her resources resulting from PC build.

Do you use monsters that have damage resistance? That disarm? That are invulnerable to normal weapons? Do you consider using any of these "blocking" martial abilities?

Also disagree with this statement as well along with an imbalance in number of skills between classes see below about ritual casting also creating a disaparity in party balance in 4e...

EDIT: I saw this:

With likes from @Imaro and @Parmandur. So just to be clear - is it now uncontroversial that in fact, in a whole suite of non-combat situations (which would include something "no pressure" like reforging a hammer at one's leisure) 5e spellcasters are more effective than martial PCs?

Because that's certainly not true in 4e. But when I've been asserting that the two systems are different in this respect, I thought that was widely denied.

So I'm confused.

This is bull... ritual caster alone makes casters more effective than martial PC's in 4e. The fact that you can turn your martial characters into casters by taking a feat doesn't change that fact

 

[rmcoen]

Heroes of Steel CRPG makes the wizard characters just as MAD as the warrior characters. They need one stat to increase their number of spells (LORE), another to increase the size of their spells (CONJURE), a third for accuracy (SORCERY) -- and then the spells themselves have to be invested in like skills in order to increase their power. So you can have one wizard who has an "always hits, single target, powerful" firebolt (LORE 1, CONJURE 1, SORCERY 5; Fire Attack 5), while another wizard might have a "hits upto 5 targets in a burst 2" fireblast (same spell), which is relatively weak because he also invested in a "hits upto 3 allies in a burst 1 buff" that adds fire damage to their weapons (LORE 2, CONJURE 3, SORCERY 2; Fire Attack 3, Fire Enchant 2).

Compared to the martial characters that (like most RPGs) need STR for damage, CON for hits, DEX for accuracy, ??? for special abilities; plus Weapon skill(s), and special skills. The Outlander, for example, has a LEADERSHIP stat that is used to determine the size and power of his ally-boosting powers, and a LORE stat that is used to determine duration of his buffs.

 

[rmcoen]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], there are "martial rituals" available to the martial characters, too. They tend to be noncombat things like hiding campsites and superior hunting or extraordinary tracking, or environmental survival, but some are also "next battle in 24 hours, get a buff to damage or defenses" for "maintaining your equipment".

 

[Imaro]

LostSoul is clear that he's trying to identify a general feature of each system. If someone uses the chart you mention in the DMG, then as far as punching through walls is concerned it is closer to 3E. (Though it will be STR, not Athletics, as a general rule.)

The Essentials Rules Compendium tended to establish a greater coherence in the 4e system, and reduced the 3E-like elements while increasing the emphasis on the approach that LostSoul describes. At which point the DMG chart becomes something much closer to a "guide to some default fiction assumptions".

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.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro, there are "martial rituals" available to the martial characters, too. They tend to be noncombat things like hiding campsites and superior hunting or extraordinary tracking, or environmental survival, but some are also "next battle in 24 hours, get a buff to damage or defenses" for "maintaining your equipment".

Did martials get them for free? Also if I am remembering correctly the scope of martial practices was nowhere near the scope of the caster rituals. remember we are speaking to whether or not it was balanced.

EDIT: Was there anything comparable to raising the dead? opening portals to other planes or creating steeds that could traverse land, water or even fly?

EDIT 2 : Let me just say this I think it's telling that one of the highest level martial practices was one that let you use scrolls...i.e. cast rituals...

 

[Imaro]

And I can't see how this would be any different in 4e than in 5e or 1e or 3e.

I agree and it's not. My contention has always been that 4e didn't actually solve these problems (EDIT: Along with the opinion that for the vast majority of players the current disparity just isn't important enough to care). I've played a ritual caster in 4e to high paragon levels and the utility effect of someone with ritual caster who actually leverages it vs. someone without it... well let's just say I'm not even sure why this is up for debate if so many people in this thread have such extensive play time in the game.

 

[Aldarc]

No, this is a theoretical discussion, not one focused on praxis. In practice, the Fighter is the most played Class by a long shot, and gets high satisfaction marks.

I'm so glad that this is all you got out of my post.

That said, I would disagree with your assertion here. There are obviously theoretical and practical discussions (plural!) at play here as opposed to any singular discussion or focus. And often there is a interweaving back and forth as convenient. Pretending otherwise shows a lack of awareness about the thread content, no matter what our positions in these discussions have been.

And in the case of my post, praxis was more pertinent as it dealt with a reception history shaped out of praxis. And nowhere did I say or suggest that fighters are not popular in practice.