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

[Shasarak]

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

I thought that you were not allowed to say that 4e plays differently then DnD. I mean obviously it does but you are not allowed to say it.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

No, he really didn't. He was primarily concerned with making his exploits known. (Though that was also something of a frequent occurrence: only a few teachers actually taught anything in that class.) But that does not mean that Lockhart was incapable as a wizard (even his non-memory charms) or that his spells didn't fail. By J.K. Rowling's own account on Pottermore, he was talented as a wizard. He was just a vain one who desired to garner more attention. Probably the best summation:

Sorted into Ravenclaw house, Lockhart was soon achieving good marks in his schoolwork, but there was always a kink in his nature that made him increasingly unsatisfied. If he was not first and best, he would rather not participate at all. Increasingly, he directed his talents towards short cuts and dodges. He valued learning not for its own sake, but for the attention it brought him. He craved prizes and awards.
...
He had never been a bad wizard, only a lazy one, and he had decided to hone his talents in one direction: Memory Charms.

But Gilderoy Lockhart is one wizard among many where spell failure has happened. These are generally mistakes, accidents, and the like.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

There is still a resource game, just symmetrical and same-y between Classes and as much focused on short-term as long-term resources (which was continued into 5E with short rest mechanics and Classes). The lack of a dynamic resource game was unfortunate.

 

[Garthanos]

I thought that you were not allowed to say that 4e plays differently then DnD. I mean obviously it does but you are not allowed to say it.

edition warrior you remain

 

[Shasarak]

edition warrior you remain

Come on man, you cant just say it. What the heck.

 

[Garthanos]

Come on man, you cant just say it. What the heck.

4e is as much D&D as every other edition and every bloody edition plays different in some fashion this is just more garbage from you so you can giggle.

 

[Shasarak]

4e is as much D&D as every other edition and every bloody edition plays different in some fashion this is just more garbage from you so you can giggle.

So much that 5e cant even do it? What is this Newspeak?

 

[Garthanos]

There is still a resource game, just symmetrical and same-y between Classes and as much focused on short-term as long-term resources (which was continued into 5E with short rest mechanics and Classes). The lack of a dynamic resource game was unfortunate.

The stress of the resource game in 4e is I think pretty simple in comparison to earlier edition casters and if you picked a ranger it can be very low tactical element even before essentials other than deciding who do I attack twice with occasional how hard.

5e seems to have less short term emphasis - part of the thing that allowed short term to be more interesting was action points (and milestones) and they were an everyman tool not fighter action surge. Second wind too was an everyman. Encounter powers too were a part of it, much more immediate than the 5e analog.

 

[Lanefan]

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).

You're bang-on correct up to here, hence the xp.

But then you blow it...

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.

And given what you've said above, I have to ask why not, at least in part? 1e - quite possibly without any specific intention to do so - actually did a reasonable job in some ways of reining in the casters and keeping the front-liners relevant through the playable levels of the game and even a bit beyond.

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.

I dont dispute that 4e presented a more even playing field, but I'm not at all a supporter of how they went about achieving it.

 

[Parmandur]

The stress of the resource game in 4e is I think pretty simple in comparison to earlier edition casters and if you picked a ranger it can be very low tactical element even before essentials other than deciding who do I attack twice with occasional how hard.

5e seems to have less short term emphasis - part of the thing that allowed short term to be more interesting was action points (and milestones) and they were an everyman tool not fighter action surge. Second wind too was an everyman. Encounter powers too were a part of it, much more immediate than the 5e analog.

Yeah, most of the action economy elements were the same across Classes. And I can abstractly appreciate the elegance of making it the same...but I tend to think Mearls is right in the original post (if I can remember that far back!) that 4E may have better received if it retained more asymmetrical Class design.

(Anti-Edition War disclaimer: I never had a strong or emotionally charged negative reaction to 4E, still don't, and may have had a positive reaction if my DM was [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] or [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ; I'm interested in understanding the phenomenon of the "New Coke" reception, in myself and others, not telling people they are pretending to be an Elf Wizard the wrong way. I've found this thread very interesting in uncovering my subconscious disappointment with the purely symmetrical action economy, but still think 5E just has the 4E Skill system with streamlined math)