Mike Mearls comments on design

[I'm A Banana]

I've yet to see anything in the core that makes it even inconvenient to do with 4e.

Well, for one:

No Bards, Druids, or Gnomes. Inconvenient or dang near impossible in some ways (at least going by the core alone).

For two, dragon weirdness with alignments. If the recent preview is anything to go on, being hired by green dragons and fighting copper dragons will not raise many eyebrows in the new edition. I'm pretty sure it WOULD, in Dragonlance.

For three, Golden Wyvern Adepts. Certainly spell-shaping exists on all these worlds, but Golden Wyverns do not, thus mandating an inconvenient name swap.

Just a few examples of things in the 4e Core that don't mesh with, as you say, some of the most generic settings conceived.

 

[Rechan]

Yeah but they don't. There isn't a single thing in any edition of D&D that you have to include. If I wanted I could rewrite the whole damn thing. But in general I don't want to.

To which the response has been "Yeah well, it's annoying how every time I see 'Golden Wyvern Adept', and an inconvenience when someone says 'I'm using my Googum ability" "What's that?" 'What you renamed Golden Wyvern Adept'.

To an extent, I can understand the frustration. I like the psionics system, but I utterly hate the sci-fi/1920s parapsychology naming conventions, and the ectoplasm nonsense. But I accept it, to get information across, and to use it. When I style my homebrew, I'll just reflavor it. Similar to Incarnum.

 

[Rechan]

Well, for one:

No Bards, Druids, or Gnomes. Inconvenient or dang near impossible in some ways (at least going by the core alone).

Gnomes will be in Core. The MM1 is core, from what I can tell.

And yes, bards and druids are temporarily out of commission. Sort've like how there wasn't immediate replacement for all the 2e kits.

For two, dragon weirdness with alignments. If the recent preview is anything to go on, being hired by green dragons and fighting copper dragons will not raise many eyebrows in the new edition. I'm pretty sure it WOULD, in Dragonlance.

Because that's Chris Perkins Homebrew setting. You know, with goblins sailing ships, and gun powder?

The other playtest is set in Eberron. That doesn't mean that warforged are going to be the standard, you know?

For three, Golden Wyvern Adepts. Certainly spell-shaping exists on all these worlds, but Golden Wyverns do not, thus mandating an inconvenient name swap.

This is just such a non issue. It meshes with them. Just because it hasn't existed before doesn't mean it the School over There doesn't teach it, or the master your wizard apprenticed to didn't teach it.

 

[The Little Raven]

No Bards, Druids, or Gnomes. Inconvenient or dang near impossible in some ways (at least going by the core alone).

God, a day doesn't go by without having to point out this fallacy.

Gnomes are in the Monster Manual 1, a core book. Therefore, gnomes are in the core.

For two, dragon weirdness with alignments. If the recent preview is anything to go on, being hired by green dragons and fighting copper dragons will not raise many eyebrows in the new edition. I'm pretty sure it WOULD, in Dragonlance.

Oh noes, Dragonlance might have to add a line in it's dragon entry that particular dragons are always good or evil. You're right, that's a total deal breaker right there. Dragonlance is now, officially, impossible to reproduce with 4e.

For three, Golden Wyvern Adepts. Certainly spell-shaping exists on all these worlds, but Golden Wyverns do not, thus mandating an inconvenient name swap.

Pelor is in the PHB, but not in my world, thus mandating an inconvenient name swap.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Gnomes will be in Core. The MM1 is core, from what I can tell.

And yes, bards and druids are temporarily out of commission. Sort've like how there wasn't immediate replacement for all the 2e kits.

Gnomes are in the MM. It's inconvenient. That's the threshold you posed.

Character class defines a character more than a kit ever did. This makes it inconvenient. If I want to be a shape-shifting nature with elemental magic or a song-weaving spellcaster and enchanter, what, in the 4e core, should I choose?

Because that's Chris Perkins Homebrew setting. You know, with goblins sailing ships, and gun powder?

The other playtest is set in Eberron. That doesn't mean that warforged are going to be the standard, you know?

You don't know this any more than I do, and I posted it as an "if," whereas you're saying "it's definately not."

In the abscence of evidence for either of these positions, my statement, than "IF this is how it is, THEN it is a problem" remains true.

We have no argument, here.

This is just such a non issue. It meshes with them. Just because it hasn't existed before doesn't mean it the School over There doesn't teach it, or the master your wizard apprenticed to didn't teach it.

Changing the name is an inconvenience. That was the threshold that you posted.

You're right, that's a total deal breaker right there.

Not necessarily. But it is an inconvenience. That's all that was asked, so that's what I delivered. If you want to escalate the demand for "deal breakers," that's a different question.

I've got more inconveniences if you want them.

It's not hard to find them.

Some are worse than others, but they all make it horribly inconvenient.

 

[rounser]

Yes. Pretend to read them as something else. Just like pretending the Greyhawk gods are not in the 3.X PHB, or pretending Mordenkainen's spells are called something else. Not a big deal.

Again - a single specifically named spell or magic item is going to have very limited screentime. A spiked chain, double weapon, eladrin or warlord is going to have a lot.

Designers understood this with regard to "invisibility at will" having a whole lot more effect on the game in the hands of a PC versus in the hands of an NPC, because the NPC will last a round or two and die. Limited scope of that ability on the game.

On the other hand, a PC with this ability can stay invisible (or shapechanged, enlarged etc.) all campaign. And a monster PC will have a lot more effect on the game's tone and feel than encountering NPC monsters would - i.e. they stay freaky all campaign.

It's strange to me that either the designers don't make this distinction, or don't care about it when it comes to "fluff" when they're so aware of it when it comes to "crunch".

 

[Hussar]

I think the main issue with this, at least now, is that no one can imagine what a Golden Wyvern Adept *is*, other than a feat name. No one has been clamoring to include one in their games. No one wanted this, yet we're getting it (at the expense of things we want, such as druids or polymorph!)

People want to be Conan or the Grey Mouser or Achilles or Inu Yasha or Ash from Pokemon.

No one has ever in the history of fantasy ever wanted to be a Golden Wyvern Adept.

4e meets a lot of resistance with it's new flavor because it's largely meaningless.

Once we know what a Golden Wyvern Adept is, maybe it will make perfect sense and everyone will want to be one. As it is, it lacks everything Disney and Squaresoft and the human history of imagination has desired.

Here, I'm feeling punchy, so I even illustrated the Grand Plan... You could probably replace Golden Wyvern Adept with almost ANY of the core setting's flavor and have just about the same reaction.

How many people wanted to play a Drow pre-Unearthed Arcana?

How many wanted to play a Drow after that?

How many bards did you see in your 3e campaigns? I saw one in six years. Losing the bard is a total non-issue for me.

Druids? Never saw one played. Non-issue. Total waste of space in my games.

((Although, I do have a sneaking suspicion that druids were a tad more popular than bards. ))

The thing that blows my mind is that Golden Wyvern Adept is ONE FEAT. That's it. There were three other feats in that preview with totally normal names. Now everyone seems to be utterly convinced that WOTC is going to ram this huge bolus of flavour into the core books. We simply don't know.

Heck, if I previewed the 1e DMG with a look at artifacts, reactions would be "Who the heck is Dalver-Nar? Saint Cuthbert? What? Who beautified this guy? I don't have a Pope or Catholic Church in my campaign. Who is this Tuerney the Merciless guy? I have to add in a named despot into my campaign? I don't think so."

And on and on.

 

[PeterWeller]

Well, for one:

No Bards, Druids, or Gnomes. Inconvenient or dang near impossible in some ways (at least going by the core alone).

Gnomes are in the Monster Manual. The classes Bard and Druid may not be in PHB1, but that doesn't mean their concepts can't be recreated. Nature priests are probably doable with either Clerics or Fey Warlocks. 3E inspirational and knowledgeable heroes are probably doable with Warlord, or you can go more old fashioned and do a jack of all trades with multiclassing. Really, the 3E Bard wasn't my 2E Bard, which wasn't my cousin's 1E Bard, so maybe there's a reason why they're spending a little more time on it.

For two, dragon weirdness with alignments. If the recent preview is anything to go on, being hired by green dragons and fighting copper dragons will not raise many eyebrows in the new edition. I'm pretty sure it WOULD, in Dragonlance.

Really? How many times have they mentioned that they're downplaying the mechanical effects of alignment, and now you're going to point at somebody's homebrew's dragons' alignments as a sign of the game changing in some great way? If you dig any further, you might end up in China, my friend.

For three, Golden Wyvern Adepts. Certainly spell-shaping exists on all these worlds, but Golden Wyverns do not, thus mandating an inconvenient name swap.

Just a few examples of things in the 4e Core that don't mesh with, as you say, some of the most generic settings conceived.

Here's three simple ways you can deal with Golden Wyverns.

1) Incorporate it. Just because your setting doesn't have Golden Wyverns doesn't mean that it can't have Golden Wyverns. It's just a name. You're a creative DM right? You can figure out a cool way to make it fit.

2) Gloss it. Really, how is writing "Golden Wyvern Adept" down on a character sheet and saying during the course of the game, "I use Golden Wyvern Adept" any different than writing down "Power Attack" or "Improved Evasion" and declaring their use during the course of the game? Granted, the name could include a descriptor of what it does, but this is D&D; we're going to remember what weird esoteric stuff means.

3) Make like Dave and cut it out. It's D&D. You're allowed to cut out the bits you don't want. It's only going to affect you're game if you make it affect your game.


I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you stop thinking in terms of number and name of classes, and instead look at the number of concepts and tropes presented, 4E D&D is going to open up more than any previous edition.

 

[Rechan]

Gnomes are in the MM. It's inconvenient. That's the threshold you posed.

It's about as inconvenient as magical items and PrCs being in the DMG.

Character class defines a character more than a kit ever did. This makes it inconvenient. If I want to be a shape-shifting nature with elemental magic or a song-weaving spellcaster and enchanter, what, in the 4e core, should I choose?

PHB2, which will be core?

You don't know this any more than I do, and I posted it as an "if," whereas you're saying "it's definately not."

In the abscence of evidence for either of these positions, my statement, than "IF this is how it is, THEN it is a problem" remains true.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the if. Because the impression was that you were using that as an example of it just being all screwed up.

In the first mention of Chris Perkins' playtest (back before we knew Dragonborn was the new race), it was specified that this was his homebrew setting. So I'm taking everything with a grain of salt, fluff wise.

I don't see WotC making Green and Red dragons all warm and snuggly. That would upset too many people. If anything WotC is business conscious.

Besides, I don't think it's fair to compare one setting to the other. Case in Point: Eberron versus Dragonlance. The way Dragonlance treats its dragons is vastly different from how Eberron treats its dragons. I could just easily say "They fought a dragon in that playtest. 4e isn't going to accommodate Eberron because there's an emphasis on fighting dragons, and you just don't do that in Eberron."

And seriously, if you just want to continue waving the banner of "That's Inconvenient", I could just as easily say "Saying BAB instead of THACO is inconvenient, thus 3e does not facilitate easy transition for 2e."

 

[I'm A Banana]

How many people wanted to play a Drow pre-Unearthed Arcana?

How many wanted to play a Drow after that?

Well, playing as a dark elf has some weight. People know what drow are, the concept isn't alien, and it's an easily grokked archetype.

But, regardless, I don't think many people wanted to play drow period until Drizzit slashed onto the scene.

How many bards did you see in your 3e campaigns? I saw one in six years. Losing the bard is a total non-issue for me.

Druids? Never saw one played. Non-issue. Total waste of space in my games.

((Although, I do have a sneaking suspicion that druids were a tad more popular than bards. ))

The thing that blows my mind is that Golden Wyvern Adept is ONE FEAT. That's it. There were three other feats in that preview with totally normal names. Now everyone seems to be utterly convinced that WOTC is going to ram this huge bolus of flavour into the core books. We simply don't know.

Blah blah blah inconvenience for playing a DL, FR, or GH game. Quit takin' my stuff outta context, Context Thief!

Heck, if I previewed the 1e DMG with a look at artifacts, reactions would be "Who the heck is Dalver-Nar? Saint Cuthbert? What? Who beautified this guy? I don't have a Pope or Catholic Church in my campaign. Who is this Tuerney the Merciless guy? I have to add in a named despot into my campaign? I don't think so."

And on and on.

Right, but D&D was more than just it's own IP. The more heavily D&D leans on it's own inventions, excluding the richness of the fantasy worlds outside of it, the more obtuse it becomes. Golden Wyvern Adept references NOTHING in ANYONE'S mental database. Yet.

Gnomes are in the Monster Manual.

Yes, and it's inconvenient for them to be there instead of in the PHB. Inconvenience. I've gone over this above. I don't particularly feel like repeating myself on these points.

PHB2, which will be core?

HA!

Okay, seriously, now, what page of the PHB is the Druid on? Because if we have that, I guess it's not so inconvenient.

And seriously, if you just want to continue waving the banner of "That's Inconvenient", I could just as easily say "Saying BAB instead of THACO is inconvenient, thus 3e does not facilitate easy transition for 2e."

Sure thing, chicken wing, but then you've gotta convince me that some soul somewhere in the world thinks this is true.

Plus, I've never once said that shifting from 1e to 2e wasn't even inconvenient.

You, on the other hand, did say that shifting from 3e to 4e wouldn't even be inconvenient. So now I showed that it is. I shall expect your apology for propagating this gross misinformation to come in the form of cookies, promptly, or I am forced to assume you are a cad and a knave.