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

[Garthanos]

There are options in the DMG for Charms, Boons, etc. that stand outside normal Class restrictions.

Much better answer... and actually I would implement it via a Boon or a Blood-line feat.

As I said not sure what actual effect would be...

Inherent armor? or Damage resistance and vulnerability on a critical - It might even have a cosmetic of any attack that isnt a critical appears to be no damage and maybe some bonus on intimidation or just roleplay that part.

 

[Garthanos]

Well that's your call.

Sorry if it seems an over reaction making a character dependent on another class for its BOOM is a bit objectionable. Its also often why the answer GIVE OUT BUNCHES OF MAGIC ITEMS is kind of looked at askance

 

[Imaro]

Sorry if it seems an over reaction making a character dependent on another class for its BOOM is a bit objectionable. Its also often why the answer GIVE OUT BUNCHES OF MAGIC ITEMS is kind of looked at askance

What other class I said an enchantment... I didn't say from where or how wasn't planning on going into depth because there are (like most things in 5e) multiple ways to handle this.

 

[Parmandur]

Much better answer... and actually I would implement it via a Boon or a Blood-line feat.

As I said not sure what actual effect would be...

Inherent armor? or Damage resistance and vulnerability on a critical - It might even have a cosmetic of any attack that isnt a critical appears to be no damage and maybe some bonus on intimidation or just roleplay that part.

For a real Achilles experience via Boon or Charm, I'd look for inspiration at the War Cleric's 17th Level Subclass Capstone, Avatar of Battle: resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons.

 

[Manbearcat]

Y

Yeah but if they aren't taken into consideration you can end up with a game that isn't commercially viable... which if you actually want support and a player base to draw from should definitely be taken into consideration.

Also brushing the popularity of Fighters off as irrational as opposed to considering that there may be something in the design that numerous people find enjoyable and maybe just maybe your preferences could be outliers and would actually hinder or hurt the game is... also a form of stifling conversation and don't persuade those of us who have players that actually enjoy the design.

On (1), like I said in my post; important calculus for designers worrying about commercial viability...not important to us on a message board who don’t have those same concerns.

On (2), I didn’t brush Fighter popularity in any D&D edition as irrational. My claim was that it’s impossible to tease cognitive bias (and things like cultural zeitgeist) our of the data, so drawing conclusions are fraught.

I think this is backed up by the fact that Fighter’s were enormously popular in 4e (see [MENTION=6804249]Garth[/MENTION]snos ‘s post), and is widely considered “the martial edition” due to its treatment of Fighters (among other things such as Inspiration, Defender mechanics generally, and high level class parity in and out of combat) despite the very distinctive components of its design when contrasted with other editions.

I look at those lines of evidence, and the only conclusion I’m confident making is:

“People love martial archetypes/Fighters (regardless of how they’re iterated)!”

 

[Imaro]

Y

On (1), like I said in my post; important calculus for designers worrying about commercial viability...not important to us on a message board who don’t have those same concerns.

On (2), I didn’t brush Fighter popularity in any D&D edition as irrational. My claim was that it’s impossible to tease cognitive bias (and things like cultural zeitgeist) our of the data, so drawing conclusions are fraught.

I think this is backed up by the fact that Fighter’s were enormously popular in 4e (see [MENTION=6804249]Garth[/MENTION]snos ‘s post), and is widely considered “the martial edition” due to its treatment of Fighters (among other things such as Inspiration, Defender mechanics generally, and high level class parity in and out of combat) despite the very distinctive components of its design when contrasted with other editions.

I look at those lines of evidence, and the only conclusion I’m confident making is:

“People love martial archetypes/Fighters (regardless of how they’re iterated)!”

I'm not sure one could be confident making that assertion...maybe that data from DDI on fighter players was coming from people who thought the fighter would provide the same experience it had in previous editions. I had a player who loved playing fighters in 3.x but who didn't enjoy the fighter he created when we switched to 4e. He kept playing it for a while because there really wasn't a similar class to the one he had enjoyed in 3.x until Essentials was released (and by that time he had decided 4e wasn't for him and wasn't playing anymore). Anyway I don't think either side should be dismissed out of hand but I don't think there's a way to determine the real impetus behind it's popularity.

 

[Garthanos]

For a real Achilles experience via Boon or Charm, I'd look for inspiration at the War Cleric's 17th Level Subclass Capstone, Avatar of Battle: resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons.

Hmmm half damage is actually a scaling effect

 

[Garthanos]

“People love martial archetypes/Fighters (regardless of how they’re iterated)!”

I'm not sure one could be confident making that assertion...

Pretty sure it happens in other games not just D&D with very different implementations it is the dominant archetype in many variations of the Genre including and especially real Sword and Sorcery.

 

[Imaro]

Pretty sure it happens in other games not just D&D with very different implementations it is the dominant archetype in many variations of the Genre including and especially real Sword and Sorcery.

What data are you pulling these claims from?

 

[Manbearcat]

Anyway I don't think either side should be dismissed out of hand but I don't think there's a way to determine the real impetus behind it's popularity.

100 % Essentially, this was my point. So I’d rather discuss more interesting things (like design’s impact on play).

Things like cognitive workload and overhead are definitely worthy discussion points when it comes to GMing and PCing (which intersects with class design), but I think we need to do so with the understanding that some GMs and some players prefer more or less cognitive workload and/or overhead and sometimes they prefers them in some places while wanting them minimized elsewhere.

It’s no secret that as a GM, I champion cognitive workload and overhead in certain areas of system while abhorring it in others. Meanwhile, there are plenty of GMs that feel stripping them of the cognitive workload and overhead I abhor is damaging to their gaming experience.

I’m sure the same goes for Fighters and Spellcasters. Some players love more complex resource suites + attendant management and ability-intensive decision-points with multiple orders of interactions...some don’t. Some love martial archetypes. Some love spellcaster archetypes. Sorting out the Venn Diagram of that would be difficult (but doable).