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

[Parmandur]

I agree to an extent. The fighter can satisfy some of that fantasy. As you reiterate, they can take and make hits well. Where I, and perhaps others in this thread, take issue lies in the how.

First, being able to take hits when that is expressed almost entirely in HP or AC is mostly passive. In contrast, for example, a wizard can throw up a Shield spell to adjust their AC. This does not strike me as particularly interesting in terms of imaginging a high level class fantasy of the fighter. Second Wind is probably one of the more active abilities for fighters in this regard. So here I would invite you to consider with me how we could express "unkillable" in more active ways other than HP and AC, particularly for a higher level class fantasy for non-spellcasters.

Second, "being really good at shooting things with a bow" often entails a lot more than shooting quickly and accurately, but also a variety of trick shots (or even trick arrows) that empowers these sharpshooters to have more narrative control than they would otherwise. Their abilities are also often accompanied by other associated feats of physical prowess (e.g., freakish athleticism, "hawkeyed" sight, etc.). It's also hardly a coincidence that a lot of the mundane or non-powered heroes are often ones that have other accompanying narrative benefits (e.g., the power of being SUPER RICH). But one basic fantasy for these archer archetypes is the ricochet shot. Can a 5e fighter archer perform a ricochet shot around corners? Can a 5e archer aim or make a called shot that expresses their capacity to hit with their arrows on a more localized location? To the best of my knowledge, no. The best bet would be to create a subclass or a BM maneuver capable of doing it.

This is likely why the 5e Battlemaster is regarded as the best fighter subclass. The maneuvers provide the greatest amount of narrative control options, at least in combat, for many mundane classes. But it is one subclass for one class. But this is baked into the BM subclass as opposed to the proper Fighter class. And whereas magic users typically receive more new spell options in new books, the BM maneuvers don't. A trend that is mostly par for the course when it comes to martial options. (New feats and subclasses are something equally available for magical classes.) And uncoincidentally, the 5e battlemaster is probably one of the most 4e like archetypes in the 5e game.

I prefer playing a Champion, personally. Nice that the is an option, though.

 

[Garthanos]

I understand that not everyone thinks getting off twelve arrows in 12 seconds is epic...but try doing that sometime.

I just had someone tell me you might get close to that at level 6 in 5e and my answer to that is "good" (its available in a form early enough in 4e too)

Although it definitely seems Legendary (which isnt quite epic) see Hiawatha not to mention similar Asian plainsmen - it actually can be done IRL its a snap shot technique, short bow with arrows clustered in hand at the beginning (they do not have huge penetration or range but often didnt need either to kill and could get through the kinds of chain and leather/hide they were used against) - ie the 4e hunter with his clustered shot attack might even be realistic weirdly enough (its kind of low damage and penalized to hit). Not attacking a zone however which is likely what you're talking about and being uber damaging on those shots is definitely jumping out of realism into Legendary. Call that Paragon in 4e.

To give a clue what I would picture making an arrow barrage Mythic? your arrows hit hard enough to smash enemies back 20? feet or slam them to the ground maybe even splitting the ground open if they kill an enemy, when they impact that would be epic .


But really combat in 5e as long as you keep the heroes pressed is fairly balanced (and since people do not often have that heavy of work day it just emphasizes the lack in non combat for martial types)

That is why we are talking about other pillar activities. And it comes down to pointing out 4e wasnt perfect in this regards but in a core way it looks like bounded accuracy made it worse (AT HIGH LEVELS where it is already not so good in any edition of D&D) and without tier driven fiction first skill challenges as context or some resource used for auto-successes and so on we are really seeing no tools for giving heroic characters parity except in combat. Though I guess that means I need to read up on boons AS I think boons and magic items can do a significant part of the trick honestly though it requires they be carefully set up to do so.

 

[Parmandur]

I just had someone tell me you might get close to that at level 6 in 5e and my answer to that is "good" (its available in a form early enough in 4e too)

Although it definitely seems Legendary (which isnt quite epic) see Hiawatha not to mention similar Asian plainsmen - it actually can be done IRL its a snap shot technique, short bow with arrows clustered in hand at the beginning (they do not have huge penetration or range but often didnt need either to kill and could get through the kinds of chain and leather/hide they were used against) - ie the 4e hunter with his clustered shot attack might even be realistic weirdly enough (its kind of low damage and penalized to hit). Not attacking a zone however which is likely what you're talking about and being uber damaging on those shots is definitely jumping out of realism into Legendary. Call that Paragon in 4e.

To give a clue what I would picture making an arrow barrage Mythic? your arrows hit hard enough to smash enemies back 20? feet or slam them to the ground maybe even splitting the ground open if they kill an enemy, when they impact that would be epic .


But really combat in 5e as long as you keep the heroes pressed is fairly balanced (and since people do not often have that heavy of work day it just emphasizes the lack in non combat for martial types)

That is why we are talking about other pillar activities. And it comes down to pointing out 4e wasnt perfect in this regards but in a core way it looks like bounded accuracy made it worse (AT HIGH LEVELS where it is already not so good in any edition of D&D) and without tier driven fiction first skill challenges as context or some resource used for auto-successes and so on we are really seeing no tools for giving heroic characters parity except in combat. Though I guess that means I need to read up on boons AS I think boons and magic items can do a significant part of the trick honestly though it requires they be carefully set up to do so.

A lot of the magic items in the DMG are aimed pretty squarely at making folks with proficiency in martial weapons into superheros, and not just +x stuff. There is one magic hammer that may as well read "you become the Mighty Thor when attuned to this."

The game works with no magic items, though if you have Fighters above Level 6 or so it is best to give them magic weapons or just stick to low CR enemies.

Making 12 attacks in a 2 round period with no magic or two-weapon fighting is the exclusive domain of the Epic level Fighters. Nobody else can come close: no other Class has Action Surge, every other class can only make two attacks a turn max.

 

[Manbearcat]

Being a nearly unkillable dealer of death is a very primal human fantasy. Look how obsessed people get in pop culture with dudes whose superpower is being really good at shooting things with a bow: the Green Arrow, Legolas, Hawkeye, etc. All of whom would fit the Fighter role in D&D well, and are major foci of wish fulfillment fantasy. I understand that not everyone thinks getting off twelve arrows in 12 seconds is epic...but try doing that sometime.

I have some posts I need to respond to, but I don’t have the time to do so right this second. But let me address this one right quick in the way I’ve done so in the past:

1) The “HP aren’t meat” issue and the “singular attacks correlate to ‘openings’ rather than attacks in the fiction” (or what is happening in the fiction when a single sword swing takes place in 1 minute, 10 seconds, even 6 seconds) is extremely relevant. Now much more HP and much more attacks obviously means “much more heroism”, but these are meta character aspects that serve as inputs to fiction rather than outputs. They don’t correlate 1:1 with events happening in D&D land.

2) The problem with lack of martial/caster parity at the endgame isn’t in the combat arena. It’s out of combat where the lack of parity issues arise and they arise due to multiple factors:

A) the physics of the archetypal combat aspect don’t remotely comport with what should emerge out of combat. If the continuity of a martial hero means they’re able to go from reliably slaying an orc > a giant > an elder air elemental > an Ancient Red Wyrm, then the ability to deploy and absorb unfathomal amounts of kinetic energy (for earth humans) has to manifest in some kind of reasonable proportion to that scaling.

The out of combat physics don’t match up. Our greatest earth athletes couldn’t dream of being able to catch an Elder Air Elemental with a blow or evade the same’s blow or withstand the impossibly potent energy from the swipe of a 20 ton+ predator.

Something is happening in D&D combat physics that is jarringly “switched-off” out of combat.

B) Endgame play means (i) less but higher stakes combat and (ii) the spellcasters potent, broad, and proliferate arsenal will be able to both obviate obstacles (which could be combat) or completely dictate the terms of engagement if it comes to that.

This is due to task resolution (rather than conflict resolution) systems being EXTREMELY vulnerable to “win condition” cards/resources. Games that feature conflict resolution (4e, Strike, Blades, Fate, Dogs, Cortex+, et al) don’t suffer from these “win condition” trump card resources.

C) Again, we go back to the fact that spellcasters don’t have to deal with the task resolution procedures (and jarringly so within the fiction). This is an enormous advantage. Couple that with the facts that who knows what the fiction of accomplishing the pinnacle of DCs should be (my DC 30 thread from awhile back was pretty clear that it wasn’t going to be the kinds of things that make sense with (A) above) and that Fighters can’t reach them of their own volition (an 11ish on your archetypal shtick means not with anything nearing 65% success rate) and you get what you get.

 

[Parmandur]

I have some posts I need to respond to, but I don’t have the time to do so right this second. But let me address this one right quick in the way I’ve done so in the past:

1) The “HP aren’t meat” issue and the “singular attacks correlate to ‘openings’ rather than attacks in the fiction” (or what is happening in the fiction when a single sword swing takes place in 1 minute, 10 seconds, even 6 seconds) is extremely relevant. Now much more HP and much more attacks obviously means “much more heroism”, but these are meta character aspects that serve as inputs to fiction rather than outputs. They don’t correlate 1:1 with events happening in D&D land.

2) The problem with lack of martial/caster parity at the endgame isn’t in the combat arena. It’s out of combat where the parity arises and it arises due to multiple factors:

A) the physics of the archetypal combat aspect don’t remotely comport with what should emerge out of combat. If the continuity of a martial hero means they’re able to go from reliably slaying an orc > a giant > an elder air elemental > an Ancient Red Wyrm, then the ability to deploy and absorb unfathomal amounts of kinetic energy (for earth humans) has to manifest in some kind of reasonable proportion to that scaling.

The out of combat physics don’t match up. Our greatest earth athletes couldn’t dream of being able to catch an Elder Air Elemental with a blow or evade the same’s blow or withstand the impossibly potent energy from the swipe of a 20 ton+ predator.

Something is happening in D&D combat physics that is jarringly “switched-off” out of combat.

B) Endgame play means (i) less but higher stakes combat and (ii) the spellcasters potent, broad, and proliferate arsenal will be able to both obviate obstacles (which could be combat) or completely dictate the terms of engagement if it comes to that.

This is due to task resolution (rather than conflict resolution) systems being EXTREMELY vulnerable to “win condition” cards/resources. Games that feature conflict resolution (4e, Strike, Blades, Fate, Dogs, Cortex+, et al) don’t suffer from these “win condition” trump card resources.

C) Again, we go back to the fact that spellcasters don’t have to deal with the task resolution procedures (and jarringly so within the fiction). This is an enormous advantage. Couple that with the facts that who knows what the fiction of accomplishing the pinnacle of DCs should be (my DC 30 thread from awhile back was pretty clear that it wasn’t going to be the kinds of things that make sense with (A) above) and that Fighters can’t reach them of their own volition (an 11ish on your archetypal shtick means not with anything nearing 65% success rate) and you get what you get.

I do, as stated above, favor a system that makes even casual spellcasting potentially very dangerous. Nevertheless, Fighters and Rogues do move way up the chain towards being capable of impossible tasks with no resource attrition. That is huge, if that part of the game is important for a table. If that part of the game is not important for a table...then it isn't important.

 

[Imaro]

I've mentioned Dungeon Crawl Classics, but that approach to magic as a dangerous and unpredictable d20 skill check is great. Indeed, as far as genre emulation, I haven't seen anything as solid as DCC. Though 5E is better at being "D&D" still, a special unique genre all it's own.

I'm a fan of both the way they handle magic along with the Mighty Deeds for warriors.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm a fan of both the way they handle magic along with the Mighty Deeds for warriors.

Honestly, when talking about genre emulation and opportunity cost balance, I think DCC nails it pretty well.

 

[Manbearcat]

I do, as stated above, favor a system that makes even casual spellcasting potentially very dangerous. Nevertheless, Fighters and Rogues do move way up the chain towards being capable of impossible tasks with no resource attrition. That is huge, if that part of the game is important for a table. If that part of the game is not important for a table...then it isn't important.

I definitely agree with your first part (spellcasting, especially the magnitude of D&D’s, should be dangerous and unpredictable...rather than the trivially conjured/controlled and reliable that it is).

However, I significantly disagree with the latter and it makes me wonder (a) how much (if any) high level play have you run and/or (b) what is going on when you run it?

In your average endgame adventuring day, how many weighty decision-points is the group facing in order to deal with challenges/obstacles? It would need to be on the order of 25+ (It isn’t)in order to remotely even challenge a Wizard’s significant load-out of spell slots (some of which are replenishable), known spells, cantrips (some of which have borderline “win condition” utility even at endgame), rituals, and powerful features like the Diviner’s (dictate 3 outcomes per day).

 

[Imaro]

I agree to an extent. The fighter can satisfy some of that fantasy. As you reiterate, they can take and make hits well. Where I, and perhaps others in this thread, take issue lies in the how.

First, being able to take hits when that is expressed almost entirely in HP or AC is mostly passive. In contrast, for example, a wizard can throw up a Shield spell to adjust their AC. This does not strike me as particularly interesting in terms of imaginging a high level class fantasy of the fighter. Second Wind is probably one of the more active abilities for fighters in this regard. So here I would invite you to consider with me how we could express "unkillable" in more active ways other than HP and AC, particularly for a higher level class fantasy for non-spellcasters.

Second, "being really good at shooting things with a bow" often entails a lot more than shooting quickly and accurately, but also a variety of trick shots (or even trick arrows) that empowers these sharpshooters to have more narrative control than they would otherwise. Their abilities are also often accompanied by other associated feats of physical prowess (e.g., freakish athleticism, "hawkeyed" sight, etc.). It's also hardly a coincidence that a lot of the mundane or non-powered heroes are often ones that have other accompanying narrative benefits (e.g., the power of being SUPER RICH). But one basic fantasy for these archer archetypes is the ricochet shot. Can a 5e fighter archer perform a ricochet shot around corners? Can a 5e archer aim or make a called shot that expresses their capacity to hit with their arrows on a more localized location? To the best of my knowledge, no. The best bet would be to create a subclass or a BM maneuver capable of doing it.

This is likely why the 5e Battlemaster is regarded as the best fighter subclass. The maneuvers provide the greatest amount of narrative control options, at least in combat, for many mundane classes. But it is one subclass for one class. But this is baked into the BM subclass as opposed to the proper Fighter class. And whereas magic users typically receive more new spell options in new books, the BM maneuvers don't. A trend that is mostly par for the course when it comes to martial options. (New feats and subclasses are something equally available for magical classes.) And uncoincidentally, the 5e battlemaster is probably one of the most 4e like archetypes in the 5e game.

I think the Battlemaster fighter is the best fighter subclass for someone with your preferences but I think including a more streamlined and simpler option from the outset for those who don't share them was a good thing on 5e's part.

 

[Parmandur]

I definitely agree with your first part (spellcasting, especially the magnitude of D&D’s, should be dangerous and unpredictable...rather than the trivially conjured/controlled and reliable that it is).

However, I significantly disagree with the latter and it makes me wonder (a) how much (if any) high level play have you run and/or (b) what is going on when you run it?

In your average endgame adventuring day, how many weighty decision-points is the group facing in order to deal with challenges/obstacles? It would need to be on the order of 25+ (It isn’t)in order to remotely even challenge a Wizard’s significant load-out of spell slots (some of which are replenishable), known spells, cantrips (some of which have borderline “win condition” utility even at endgame), rituals, and powerful features like the Diviner’s (dictate 3 outcomes per day).

No, I have not and likely won't run any high level stuff soon.

However, if you aren't pushing the party to the limits, then yes it will get weird. That's true at first as well as twentieth level.

The DMG and the published adventures do show how to do this. However, you can run it less intensely, and have fun. It just runs the danger of trivializing the resource game.