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

[Lanefan]

How so?
Would you write it so you had a penalty on the jump check? Wouldn't that reduce the overall odds of success and thus negate the bonus conferred by using the pole in the first place?
Or would it be a check to use it, which then conferred a bonus?

Given how rarely it'd likely come up, and how even-more-rarely the same situation or environment would repeat, I probably wouldn't 'write' anything and instead just wing it were someone to try something like this without a feat.

A *good* feature does that. And not every feature is necessarily well written. When you have a deadline for putting out 75 feats, sometimes you just need to meet the quota.
But then that makes you wonder what the penalty is for trying it without the feat. So that typically adds codification and a rule that needs to be looked up...

Or a DM winging it.

Think about it - how many times in your DMing career has a character ever tried an improvised pole vault? I'll wager it's far from often enough to be worth writing a rule about...so for things like this, just wing it.

Lan-"in my case, unless my memory fails me the total number of improvised pole-vault attempts in the games I've DMed is zero...or maybe one"-efan

 

[Parmandur]

Hit point loss...traps...opposition that uses spells...monsters/NPC's who lean towards speed and seizing initiative...stealth/ambushes...monsters with resistances to magic...custom monsters...poison...diseases... extending the adventuring day beyond 24 hrs...time pressures...puzzles/riddles...antagonists who prepare for spellcasters...and so on.

Yes, using the extended rest rules in the DMG (short rest is overnight, long rest is a weeks downtime) would change things narratively if preferred.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

... 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.

How's this: as a baked-in class feature high-level fighters (and ONLY fighters!) start getting resistance (step 1, half damage) or immunity (step 2, no damage) to certain martial elements e.g. blades or missiles or unarmed attacks or whatever, with a new one chooseable every second level after about 15th (in 3e-5e) or 24th (in 4e)? The only thing that'd bypass this resistance/immunity would be a critical, which would be treated as a normal hit.

So, a 3e-5e progression for this for some random PC might look like:

15th - gain resistance to a martial element (player chooses missiles, let's say, from a list of possible elements)
17th - gain resistance to a martial element or gain immunity to a martial element to which you already have resistance (player chooses resist blades)
19th - gain resistance to a martial element or gain immunity to a martial element to which you already have resistance (player chooses immune blades)
21st - gain resistance to a martial element or gain immunity to a martial element to which you already have resistance (player chooses resist unarmed)

Now you're getting into unkillable - or much harder to kill - by martial means.

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.

The only issue with this is that if you make missile combat too attractive there'd be no good reason to ever play a front-line tank; and that's been a problem since forever. To beat this the game has always somewhat arbitrarily made missile use a bit less effective and-or optimal than it'd be in reality.

 

[Lanefan]

This is but part of a larger challenge which sees the characters first being able to find and reach the horn, withstand its effects and then defeat its guardians, being the elemental and the stone golem, nevermind the patrol that eventually will investigate the sudden end of the horn blowing.
1st levels characters cannot hope to deal with this, certainly not without significant assistance.

The barbarians and fighters with a high CON might survive the horn's effects but the rest of their party would be out (including the cleric). Certainly not good adventure design.

No, it's excellent adventure design!

This right here is one of the major balancing and attractiveness-to-play factors between fighters and everyone else: the fighters can sometimes survive what the others - particularly the wizard types - cannot. Which of course led to wizard players complaining and wizards thus getting a d6 hit die in later editions instead of d4 - BIG design mistake! - thus only further helping the class that other than at very low level didn't need any help at all.

 

[Shasarak]

In previous editions, the fighter says "I hit it. Wait, I'm 16th level... I swing 4 times, I hit it twice." The ranger says "I shoot it." The cleric says "Anyone need healing? No? Okay, I hit it." The wizards then spend 30 minutes pondering which of their 30 spells is most appropriate to the situation. [Yes, I know, a well-played cleric has the same potential spell choices.]

My concern is when the Fighter has to spend 30 minutes pondering which of their 30 spells is most appropriate to the situation.

 

[Jester David]

Given how rarely it'd likely come up, and how even-more-rarely the same situation or environment would repeat, I probably wouldn't 'write' anything and instead just wing it were someone to try something like this without a feat.

Or a DM winging it.

Think about it - how many times in your DMing career has a character ever tried an improvised pole vault? I'll wager it's far from often enough to be worth writing a rule about...so for things like this, just wing it.

Lan-"in my case, unless my memory fails me the total number of improvised pole-vault attempts in the games I've DMed is zero...or maybe one"-efan

Keep in mind this example came up solely because I was doing a tactician subclass (see the 5e "let's make a warlord" thread), with said class focusing on polearms. And I had an idea of someone using a spear to vault.

But, if I have a lancer able to just polevault with a glaive—jumping higher or farther than without—does that mean no one else is able to?
If I did codify it, it would mean I'd have to shoot down that rare potential improvisation.

 

[Lanefan]

Hit point loss...traps...opposition that uses spells...monsters/NPC's who lean towards speed and seizing initiative...stealth/ambushes...monsters with resistances to magic...custom monsters...poison...diseases... extending the adventuring day beyond 24 hrs...time pressures...puzzles/riddles...antagonists who prepare for spellcasters...and so on.

Most of these, however, relate to casting in combat; and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] 's example was based on out-of-combat no-pressure casting.

And he's right - in no-pressure situations the casters are likely to rule the roost. Fair enough

So the question then becomes how to further rein them in in-pressure situations; and to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] 's list I'd add: any disruption interrupts the spell...risk of dangerous wild magic surges on interruption...do away with the very notion of 'combat casting'...spell placement not automatic (e.g. need to roll aim for AoE spells and risk hitting allies or even self)...make spells take longer to cast (in 3-4-5e terms e.g. start casting on rolled init. but don't resolve until end of round, and you can be interrupted during this time)...etc.

Lan-"wizardslayer weapons are a handy answer too"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Keep in mind this example came up solely because I was doing a tactician subclass (see the 5e "let's make a warlord" thread), with said class focusing on polearms. And I had an idea of someone using a spear to vault.

But, if I have a lancer able to just polevault with a glaive—jumping higher or farther than without—does that mean no one else is able to?
If I did codify it, it would mean I'd have to shoot down that rare potential improvisation.

Not at all. The lancer can do it reliably, but for everyone else it's very unreliable. Doesn't stop everyone else from trying it if they so desire.

What you'd be doing as DM by adding this ability to the lancer is pointing out that pole-vaulting can be done at all, which your players might not otherwise ever think of.

 

[Jester David]

Not at all. The lancer can do it reliably, but for everyone else it's very unreliable. Doesn't stop everyone else from trying it if they so desire.

Yes... but how?

Adding a second roll basically means you need two good rolls to succeed. It's effectively disadvantage. And thus any bonus for successfully vaulting that's less than a +5 will mean it's not even worth attempting.

What you'd be doing as DM by adding this ability to the lancer is pointing out that pole-vaulting can be done at all, which your players might not otherwise ever think of.

Right... which might both encourage people to vault and then be disappointing when they can't. Or when doing so is mechanically less reliable than not using a pole at all.

 

[darkbard]

My concern is when the Fighter has to spend 30 minutes pondering which of their 30 spells is most appropriate to the situation.

I think you're confusing what happens at the table with what happens in the fiction.