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

[Garthanos]

As a chaotic-aligned player I have no use for a class whose primary function in combat seems to be to tell other characters what to do.

Yes I am sure you will ignore the opportunity he creates for you to hit the enemy again out of spite after he distracted them - because to hell with team work I can see that in you.

You might be vaguely on to something here. The risk to watch out for is taking it too far, and making wizards nothing more than support characters. Clerics already fill that support role, and in large part due to that have historically been less popular to play.

When you are using a utility you are almost always doing a support function!!! unless its a very narrow just for you utility we could really empty the wizards book if that is all you see ... this just makes that utility a Team effort on something generally done for the team (you could even allow the caster to summon a single mount he personally controls with a different struggle or did I already suggest that)

Interesting idea, that: putting a Con requirement on use of a herb. Then again, high-Con characters are in theory the least likely to need such a thing; it's the low-Con ones who tend to get badly hurt and-or killed more often and so having it work for them as well might be useful.

Well this particular thought was to have someone who doesnt currently need it to open the fight for someone else who is sick or dying - ie not a healing herb, but one that creates some other alteration of the user. The shamans or animists model where you engage the spirits of sickness to heal with actually.

For coming back from death I'm more and more leaning towards making this a Cha element (spiritual strength and willpower) anyway, rather than Con.

Life force dude life force , every heard the idea of lending someone else something you are boiling over with? just a thought.

 

[Hussar]

As a (very) limited resource, as with spell slots. Especially at high levels, the Diviner ought to be concerned with resource expenditure, which the Fighter and Rogue are not. Again, plenty of folks have fun without pushing the resource game to the limits, such as Critical Role. And on Critical Role, the martial PCs are major fan favorites. So, while the resource game is how D&D is intended to be played, it can be perfectly fun when played in a relaxed manner without worrying about it.

Whether Fighters and Wizards have equal value in the resource economy in games where the resource economy is being ignored is not terribly useful. Yes, Fighters have a lot to contribute outside of combat, and no resource management to be concerned about. And yes, Wizards who are not jealous of their spell slots have options, though their options usually have limits (like lead with the Diviner) that give room for the Martial to shine if used wisely by the DM.

I would argue that if the DM needs to specifically design scenarios to account for certain classes, that's a limitation of the system. If I have to write every scenario with casters in mind and deliberately design so that casters don't dominate just so I can let the non-casters shine, then that is very limiting on what I can design for that system.

And, again, when we're talking high level casters, the daily limit on spells isn't exactly much of a limitation at all. They just have SO many spells that running out is rarely an issue. Or, to put it another way, if the adventuring day is so punishing that the caster has blown his entire load out, then likely the non-caster classes will be similarly depleted.

 

[Garthanos]

What's this gentlemen's agreement you speak of? If the opponents are smart enough to recognize a caster when they see one, that caster is going to be target number one...which is exactly the same as how the PCs usually approach their opponents.

GYGAX was adamant about the fighters job being to protect that squishy and without a bloody tight tunnel to do it... he really had no ability to do so which is what that comment was about the inadequacy of the fighter

And as has been shown on an ongoing basis including and since the release of 3e, the designers just haven't had the stones to stand up to these complainers and say "suck it up". Ditto for those DMs that pulled their punches so as to allow the wizard to win when it probably shouldn't have.

Then why do you complain when we suggest spell failure OH right eh suck it up cupcake the description for spell casting should reek with failures whether it matches any other fiction at all but you got used to being handed on a silver platter, what a wimp

 

[Garthanos]

mostly because of the mechanical differences between PCs and NPCs trying to inhabit the same fictional world.

Oh right yeh because the human berserk in the 1e monster manual said see the players handbook? Nope they were generally simplified to serve the role they had at the table no attributes even. You are thinking about that one edition 3e where they made things over complicated for the DM

 

[Lanefan]

Yes I am sure you will ignore the opportunity he creates for you to hit the enemy again out of spite after he distracted them - because to hell with team work I can see that in you.

I'd far rather he be in there hitting the enemy with me.

When you are using a utility you are almost always doing a support function!!! unless its a very narrow just for you utility we could really empty the wizards book if that is all you see ... this just makes that utility a Team effort on something generally done for the team (you could even allow the caster to summon a single mount he personally controls with a different struggle or did I already suggest that)

Traditionally - and 4e might be different in this respect - most clerical spells are cast either before combat (divinations, buffs, etc.) or after combat (healing, usually); with not that many getting cast in combat. Hence, it's nearly all support. Wizards on the other hand do some casting before combat, a lot during it, and very little if any afterwards; a much lower support aspect. What you were suggesting looked at first glance to be wanting to move some wizard casting from in-combat to before-combat, thus increasing their support side.

Well this particular thought was to have someone who doesnt currently need it to open the fight for someone else who is sick or dying - ie not a healing herb, but one that creates some other alteration of the user. The shamans or animists model where you engage the spirits of sickness to heal with actually.

Life force dude life force , every heard the idea of lending someone else something you are boiling over with? just a thought.

Ah, OK - now I think I see where this is going. Interesting.

 

[Lanefan]

I would argue that if the DM needs to specifically design scenarios to account for certain classes, that's a limitation of the system. If I have to write every scenario with casters in mind and deliberately design so that casters don't dominate just so I can let the non-casters shine, then that is very limiting on what I can design for that system.

System issue maybe, but within the fiction these precautions make perfect sense.

If you're a name-level fighter building your stronghold you're going to be mighty familiar with what the casters can do at low-moderate levels and are probably going to want to factor those possibilities into your defenses because you'll know full well that any significant attack is probably going to have some magical backup. (and any revenge attack from those you've pissed off during your adventuring career is almost certain to involve magic!)

You'll want some anti-flight defense. You'll want whatever magical defenses you can set up. If you can swing it you'll want to put in some anti-magic features as well. You'll want something that prevents teleport-in. And so on.

Which means it only makes sense that at least some dungeons etc. will incorporate these sort of design features as well.

 

[Garthanos]

I'd far rather he be in there hitting the enemy with me.

Aside from a princess build he probably will or dash across a battle field to pull you from the ground when you are really hurt or break through the fuzz with a well timed word when you need another saving throw (The word might be buckle up butter cup and piss you off) or be responsible for the party never being surprised and always ready for battle (boosting party initiative like Aragorn).

Traditionally - and 4e might be different in this respect - most clerical spells are cast either before combat (divinations, buffs, etc.) or after combat (healing, usually); with not that many getting cast in combat. Hence, it's nearly all support. Wizards on the other hand do some casting before combat, a lot during it, and very little if any afterwards; a much lower support aspect. What you were suggesting looked at first glance to be wanting to move some wizard casting from in-combat to before-combat, thus increasing their support side.

I think 3e modified that quite a bit - Clerics and Druids got the nickname of CodZilla for a reason combat magic... laser cleric is one word for the "ray of ra" style clerics.

In 4e wizards do not have much for normal healing which is get em off the ground in mid battle stuff (although remove affliction and raise dead / cure disease are within reach if they pick up the right skills as rituals are not very often class restricted but rather gated by knowing the right skill which might mean a pretty heavy feat investment)

 

[Hussar]

And seeing as how the resource game was up until then a pretty significant and important part of the overall game, it's small wonder 4e with its removal of this aspect of play got the less-than-enthusiastic reception it did...

It's not a feature, it's a bug. A catastrophic, non-recoverable, system-crashing godzilla-size bug.

Lan-"killing a few bugs that big oughta be worth lots of xp...hope they've got some treasure to 'em or I won't be able to afford to train"-efan

Not really though. 3e pretty much ejected the resource game as well with easily fungible wands and scrolls. It's not like you ever really had to run out of spells in 3e. Which is a direct reason why 4e simply skipped that part. 3e was popular. 3e didn't use the resource game, therefore 4e could do the same thing.

But, it slapped upside the Uncanny Valley. It's okay that I play a wizard that can cast pretty much anything he wants whenever he wants to all day long, so long as I have an item that lets me do it. It's okay that the cleric has virtually unlimited healing, so long as there's an item involved. But, apparently simply glossing over the item was a bridge too far and made it too "not D&D " for people.

 

[Hussar]

System issue maybe, but within the fiction these precautions make perfect sense.

If you're a name-level fighter building your stronghold you're going to be mighty familiar with what the casters can do at low-moderate levels and are probably going to want to factor those possibilities into your defenses because you'll know full well that any significant attack is probably going to have some magical backup. (and any revenge attack from those you've pissed off during your adventuring career is almost certain to involve magic!)

You'll want some anti-flight defense. You'll want whatever magical defenses you can set up. If you can swing it you'll want to put in some anti-magic features as well. You'll want something that prevents teleport-in. And so on.

Which means it only makes sense that at least some dungeons etc. will incorporate these sort of design features as well.

Yet, funnily enough, those features only seem to come into effect at higher levels. The Slave Lords domains had no such protections, despite having more than enough time/money to have them, yet, the Drow cities are virtually chock a block with anti-magic stuff. Huh, funny how that works. In other words, the mechanics are dictating what adventures you write, and, that was a MAJOR criticism of 4e, yet, apparently is perfectly acceptable in other editions.

 

[Parmandur]

I would argue that if the DM needs to specifically design scenarios to account for certain classes, that's a limitation of the system. If I have to write every scenario with casters in mind and deliberately design so that casters don't dominate just so I can let the non-casters shine, then that is very limiting on what I can design for that system.

And, again, when we're talking high level casters, the daily limit on spells isn't exactly much of a limitation at all. They just have SO many spells that running out is rarely an issue. Or, to put it another way, if the adventuring day is so punishing that the caster has blown his entire load out, then likely the non-caster classes will be similarly depleted.

But their resources don't deplete. They can keep swinging the sword (magic or not) and making skill checks all the live long day.

The game is designed around "punishing," yes. Anything less can obviously be perfectly fun, folks do it all the time. But if a group doesn't care about resource attrition, then they are unlikely to be concerned with relative resource use.