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

OK on this "I would’ve much preferred the ability to adopt any role within the core 4 by giving players a big choice at level 1, an option that placed an overlay on every power you used or that gave you a new way to use them."
Basically have Source Specific Powers and less class powers. But I think combining that with having BIG differing stances to dynamically switch role might be a better idea so that your hero can adjust role to circumstance. I have to defend this NPC right now vs I have to take down the big bad right now vs I have to do minion cleaning right now, I am inspiring allies in my interesting way, who need it right now.

and the obligatory
Argghhhh on this. " I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules"

And thematic differences seemed to have been carried fine.

 

[cbwjm]

5e has a DC chart showing the DC for easy, moderate, difficult checks. It doesn't need a DC by level chart because they don't change based on the players level. A DC 15 check is a DC 15 check no matter if you are level 1 or level 15.

 

[Imaro]

I would have thought the answer to that is obvious - because Elder Scrolls isn't a RPG, and so won't produce a shared fiction and permit engaging the fiction as part of the process of play.

Not an rpg... By whose definition? And yes you can engage the fiction as part of the process of play. Is it limited in how the fiction can be engaged? Yes...but so are some indie roleplaying games

If someone thinks that engaging the fiction in play is at odds with engaging the system, that makes me assume that the only system they are familiar with is AD&D-type combat (to hit vs AC, damage deducted from hp), which is a fiction-independent system.

Eh, not sure what this has to do with anything since I haven't asserted what you are suggesting above...

In the description of the tiers of play (which is found in both the PHB and the DMG). And in the fiction associated with paragon paths and epic destinies.

So it states directly or discusses directly how these tiers (and destinies) should be used to determine DC's? If so again I'll ask where? and if not well...it's not doing anything by mentioning them that 5e isn't doing as well in mentioning them...

5e doesn't have a DC-per-level chart. 4e does.

And? Unless your claim now is that DC selection can only be done via 4e's specific, by level, method... i'm not sure why whether 5e uses level to determine a DC is relevant as long as it provides a methodology. 5e has a DC chart for levels 1-20 and because of bounded accuracy it works. IMO, it's elegant, more streamlined and requires less overhead than 4e's method. And at the end of the day the DM is still deciding on what fiction translates to what difficulty number in both systems.

 

[Parmandur]

5e has a DC chart showing the DC for easy, moderate, difficult checks. It doesn't need a DC by level chart because they don't change based on the players level. A DC 15 check is a DC 15 check no matter if you are level 1 or level 15.

I am not sure how 5E's elegant approach to Skill resolution could be improved with a by-level chart? The flat chart for DCs also applies in combat: 1-30 for everything, mirroring the 20 to -10 spread of AD&D for THAC0.

 

[Jester David]

You might have noticed that the people you are engaging with in this thread are emphasisng non-combat situations.

Yes, I started that discussion.

But I was responding to someone who was brought up Linear Fighters and Quadratic Wizards, which added combat into the discussion,

In my RPGing experience, it's never been too hard to note effectiveness in a variety of situations - roughly, the bonuses on the sheet for non-combat abilities, the availability of salient fiat abiliites (eg spells or magic item effects, in D&D), etc.

It’s not hard to judge at the table and evaluate a charcater, but how do you rate that on a chart?
What are the X and Y axis?

Given that you don't play a game where the system provides the best moments, this can only be empricial conjecture. I'm here to tell you it's false.

How do you know what games I am and have played?

Please, indlulge me. Tell me what games have I played and have experience with.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

They can still "loot" older editions powers/abilities and turn them into 5e feats, subclass features, spells, or something else.

Agreed. Without liking 4E in its entirety, there are a lot of good ideas. Several At Wills I think are great examples and would have been cool to make the Warlock not just an Eldritch Blast spambot (as an example).

OTOH I definitely hated the power sources hard categorization. It's too nerdy, bordering OCD, and fundamentally redundant. But if you really like it, it's easy to add the concept to any edition without imposing it to everyone else.

It could have been cool if you decided to have "power source" conflict or races channeled towards particular power sources, but in general that's not how it worked. Things were mix-and-match and a number of them were real reaches.

 

[Garthanos]

I must admit that it often baffles me when I see complaints about Magic Users being able to "impact" the fiction with their spells what one expects a Fighter to do in a similar situation? If a Magic User casts Fly then does a Fighter get to literally pull themselves up by their boot straps Baron Munchausen style?

Hmmmm

1) the ability to become perfectly immune to ranged attacks perhaps sometimes with some whirring wall of steel move others an instant dodge/leap in reaction it should include spells from range (just as a flyer can be immune to grounded non-ranged combatants) - this immunity might be a stance which gives up ability to attack if the fly spell does the same.
2) parkour like ability to navigate over most terrain without impairment (no difficult terrain mods).
3) jump well lets call it obnoxiously far without triggering attacks of opportunity
3) ability to climb without skill checks and without speed impairment (not as good as flight but its a step).
4) ability to see longer distance perhaps by spending time concentrating and focusing perception in some fashion might also improve ability to see obscured targets.
5) ability to move possibly long distances without becoming fatigued. (kind of just a story thing usually in D&D but if you are talking about in the fiction)

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

5e has a DC chart showing the DC for easy, moderate, difficult checks. It doesn't need a DC by level chart because they don't change based on the players level. A DC 15 check is a DC 15 check no matter if you are level 1 or level 15.

Good point. I was going to say that. The whole point of bounded accuracy is to avoid having to have a DC by level table and DC creep in general. Now I don't think they actually managed to avoid DC creep in some parts of the game but they tried.

 

[dave2008]

Those are fine action declarations. AD&D gives me zero advice on how to adjudicate them. 4e gives very clear advice on how to adjudicate them.

Perhaps you have mistaken for someone else. I was never arguing you couldn't do that in 4e. In fact I spent a lot of time on the WotC boards, and with my players, that you could do that.

5e doesn't have a DC-per-level chart. 4e does.

No and it shouldn't, because the DC is static. It does have the Typical DC's table. In fact Chapter 8 of the DMG, Running the Game, is full of good advice on how to adjudicate the type of actions I was talking about. There are descriptions of saving throws and ability checks and how to use them, the Typical DC table, how to use Ad/DisAd and Inspiration, and the Improvising Damage table (among other things). In fact, you can pretty much run a 5e game with this chapter and the Monster Stats by CR table from Chapter 9. If I understand how to apply checks and saves and I have the DC, Damage, and CR tables, I don't really need anything else. I can wing everything else, very similar to pg 42 in the 4e.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

Here's a question: are champion fighters (clearly modelled on the classic AD&D figher) an option for those who don't want to play "complicated" characters or equally as capable as wizards and other casters of shapeing the flow of play? I find it hard to believe that the answer is both, given the significance of resource expenditure to shaping the flow of play in the standard D&D paradigm.

Yes, absolutely, the Champion or a simpler Rogue build can do a lot. The player doesn't have to focus much on powers and such choices and can focus instead on things like tactical positioning, deciding whether taking an AOO is worth it to block off a foe or exploit some vulnerability, etc.

The "wake me up when there's a fight" is the type of player I was kind of thinking of, but my friend who just doesn't like complicated powers isn't quite that either. He finds choosing among too many options to be highly disengaging and disempowering from the fiction. (This is my interpretation, I doubt he'd use those words himself.) He doesn't want to have to manage a bunch of limited use powers. He just wants to be able to make good basic attacks, think about what his character is doing, where everybody else is, etc. I first met him in the 4E days and often wondered whether he wasn't a very good tactical player. He's plenty smart---he's got an advanced degree and isn't one of those "pity degree" examples---but in 5E that changed and he got much more into the loop of the character. He simply doesn't like thinking about lots of power choices. I get where he's coming from, though. There's only so much attention to go around and if I'm thinking of powers I often don't think about fiction.

 

[MwaO]

5e has a DC chart showing the DC for easy, moderate, difficult checks. It doesn't need a DC by level chart because they don't change based on the players level. A DC 15 check is a DC 15 check no matter if you are level 1 or level 15.

Except oddly enough, level 15 PCs see DC 20 checks as often level 1 PCs see DC 15. And level 15 PCs don't see all that many DC 15 checks, just as level 1 PCs don't see all that many DC 10 checks. Almost as if it would be expected that they'd have a +5 to the skill check for some strange reason? Why is that?