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.

 

[Shasarak]

Not buying it for the vast majority. You have rules in place that govern the terrain impairment, opportunity attacks and climbing being slower etc etc. and it generally takes more than an ability check to change that. And the flyer avoids most all those things. without any rolls because of his plot coupon.

Climbing is a little bit difficult in that Thieves basically have a percentage chance to climb so if we give a Fighter a climbing skill then we would have to give the Thief something to make up for losing their thing. Maybe they just get a flat bonus on top of their stat check.

I dont know that we need to do anything about opportunity attacks. If you want to climb then you take opportunity attacks because you are not fighting the same as if you cast then you take opportunity attacks because you are not fighting. Fighters at least will have both the AC and Hp to deal with opportunity attacks

Well for one he might not be able to make ranged attacks while doing it.(and possibly the round after for that trance like focus )

He might be spending a hit die/healing surge to simulate extreme fatigue or pulling muscles on that super leap to get out of the way of the ranged attack spell. (this might be one expenditure for the stance duration - if he was actually attacked by a ranged opponent)

Another possibility by focusing on ranged defense - you might grant advantage to melee attackers. - might even only give disadvantage to ranged opponents but that is weaker than flight.

If one is comparing to a flier is giving up his ability to attack entirely then the fighter might be in so defense focused mode unable to attack in effect he is using his attack action to put up that wall of steel or to make a surging leap.

I have a character that can turn into a raven in raven form he cannot really attack but he can fly all day that way and it also acts as a superb disguise.

And the melee combatant might need to be able to confer many of these advantages on an adjacent ally as flight spells often allow it. (throwing them from an area of effect guiding them over difficult terrain with no loss of speed etc)

Additional mostly flavor things.
For the paladin/oath bound hero he would have an oath against making ranged attacks. And i suspect most melee oriented fighter might not have great ranged attacks anyway. So they are giving up a non-favored attack like a mage giving up melee attacks.

If we take all of these abilities which over lap a lot of the Thief and Monk abilities, I suggest decreasing HD to a d6 but keeping the same Fighter Atk, Saves, Weapons and Armour.

Of course since this is not talking about balancing against specific flight ability.

How can we balance the Fly spell when the Fighter gets a Griffin mount? All the benefits of Fly plus extra attacks and it only costs gold and can be used the whole day.

 

[Shasarak]

(1) In 5e the hit points and damage output of that opponent will grow. There's a hp/damage-by-level table (well actually a pair of them - the CR table together with the encounter difficulty table).

(2) The reason, in the fiction, that the AC of that enemy grows is because s/he is tougher - her armour is more mythical, her prowess greater, etc. (Ie stuff that, in 5e, is expressed only by growing hp is, in 4e, expressed both by growing hp and growing defences.)

I have never been so disappointed after fighting a particularly tough Hobgoblin Shaman to find out that he had completely mundane equipment boosted by his +X level and the lightning that he had been shooting at us from his staff was just his normal monster encounter powers and nothing to do with the non-magical staff he was wielding.

Worst Looting Ever!

 

[Garthanos]

Yup, don’t need hundreds of comments to tell me this whole post is a bad idea.

Way too wise of you

 

[Garthanos]

I have never been so disappointed after fighting a particularly tough Hobgoblin Shaman to find out that he had completely mundane equipment boosted by his +X level and the lightning that he had been shooting at us from his staff was just his normal monster encounter powers and nothing to do with the non-magical staff he was wielding.

Worst Looting Ever!

Actually if you had participated in the weekly hobgoblin virgin and first born sacrifice you too could fire some lightning bolts with it.

 

[Garthanos]

If we take all of these abilities which over lap a lot of the Thief and Monk abilities, I suggest decreasing HD to a d6 but keeping the same Fighter Atk, Saves, Weapons and Armour.

Warriors have high hit die to deal with being attacked far more
trying to defend the other guys according to Gygax... not because they
are flat footed sods in comparison to one spell. you think giving them
a single spell power is worth so much LOL see that proves the point
the wizard does it all without failure inspite of that being a ridiculous
mismatch for the flavor description of spell casting. The mechanics
were a horrible mismatch for the flavor.

And who said the ideas were just for fighters? These are martial abilities

A Paladin could have an ability to crash with his mount through enemy squares
without taking opportunity attacks and maybe even in epic punch holes in castle walls
protrayed with a glowing aura of divine energy instead of paltry low level priest magics.

You might have a Fighter w/ horsemanship aka Knight Cavelier to do the moving through enemy lines trick with nigh impossible mount control.

The Monk can definitely do the missile management and in flavor if you go with the damage dealer style might use deflection thing to harm adjacent enemies or have a once in a while roll well and catch and throw physical ones back. Are your monks jealous of the fighters sword and armor when he can do it without LoL.

The thief stole ability the original fighter had in the first place giving some back
and make him less lame in his own way he needs more battle field control abilities like hamstring enemies as he runs past them slowing a whole bunch and doing small damage and similar things to suit his style --- I think the rogue being big damage dealer wasnt the best design idea.

High level magic users in 1e also had just as good of armor class *Bracers of defense) as the fighters did after a certain level they only have slightly less in 4e. Rather like the spell armor in 3e.

How can we balance the Fly spell when the Fighter gets a Griffin mount? All the benefits of Fly plus extra attacks and it only costs gold and can be used the whole day.

The flight ritual should by that time only cost gold (and be used the whole day) dont you think
Addition that sounds like it might be around when the Wizard can become a Griffon? and suddenly able to do both flying and zoom into close range for nasty Melee?

Yes I am sure he will be jealous of the fighter or monk or whoever doing parkour and climbing the wall at running speed when he can teleport across the continent...

All of those abilities were just to keep minor parity with one bloody underestimated spell. And the abilities still do not match the fly spell they just get close

Mobility does not change one being a defender or striker or controller or buffer/debuffer - being mostly frontline for a defender and some striker vs being mostly second row for ranged controllers and some ranged strikers affects hit points.

 

[pemerton]

I think the rogue being big damage dealer wasnt the best design idea.

Agreed. But one can see how it unfolded:

(1) Killing things (in the fiction) means (in the mechanics) depleting hit points down to zero.

(2) Everyone knows that assassins can kill things with a single blow from the shadows.

(3) Therefore, stealthy-types need a damage bonus when they attack from the shadows.

(4) To be more playable, stealthy-types need their "attack from the shadows damage bonus" to be a bit more broadly applicable - hence its modern incarnation in sneak attack.

(5) Now its thieves and not fighters who are the big damage dealers, because everyone knows a flighty rapier-wielder is more threatening on the battlefield then an armoured knight with a sword!​

In my main 4e game we didn't have a rogue, and the martial striker was an archer ranger, so this particular oddity didn't come up - there is no particular cognitive dissonance in the archer unleashing deadly shots, while the fighter thrusts and parries and occasionally is parried by his enemies.

In my Dark Sun game, which is currently on hold while one of the players does a major (multi-year) renovation on his house, there is a rogue and a monk as well as a battlemind and a barbarian/warden, so it will be interesting to see if the striker/defender distinction creates any dissonance.

 

[Garthanos]

I dont know that we need to do anything about opportunity attacks.

It is an ability the Flier generally has they can fly over the battle to locations beyond many enemies without ever provoking and opportunity attack while
that spell is doing its thing.

The fighter while whirling his wall of steel might actually make a good target to nearby guys and make him better at defending allies by becoming tempting (perhaps the wall of steel does minor damage to melee enemies when they attack him) - stylistically different than the monk deflecting the ranged enemy attacks and letting the fighter do his cuisinart ability.

The Knight crashes through the front row might be doing so to engage a big enemy without digging through the row of Pawns

My Cu Cuhlaine mention earlier with the Salmon leap trick does a jump move through enemy lines with nice celtic flavor.

I was specifically targeting that one spell with my examples not just anything
with "impact" so I didnt make as broad of answer as I could have,

 

[Garthanos]

Agreed. But one can see how it unfolded:

(1) Killing things (in the fiction) means (in the mechanics) depleting hit points down to zero.

(2) Everyone knows that assassins can kill things with a single blow from the shadows.

(3) Therefore, stealthy-types need a damage bonus when they attack from the shadows.

(4) To be more playable, stealthy-types need their "attack from the shadows damage bonus" to be a bit more broadly applicable - hence its modern incarnation in sneak attack.

(5) Now its thieves and not fighters who are the big damage dealers, because everyone knows a flighty rapier-wielder is more threatening on the battlefield then an armoured knight with a sword!​

In my main 4e game we didn't have a rogue, and the martial striker was an archer ranger, so this particular oddity didn't come up - there is no particular cognitive dissonance in the archer unleashing deadly shots, while the fighter thrusts and parries and occasionally is parried by his enemies.

In my Dark Sun game, which is currently on hold while one of the players does a major (multi-year) renovation on his house, there is a rogue and a monk as well as a battlemind and a barbarian/warden, so it will be interesting to see if the striker/defender distinction creates any dissonance.

Yes I know the process just think the occasional damage spike could be less central with martial control via various tricks becoming the primary thief schtick

In 4e a controller thief with those spikes for secondary striker ability would have rocked and given 2 controllers in the players handbook. And generated more thinking about how controllers work. And coincidentally a full role compliment for martial.

To be honest it would feel more like 1e thief without being lame.

Caltrops could create a location around the enemy with minor damage when someone moved through unless someone with skill in there use was inducing those in the terrain to not pay attention it could lock them down if they only took damage while moving through them too carelessly... they could avoid the damage entirely by shifting unless they were shifting to avoid an enemy adjacent.

The above might be available via a feat - ie trained Caltrop use is about controlling enemy position.
Useful for discouraging their movement lump them together as targets of other area of effects
and encourage allied melee combatants to be next to the caltrop field.

 

[Garthanos]

Have you played Elder Scrolls Online? I'm asking because I'm wondering what basis you have for claiming the in-game fiction is irrelevant when playing it?

Saving the Faerie queen and becoming her champion totally rocked ... the story was definitely there.

Arguably the biggest problem might be seen as inflexible fiction.

 

[cbwjm]

Yes your skill at fighting somehow doesnt decrease the chance of you being hit by stupid goblin.... you are prevented from that by magical forces apparently and it didnt make sense in 1e doesn't make sense in 5e.

Didn't make sense in 4e either since those goblins you fought at level 1 increase become level 10 when you reach level 10. You might be able to fight and kill more of them (thanks to the minion rules) but their chances to hit you remained largely the same.