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]

Ritual casting was another great innovation in 4e that I wish 5e had kept. They have it up to a point in that you can take a feat (or use a class feature) to cast rituals from a specific class list but it just ins't the same as what they had in 4e. I've actually thought of just allowing anyone with ritual casting to be able to add any spell to a ritual book. This would also mean that a cleric keeps a libram filled with cleric rituals (which can be added upon gaining access to a new level) and wouldn't have to have the spell prepared. They would also be able to add a ritual off the bard or wizard list.

 

[Manbearcat]

Good point... are there any official 4e Epic adventures where something like the forge example @pemerton gave is a part of an official skill challenge or check? I was glancing through an epic tier adventure from Dungeon called "Those Once Loyal" and the skill challenges and checks I saw seemed pretty mundane (with the epicness seeming to come from the opposition as opposed to the capabilities of the PC's). I've included one below but I have to say none of the suggested uses of skills comes close to sticking one's hands in a searing hot magical forge to help in the creation of an artifact. In fact compared to that the skill uses below (though admittedly having large DC's) seem downright tame to the point of well almost being ordinary uses against bigger things. So I'm hoping someone can provide examples of the types of things being cited here as inherent to 4e epic tier and not just how a particular DM chooses to run their game at epic tier.

I don't read any Adventure Paths or Adventures or anything kindred. The overwhelming majority of them (but not all of them), regardless of D&D edition or system, are examples of the worst sort of GMing possible. They typically preconcieve endpoints in immediate scenarios and long-term campaigns and in-so-doing instruct and/or encourage GMs to deploy Force to achieve outcomes. Further, the writing is typically either terrible for the system or incoherent with the primary themes of the system.

Scenario Packs or premises, sure. Adventures and APs. Absolutely not.

What I do read is the GMing advice/principles and the game's play agenda.

D&D 4e's DMGs are very clear on what Epic Tier is about and what you should be doing as GM:

1) "...characters have truly superheroic capabilities, and their deeds and adventures are the stuff of legend. Ordinary people can hardly dream of such height's of power."

2) Regarding content, the instruction on Epic Tier tells GMs (as it does with Paragon Paths et al) to take cues from the players' Epic Destinies.

Relating to (2), here are a smattering of Epic Utilities that do not have any magic power source keywords (therefore, they aren't "magic-derived" in the D&D technical sense):

- You call on the peace and calm that lives at the heart of the forest, where the Masters of the Verdant Silence meditate.

- You steal a bit of magic to stow away on another creature’s teleportation.

- The shadows seem to follow your every step.

- You leap a phenomenal distance (doubling the earth human's record long or high jump distance).

- Summoning the divine spark within you, you shrug off what might have been a debilitating effect.

- Appearing from nowhere, a winged spirit steed carries you beside your foe.

- You laugh at fate and slip through destiny’s fingers yet again.

- A storm of disaster surrounds you, bringing doom to your foes.

- By folding time and space, you create a rippling area of distortion with unpredictable effects.

- Your word is the call of destiny leading your allies into legend.

- You whisk yourself and all your allies to the astral seed that will one day become your dominion.

- You focus your fragment of the essence of Heur-Ket into a wind that surrounds you, gives your movement flight, and grants windswept strength to your melee attacks.

- When the brimstone smoke clears, a legion of devils awaits your command.

- You force back the legions or your enemy, which allows you to focus your ire on the one you came to slay (zone of destrution and repulsion).

- You have seen your future mapped out in the sky above, and you know you won’t falter now.

- You twist fate as the storms of disjunction coil through the Elemental Chaos.

- For a moment, your mind slips back into memories of a past life, and you adopt a fighting style forged across hundreds of deaths.

- You deftly lay your hand upon the object of your desire and it vanishes, whisked away to the place you determine.

- Two powerful hounds appear, growling thunder at your prey. They start circling it to cut off any escape.


D&D 4e's Epic Tier has been routinely derided by detractors as "Superheroes" because of these things above. Until now I suppose?

Note that 5's level 17-20 Epic Tier advice cribs 4e's (1) exactly, though doesn't follow through as (a) there are no Epic Destinies to take heed of, (b) there are no actual superheroic abilities for martial characters that are non-magic (like the 4e utilities above) to guide content generation/genre tropes, and there is no attendant advice to look to the absent (a) and (b) for content generation. Further still, contrast the second sentence of (1) above with the design impetus (and related impacts on play) of bounded accuracy (which strives to keep low tier obstacles/threats relevant at endgame play).

 

[Garthanos]

Ritual casting was another great innovation in 4e that I wish 5e had kept. They have it up to a point in that you can take a feat (or use a class feature) to cast rituals from a specific class list but it just ins't the same as what they had in 4e. I've actually thought of just allowing anyone with ritual casting to be able to add any spell to a ritual book. This would also mean that a cleric keeps a libram filled with cleric rituals (which can be added upon gaining access to a new level) and wouldn't have to have the spell prepared. They would also be able to add a ritual off the bard or wizard list.

Integrating rituals with costs in terms of petty cash is that really something doable when its in terms of spell slots currently? Sounds like a lot of work / extrapolation with not much starting point.

 

[Garthanos]

Note that 5's level 17-20 Epic Tier advice cribs 4e's (1) exactly, though doesn't follow through as (a) there are no Epic Destinies to take heed of, (b) there are no actual superheroic abilities for martial characters that are non-magic (like the 4e utilities above) to guide content generation/genre tropes, and there is no attendant advice to look to the absent (a) and (b) for content generation. Further still, contrast the second sentence of (2) above with the design impetus (and related impacts on play) of bounded accuracy (which strives to keep low tier obstacles/threats relevant at endgame play).

Makes me sad.

 

[Garthanos]

I don't read any Adventure Paths or Adventures or anything kindred. The overwhelming majority of them (but not all of them), regardless of D&D edition or system, are examples of the worst sort of GMing possible.

I remember deciding they were tacky pointless dungeon crawls back in the day. Not that what i did was genius but it at least built up around what the players goals were.

 

[pemerton]

Are you able to explain how closed scene resolution gives you less room to improvise - eg an example of an action that you might want to declare but can't?

Sure.

First, how much organised play have to engaged in? Living Greyhawk, Living City, Xen'Drick Expeditions, D&D Encounters, Pathfinder Society? How many published adventures have you run? How many convention tournaments have you done? I've done those activities a lot, and there's precious little improvisation in those games. Or even roleplaying at times. Just a lot of chucking of dice.
3e/4e/PF really seemed designed with organised play in mind. Regimented play with little adjudication. But there's virtually zero improvisation in organised/ convention play because that goes against the intent that everyone gets the same adventure run the same way. It's meant to be your skill with the character and tactical savvy that determines your success. How the DM runs the adventure isn't meant to be a variable.

Second, is the option creep.
There are 3271 feats in 4th Edition. And 2783 general/combat/skill/ magic feats in Pathfinder.
You cannot know them all. It's impossible.
If someone wants to do some improvised action... can you be 100% sure that is not a feat? That you're not giving them a "free" feat.
Plus rules. There are lengthy codified rules on every activity. Which not only means there's less room for pure improvisation, but occasionally means you need to stop and look up the official "rule", which slows down play. Easier and faster to just use a power.
Activities like kipping up or kicking a sword into your hand or intimidating someone with a display of sword prowess. Or even using a whip to swing across a gap.

Lastly, there's how codification focuses your attention. Very often players just fixate on their character sheet when confronted by a problem. Especially in 4e with the power cards. Robust codification gives you a big toolbox, which becomes a trap for your attention. You *want* to use all your new tools, you *want* to use the options you invested a feat/power slot in, so you look for solutions using those first.
It's the sunk cost fallacy at work.

This says nothing at all about closed scene resolution and how that gives less room to improvise. Nor does it describe anything that is different about 4e non-combat resolution from 5e non-combat resolution.

The only examples of actiond declarations are "Activities like kipping up or kicking a sword into your hand or intimidating someone with a display of sword prowess. Or even using a whip to swing across a gap." It seems pretty clear to me how these might be adjudicated. I'm not seeing quite how 5e is different in this respect - it has character abilities that involve intimidation through sword prowess, and that involve increasing the number of free interactions with objects, so I'm not sure why 4e is seen to pose some special problem in this respect.

 

[Hussar]

Well here's a list of examples and there usage in another Epic skill challenge from the epic tier adventure "Test of Fire" where both Athletics and Stealth uses are suggested... again in a totally mundane...but with bigger numbers...type of way. I just find it strange that if mythic feats like the one [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] described (shoving one's hands into a furnace to hold an artifact while it is being forged) are the inherent fiction in epic level 4e... well why do the examples in official adventures seem so mundane? It's almost as if it isn't inherent in 4e but instead what pemerton has chosen the fiction to be in his epic level 4e games (which is a great thing but again something that can be done in 5e as well)... I mean when using stealth why aren't the characters commanding the stuff of shadows to cloak themselves? Why when using Athletics do they need to leap from barge to barge or find a narrow point to leap the length of the canal shouldn't an epic warrior with athletics just be able to make a leap across it's entire breadth at even it's widest point?

[sblock]
Skills
Use the following general descriptions as a guideline
for the types of activities the heroes can attempt with
each of this challenge’s primary and secondary skills.
All checks in the challenge are made using an
adventurer’s normal skill check bonuses, as each
check represents the sum of the character’s actions
over an extended period. Powers or magic items that
grant a temporary bonus to a skill check or affect how
a skill is used (including effects such as invisibility)
cannot be used in the challenge.

Primary Skills: Athletics, Bluff, Intimidate,
Stealth.

Athletics: The heroes attempt to avoid trouble
by moving quickly, by scaling walls or buildings to
bypass patrols and guarded intersections, or by jumping
roof to roof to avoid the chaos on the city’s streets.
Athletics also allows characters to cross the city’s
canals by hopping from barge to barge or jumping the
entire breadth of a canal at a narrow point.

Bluff: The adventurers try to keep a low profile amid
the chaos by pretending that they are travelers to the
city, conscripted to military service during the current
crisis and on some errand by order of the city guard.
Intimidate: Fear of the harsh laws of the efreets
keeps the folk of the city in line. By making use of this
universal attitude of “might makes right,” the heroes
can bully their way through potential altercations
with slave troops and guards.

Stealth: The characters blend in with the movement
of the slaves and other non-efreets in the city.

Secondary Skills: Insight, Perception, Streetwise.
All secondary skills in the challenge are made
alongside a primary check. With a successful check,
an adventurer gains a +2 bonus to the primary check.
With a failed check, a character takes a –2 penalty to
the primary check.

Insight: By careful assessment of guards and
other officials, a character can lessen the chance for
confrontation.

Perception: Looking for patterns in the movements
of city patrols gives the heroes a chance to avoid those
patrols.

Streetwise: By picking up snippets of information
overheard in the chaos around them, the adventurers
can adjust their route to avoid trouble.
[/sblock]

4e published adventures were not very good? Really? Let's be honest, the 4e selection of adventures generally ranged from suck to blow. This is hardly news. Even diehard 4e fans, and I'm really not one of them, have to admit that 4e published adventures were not good.

Let's put it in more concrete terms: I played 4E, and my experience of Skill usage was no different than in 5E or in 3.x...

Wow. You had a terrible 4e DM.

I dont have any problem with someone wanting to wrassle Death to bring someone back to life. My problem would be making it equivalent to the Raise Dead ritual where you spend 1000gp on incense, make your Athletics check, spend an hour and done.

Personally I would much rather make a whole adventure of finding a cave that connects with the underworld, get past Cerberus, sail down the Styx and then challenging Death to a wrestling contest.

And, here again, THIS is the problem. The cleric spends some money and a spell slot and poof, problem solved. The fighter wants to do the same thing, and now he has to spend an entire adventure, presumably one where the dead PC's player is warming the pines, faffing about.

While I am a huge 5e fan, I play it regularly, I do recognize that 5e took a huge step backward in this area. There's no actual justification for this, other than tradition.

 

[Parmandur]

Wow. You had a terrible 4e DM.

Yeah, probably: but, innspite of having a robust tool set for DMs, that seems to have been relatively common as an experience. I know from personal experience that any idiot can run 5E without the game breaking, because I've done it.

 

[Jester David]

This says nothing at all about closed scene resolution and how that gives less room to improvise. Nor does it describe anything that is different about 4e non-combat resolution from 5e non-combat resolution.

The only examples of actiond declarations are "Activities like kipping up or kicking a sword into your hand or intimidating someone with a display of sword prowess. Or even using a whip to swing across a gap." It seems pretty clear to me how these might be adjudicated. I'm not seeing quite how 5e is different in this respect - it has character abilities that involve intimidation through sword prowess, and that involve increasing the number of free interactions with objects, so I'm not sure why 4e is seen to pose some special problem in this respect.

I keep saying that this is a problem with 3e/4e/PF and you keep focusing on 4e, trying to turn this into a “vs 4e Edition war”. But this isn’t 2008 and I have zero interest in that kind of discussion...

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, probably: but, innspite of having a robust tool set for DMs, that seems to have been relatively common as an experience. I know from personal experience that any idiot can run 5E without the game breaking, because I've done it.

Oh, hey, I get that. 5e is FAR more accessibly written. And it comes paired with really excellent adventures that take advantage of the best parts of the system. 4e's biggest failure was in how it was presented. Skill Challenges are a fantastic idea, but, the first 4e DMG didn't present them that way at all. Rituals were a fantastic idea that never really went anywhere.

If the DM was coming from a tradition of less traditional games, then 4e made immediate sense and not a problem. But, I think, for DM's who weren't into the more "indie" (if that's the right word) tradition of games, then 4e fell right into that "Uncanny Valley" region that someone here (and I forget who) talks about.

So, for some, the notion that you'd use the skill system and a "fightery" character to produce magical effects makes intuitive sense. These are fantasy heroes and legendary ones at that. Of course they can wrestle death. Of course they can hold a weapon in the forge. So on and so forth. That's what legendary heroes do.

Then, for others, this notion is nonsensical. It means that the world is inconsistent. It tends to rub up against the idea that the mechanics of the game somehow describe the world that the game takes place in. Which means that when you put your hand in fire, you get burned. Unless you have magic. Since a fighter doesn't have magic, the fighter gets burned. If you want to play a character that can put his or her hand in fire, you MUST play an inherently magical character, or gain magic items that will allow you to do so.

My issue with that second way of playing is that it makes the DM very apparent in the game - Oh, look, you just happened to find that thing that lets you do the thing you wanted to do and could do if you had just taken a magic using class. And it makes the DM very much at the forefront of having to decide whether a given action is possible or not. I would prefer, and this is just my preference, that that decision was more taken up by the mechanics rather than relying so heavily on the DM. Relying on the DM is problematic because many of us lack the maths background to make good decisions, particularly in the middle of play.