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.

 

[Greg K]

Apparently they were optional?? I don't remember them being presented that way but maybe in a later book or Dragon article this was explained...

"Allowing PCs access to prestige classes is purely optional and always under the purview of the DM" (3.0 DMG, p.27). I have been told by people that they were, originally, presented as the same in 3.5 as well- at least until mid to late 3.5 at which point it went from went from a) Andy Collins, in Dragon, telling DMs that PrCs were an optional tool for word building and, if including them to be selective to b) his Sibling Rivalry article telling DMs that they should find a reason to a include a given PrC if the player wants it.

 

[Greg K]

Page 27 of PHB "If you just reached 11th or 21st level, you have some exciting decisions to make—you can choose a paragon path or an epic destiny…"

Shortly after 4e's release (or it might have even leading up to the release), and when asked if one could play without them, Mearls had stated, ,one could, but the game is designed with the assumption that you are using them. The implication given was that it would require some house ruling to do so. What would be required to rebalance the game at paragon and epic levels? I personally had no idea and gave up hoping that the designers might address optional rules for doing so.

 

[Imaro]

Shortly after 4e's release (or it might have even leading up to the release), and when asked if one could play without them, Mearls had stated, ,one could, but the game is designed with the assumption that you are using them. The implication given was that it would require some house ruling to do so. What would be required to rebalance the game at paragon and epic levels? I personally had no idea and gave up hoping that the designers might address optional rules for doing so.

And this is exactly what my questioning of the claims that they can just be snatched out is based around...

 

[Aldarc]

Are subclasses optional in 5e?

 

[cbwjm]

Are subclasses optional in 5e?

You could play without which would affect some classes more than others but otherwise they are an assumed part of character creation/levelling. Without subclasses, you end up with empty levels.

 

[MwaO]

Shortly after 4e's release (or it might have even leading up to the release), and when asked if one could play without them, Mearls had stated, ,one could, but the game is designed with the assumption that you are using them. The implication given was that it would require some house ruling to do so. What would be required to rebalance the game at paragon and epic levels? I personally had no idea and gave up hoping that the designers might address optional rules for doing so.

Not particularly hard. They're useful, but not particularly necessary. Simply gaining an extra E7 or lower, U10 or lower, and a D19 or lower from your class is reasonably balanced for a paragon path. For Epic Destiny, just give +2 to two stats at 21st and a free class utility at 26th of 22nd or lower. The two stats could easily be a +1 to hit and to defenses if desired.

That won't be as strong as the most powerful Paragon Paths or Epic Destinies, but each is perfectly serviceable. And you wouldn't even need that really — if no one has them, just weaken things a little. Say -1 to attacks/defenses/damage in Paragon, -2 in Epic.

 

[Shasarak]

And this is exactly what my questioning of the claims that they can just be snatched out is based around...

I think it is based around the fact that you can house rule your game. So of course it is easy to do especially when telling someone how easy it is for them to do it.

 

[Garthanos]

Lol... I was actually thinking Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser but yeah Elric will work as well.

To start you are wrong. Sorcery of the beast lords and elemental lords (just to give an example) is not evil.

It was also something he could do like once an no more do to ancient pacts.

The vast majority of Elrics Enemies seem to be Sorcerors Elric being the protagnist and the Sorceror is him breaking tropes. Elric was considered the ANTI-CONAN he ironically broke tropes by being from a civilized place (not a barbarian) while sort of reinforcing them so is both a good and bad example. Conan had supernal constitution in spite of coming from a slave background and seeks Kingship while Elric begins as an Emperor and loses / throws it all away. (with his cousins help) and has poor health. Tanned and instinctively doing good "sometimes" - Pale albino and having to stretch to learn what good meant?

There are enchantments, minor runes and minor spells as well throughout the stories... Chaos in and of itself isn't evil, what evil act does Elric actually commit in order to use magic?

Sure some inconsequential ones but does the phrase "Blood and Souls for my Lord Arioch" ring any bells? Now perhaps its just pragmatic in the context of battle but...

(mostly I agree with you but you know I think that DnD magic and DnD combat does not really evoke Sword and Sorcery Tropes well at all)

 

[Lanefan]

If you're doing a 'realistic D&D campaign where PCs with martial explanations can't take all powers', one of two things is happening:

What are 'martial explanations'?

Everyone is abiding by a set of self-imposed limitations that are the rough equivalent to what the martials have to deal with. Then things work.
No one is playing martials.

This is reasonably common to see in other editions — if the casters can blow apart the system as they can in not-4e at high levels, then either no one plays high level martials in campaigns, the people who play casters don't blow apart the system, or the entire campaign collapses in a huff when people passive-aggressively decide to leave.

Or the non-casters look for and find ways in which they can still be useful, usually via covering the casters' butts while they blow apart the system.

In any case, Fighter is reasonably easy to do this as some of the best striker focused powers are straightforward martial style powers with no real special effects. Rain of Blows as an example.

Relatively easy to do what? It's unclear what you're referring to here.

 

[Lanefan]

What are the superheroic capabilities of a 17th level fighter in 5e?

First and foremost, the same as the superheroic abilities of a 17th level fighter in all other editions:

- to be able to withstand being hit ten times with an axe, each one of which blows would outright kill a typical innkeeper or farmer;
- to be able to deliver blows faster, harder, and more accurately than any typical army soldier; and to keep doing so long after said soldier's arms would have tired out.

Specific to 5e:

- largely dependent on the feats that have been chosen for that particular fighter, most of which represent what would be superheroic abilities to a commoner.

I can't imagine that even coming up.

A question that makes more sense to me would be what would you do in 4e with a paragon gropu of PCs fighting a pit fiend? And the answer is, to rewrite it as a solo creature: a pit fiend is the sort of foe that can be defeated only if a whole group of paragon characters gives it their all.

This just dodges the question.

Whether or not you can imagine it ever coming up is irrelevant. The question was how you'd handle it if it did come up.

Lan-"were it me, the 1st-level would 99.99% likely die very quickly against a pit fiend; where the other .01% represents dying not quite as quickly"-efan