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...

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.
 

pemerton

Legend
The game is intended to be played with a human adjudicator who crafts challenges to help his party members get their respective chances to shine. That human element is key to the who game.
I would say that most RPGs I play are intended to be played with a human adjudicator who will craft challenges that speak to the thematic concerns the players bring to the game via their PCs. The PCs' mechanical abilities are generally something for the player to worry about, not the referee.

If the human element as you describe it, ie as including an obligation on the GM to help the players/PCs get their respective chances to shine in mechanical terms - which is what I am taking you to mean, given this is a discussion about the role of anti-magic zones, spellbook theft, etc - then while it may be key to 5e it is not key to 4e. Nor is it key to AD&D as I have GMed that system in the past.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Question: do you ever run Diviners against the party?

Still don't like this sort of retcon-giving ability in any form.

Legendary Creatures have Legendary Actions and Lair Actions (if fought in their lair) that are Diviner's Portent +.

Example:

Legendary Resistance (3/Day): If the <legendary creature> fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.

So, no...no Diviners thematically, but a codified amped version of Diviner's Portent = yes.

Most Legendary and Lair Actions are more interesting than that (but I wish the design space was more robustly used and trickled down to lesser creatures).

The design of Background Traits, Legendary and Lair Actions, and Diviner's Portent are the parts of 5e design that stand out to me as "job well done".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
OTTOMH: Harry Potter, Star Wars, Willow, Discworld, Earthsea, Conan (at least the movies), the Sorcerer's Apprentice tale, there are others I read back in the day whose titles I have forgotten. Any source where magic is the result of demon/outsider compact.

The Wizard of Earthsea was a prodigy and yet really messed things up... with big story impacting implications its a very good example I think.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
OTTOMH: Harry Potter, Star Wars, Willow, Discworld, Earthsea, Conan (at least the movies), the Sorcerer's Apprentice tale, there are others I read back in the day whose titles I have forgotten. Any source where magic is the result of demon/outsider compact.

Some of those I dont recognise but, Harry Potter? Their spells never fail and are also ridiculously easy to cast. Star Wars? When did a force power ever not succeed and Darth Vader hilariously fail to force choke someone. Discworld? The only Wizzard that cant cast is Rincewind but that is the whole point of the character carrying around one of the worlds most powerful spells. Conan? Just finished the Tower of the Elephant and there were no miscast spells in that.

Mythologically, magic is usually an act of a God, not a wizard. When it is a wizard, its usually not combat magic, but either complicated ritual, artifice, or slow. Consider Merlin (mythology? probably close enough) all deception, divination, artifice, and compacts (depending on the source you're looking at). D&D wizards more resemble some strange superhero with a really oddly-specific set of powers than they do the typical wizards of myth and legend. (Although source material varies widely, some wizard-y culture heroes do some pretty wild stuff.)

Mythological nearly everyone has magic whether it be creatures like elves, goblins or leprechauns or humans like Morganth or Circe.

Turn it around. How many non- and pre- D&D sources have wizards regularly casting multiple varied complex spells on a given day, particularly combat magic? I see a lot of shapeshifting in myth and legend, a bunch of divination, some artifice, loads of deception/illusion, conjuration even, but not a lot of fireballs and lightning bolts. (Of course, there is also the problem of prophets etc bringing massive events like plagues and the like that are un-balanced or nonsensical for dungeon-crawling.) Generally speaking, the wizarding business doesn't seem to be about fighting. I'm not honestly sure about the timing, but I've seen others argue that this wizard-as-artillery thing is a modern (for a very broad use of modern) invention that coincides with the advent of gunpowder in warfare, particularly artillery.

From your list Harry Potter, Star Wars and Discworld.

From Appendix N we have Michael Moorcock, Fritz Lieber, JRR Tolkien and Jack Vance

Dunno why. I mean, if magic has to be reliable...what the heck are saving throws?

Saving Throws are your chance to avoid your fate.
 


Shasarak

Banned
Banned
I'm sure people will decry this for bad scenario design, not "spotlighting the martial PCs", or not being adversarial enough against the caster PC, but I obviously disagree. This is exactly the sort of scenario that should be playing out in an Epic Tier game. All kinds of asymmetrical/multi-axis problems that, unfortunately as the system is constructed and as orthodox GMing dictates (orthodox insofar as the dictates of the regular GM of that game...which comports with the spirit of GMs I see on this board), martial characters struggle to deal with.

So Martial characters were at disadvantage on their attacks and ability checks and you wonder why they were struggling?
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I would say that most RPGs I play are intended to be played with a human adjudicator who will craft challenges that speak to the thematic concerns the players bring to the game via their PCs. The PCs' mechanical abilities are generally something for the player to worry about, not the referee.

If the human element as you describe it, ie as including an obligation on the GM to help the players/PCs get their respective chances to shine in mechanical terms - which is what I am taking you to mean, given this is a discussion about the role of anti-magic zones, spellbook theft, etc - then while it may be key to 5e it is not key to 4e. Nor is it key to AD&D as I have GMed that system in the past.

The DM provides the scenario: if the scenario is designed to let a Fiviner shin when there is no Diviner in the party, that would be odd.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Legendary Creatures have Legendary Actions and Lair Actions (if fought in their lair) that are Diviner's Portent +.

Example:

Legendary Resistance (3/Day): If the <legendary creature> fails a saving throw, it can choose to succeed instead.
Just as bad, IMO. :)

So, no...no Diviners thematically, but a codified amped version of Diviner's Portent = yes.

Most Legendary and Lair Actions are more interesting than that (but I wish the design space was more robustly used and trickled down to lesser creatures).

The design of Background Traits, Legendary and Lair Actions, and Diviner's Portent are the parts of 5e design that stand out to me as "job well done".
Backgrounds are fine, the ideas of legendary and lair actions are fine in principle except where they force or allow retcons, and divine portent is bad because it allows retcons.

So, obviously we disagree about the place and-or value of retconned rolls in the game. :)
 

So Martial characters were at disadvantage on their attacks and ability checks and you wonder why they were struggling?

That is your well-considered takeaway from the play report above?

That is your genuine, objective analysis? Its this sort of stuff that utterly kills conversation on these boards and has driven away so many excellent posters (who are more interested in exploring and evaluating game design than point-scoring) over the last several years.

Ok, I'll do the analysis for you.

How about:

1) The Fighter didn't have Disadvantage on anything because the Diviner made it so (he would have had Advantage on everything because of Foresight, and did at the end). The Fighter failed on his Athletics check to destroy The Time Reaper without Disadvantage.

2) All 3 of the Rogue's consequential contributions to changing the gamestate worked; the 1st because of the Diviner's ability made it so through his 1st use of Portent, the 2nd because he succeeded on both of his Thievery rolls, the 3rd because the Diviner used his 3rd use of Portent.

3) Amusingly, only the Wizard's Arcana ultimately failed due to Disadvantage (where he didn't want to spend Portent on it (he attempt to start the second hoverpod for the Fighter). But no matter...just uplevel Fly).

4) Overall, the character most impacted by Disadvantage (from The Time Reaper) and Advantage (Magic Resistance on all of the Grays) in this scenario was easily the Wizard; the Arcana above, all 3 usages of Portent spent to offset it (that wouldn't be available for the showdown with The Harvester with its Lair Actions), and 2-3 saving throws that would have failed on the Mass Suggestion were instead made successful due to Advantage.

Despite that (and in part because of it as he turned both of the Rogue's failures into successes because the Rogue didn't have any means to deal with the Disadvantage problem)...the Diviner UTTERLY_DOMINATED the overall gamestate change of the session. And still had way more than enough resources available for the "boss fight."

@Lanefan

Just saw your post. Yup. Given your tastes, it makes sense that Portent and things like Legendary Resistance wouldn't be your cup of tea.
 

Ratskinner

Adventurer
Some of those I dont recognise but, Harry Potter? Their spells never fail and are also ridiculously easy to cast. Star Wars? When did a force power ever not succeed and Darth Vader hilariously fail to force choke someone. Discworld? The only Wizzard that cant cast is Rincewind but that is the whole point of the character carrying around one of the worlds most powerful spells. Conan? Just finished the Tower of the Elephant and there were no miscast spells in that.

Ron Weasley, Neville Longbottom (especially their freshmen and sophomore years) and the fact that there is a well-used nurse's ward in Hogwarts would argue with your "never fail" appraisal of magic in Harry Potter. Many full-fledged wizards can't successfully cast the Patronus charm and other magics, potions class was regularly depicted as a circus of failure. (Although I agree that the spells are often depicted as simple and swift actions, especially in the movies.) And that's not to count the number of spells that simply miss their intended targets.

Several Jedi fail at the Suggestion ability or have it go sideways. Luke also fails to levitate the X-Wing. There is the general failure of the Jedi Prescient ability to detect the Sith or a planetfull of clones being trained into an army. Luke tries to summon Ben at the end of Empire (at least in some edits), but then turns to Leia when that fails.

The Discworld Wizards demonstrate laughably (it is a comedy after all) inconsistent magic. So much so that they avoid trying to use it whenever possible. The Librarian is a fine example, or perhaps I should just say "Ook". One of the wizards in Lost Continent "loses control" of a fireball. Its unclear whether BS Johnson was using magic or just unearthly engineering.

The consequences of a miscast (or perhaps poorly conceived) spell and the are the central thread of the plot in the Earthsea trilogy.

Mythological nearly everyone has magic whether it be creatures like elves, goblins or leprechauns or humans like Morganth or Circe.

I was restricting myself to human casters. Although I suppose one might look at Elves, given D&D. Then again, elves are quite varied in their depiction in legend ranging quite aways from the D&D depiction. Morgan and Circe do some shapeshifting, artifice, and illusion, but I don't recall anything similar to D&D combat casting.

From your list Harry Potter, Star Wars and Discworld.

Erm, those aren't exactly pre-D&D, and I disagree with your assessment.

From Appendix N we have Michael Moorcock, Fritz Lieber, JRR Tolkien and Jack Vance

I'm fine with Vance, couldn't say for Lieber or Moorcock. Tolkien, though? Its unclear whether any mortal "casters" exist. (Although certainly there are mortal artificers and craftsmen that can access some kind of magic, and its unclear exactly what counts as canon or not.) Nonetheless, these sources are "modern" in the sense that they come after artillery was a common experience.

Personally, I just can't see how having some sort of Casting Check to use a spell would break D&D any more than having a Fighter make an Attack Roll or a Rogue make a skill check does, with added benefit that we could look at dropping Vancian casting. I certainly don't see how it would somehow make D&D inconsistent with fantasy literature (outside of Vance, perhaps) or unfantastic.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top