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]

So, three ogres: one an elite, one 'standard', and one minion. Sounds fine...until you ask how that 1-h.p. minion possibly managed to survive growing up in a colony of might-makes-right ogres, or how it's lasted this long without suffering the one little scratch or accident that would do the one point damage required to kill it, and so on.

More broadly, if the fiction works in a particular way when PCs are involved then it also has to work the same when the PCs are not around: the 1-hit-point minion has one hit point. Period. Without this the fictional setting and background becomes nothing more than internally-inconsistent - and thus worthless - garbage.

Dont over think it, its mechanics first and then loosely drap a narrative over top. There is no such thing as a colony of minion Ogres, they spontaneous generate at a rate needed for the combat.

 

[cbwjm]

Minions in 4e are only there in relation to the PCs so that they can mow through them. In relation to each other they are just as tough as each other. It's kinda like earlier editions where an or has 1 hit die but the chieftains and champions have more hit points. Those 1 hit die orcs still get mowed through in AD&D by a high level fighter, in 4e the minions model that, it's just that the minions are a bit more of a threat than those old AD&D orcs.

 

[Garthanos]

in 4e the minions model that, it's just that the minions are a bit more of a threat than those old AD&D orcs.

Maybe because they adjust their fighting style using abilities that are easier to pull off instead of swish swish swish swish.

Maybe after a bit of frustration missing they try attacking with less defense and that leaves the openings that get them killed.

Maybe it doesn't matter which of the 5 different things were modelled by armor class and similar by hit points.

Foolish consistency is...

 

[Garthanos]

That baker guy in Fantastic Beasts might beg to differ re the Muggle/Nomaj participation bit...

Plot immunity an plot coupons LOL yes they confer considerable power

 

[Garthanos]

Only after she'd spent a round fighting them and realized a) how pathetic they were and b) that they didn't have any tougher backup in their midst. (just a single tough-enough creature in the batch blew up this ability)

Oh I admit it wasn't the best implemented ability being so disruptable by having that tougher enemy the character had to focus on and part of the reason actually is because its overly limited and should be relative level.... ie faced by opponents N levels lower you can use an extra attack vs. that singular opponent. (perhaps its a move that takes one of his normal 2 attacks to be aware of the openings of the schmucks insert better name for this exploiting weakness ability)

So the level 5 hero gets 2 normal attacks but if a bunch of schmucks 4HD lower and 1 challenging enemy attacks he gets an extra one upto 5 against any that are in reach. Or instead of rolling all that just let him do a form of splash damage if he is successful against one enemy (perhaps even that foe that used to disrupt it ... then he deals x damage to adjacent weaker enemies).And yes there was issues with honestly rolling a ton of attacks.

Point was that it felt like the hero adjusting his fighting style and using what might be a different fighting style or a maneuver that wouldn't work against enemies that were not up to snuff.

While it could make the fighter feel awesome more often than not just didnt get used because of implementation issues.

 

[Garthanos]

They could have implemented minions by giving characters kill shots that only affected characters who were X levels lower than them, allowed simple insight checks to detect that or make it obvious after they get one attack and then given each creature a simple attack which increases there chance to hit but has pitiful damage and something else they can only do targeting only enemies much lower than them (like the fighter ability from 1e - adjusted to work nicer). They could give them an attack of frustration where they sacrifice there normal defense (and give the adversary major damage bonuses)

Things could be made more complex.

But D&D is a always a simplification.

 

[Imaro]

I do not think they have the same concept one is encouraging a story role and encouraging you to think in terms of a goal

People mentioned the idea of the game presenting something to aspire to (brought up with regards to wizard spells they probably never end up getting) sure it has an associated set of benefits but it looks different to me.

Paragon Paths are like being able to pick what kicks in at Name level where as it was bound to your class in 1e. Flavor wise like a mixture of earning a title and getting to marshal troops....

The main difference I see is that one defines your worlds fiction for you and is very much player facing while the other is left open for you to define the fiction associated with it and is (like most things in 5e) an optional tool for a DM who wants it in his campaign. As far as both the mechanical purpose and the narrative they perform the same function.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

its the only area you really need mechanics for... My npcs if they have been around a while have huge amounts of traits and if they are played well tons of value to the PCs

I think I will just say I do find the word "natural" to be an attempt to apply the naturalism fallacy... its hogwash.

Yeah, I'm NOT saying I agree with the full on approach. in 3E I didn't stat out every character fully either and don't now. I frequently didn't use the full on game rules in 3E, which was something that bothered a lot of DMs in the 3E days, making prep overwhelming.

What would be unnatural as anything would be anything sentient NOT fighting with a different pace and method (or getting the same exact results if you prefer) when confronted by an enemy who very quickly demonstrates they are outclassed or whom they outclass.

The use of minions is a better simulation both of the fantasy fiction and it could be seen as factoring in the above in effect being less of a simplification which all D&D combat is(than having enemies fight the same way no matter who they are challenged by) they simulate both adversaries adjusting their fighting style based on the opponent's ability.[/quote]

I think you're going to two different places here. One is in the game world where ogres become minions when the foes start outclassing them. This seems ludicrous to me.

Out of fiction, that's purely arguing that "well these guys are outclassed and their fictional function is supposed to mostly be there to die quickly, so why represent them with much detail?" That's situational abstraction.

I agree with that, and I'm not sure why you keep thinking that me explicating a particular viewpoint is advocating it or saying that I do it or thing everyone else should.

I use abstraction, although I use it more sparingly than what I think the full on 4E style would. For instance, what I do use often is abstraction for foes that are off-screen, such as a ballista crew or a pack of archers who are otherwise mostly off-screen. What I don't do is jump up monsters that have a particular power level without pretty clear and obvious changes and even then I don't do it much. Nor would I generally make a swarm of vrock demons.

I repeat referring to a particular model as "natural" because you are used to it and that seems the only real excuse is silly.

You mean the naturalistic fallacy, I assume? I'm not suing "naturalism" here to refer to it as being "natural". The word "natural" has several not completely consistent meanings.

I repeat again that I'm not actually arguing that anyone fully does this or should. Any of these things taken to an extreme is likely to be problematic. The spirit of 3E was highly naturalistic (or simulationist if you'd rather). 4E was very much a reaction against that and pretty much went the opposite direction, especially in its early days.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

The main difference I see is that one defines your worlds fiction for you and is very much player facing while the other is left open for you to define the fiction associated with it and is (like most things in 5e) an optional tool for a DM who wants it in his campaign. As far as both the mechanical purpose and the narrative they perform the same function.

I think that's a good insight. 4E was a highly player-facing design. Things that didn't face the players were, by and large, left out. Furthermore, the design shifted focus pretty radically up the tiers, hence techniques like minionization, where the same monster (that poor ogre we keep bringing up) has different stats depending on the use in the fiction. The naturalism approach I've been explicating (not advocating!) generally comes at things from the opposite direction. The rules and stats provide a basic consistent (if illogical and often goofy) world while the other focuses on the fiction and shifts the tools to suit it, hoping to keep the action high, presumably.

Neither approach is wrong but if you're more inclined towards naturalism, the 4E player-facing approach is... a big shift. I really disliked DMing it and I often felt as a player that I was guessing whether a monster was a minion or not, which was very meta thinking.

 

[Garthanos]

2. Have a number of power slots of each kind, and be able to use powers multiple times, instead of being only able to use that Encounter power once per encounter. Let me use it twice if I have 2 encounter powers, for the love of butts!

They were guarding against their own zingers... "most of the time its entirely safe to just allow it" - but designers occasionally throw in things which work ummm too well or have really nice flavor and work too poorly (becoming a trap)