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.

 

[Manbearcat]

Premise: Epic level play in D&D has a Martial/Spellcaster imbalance, PARTICULARLY in non-combatant resolution (overcoming obstacles and resolving conflicts that don’t involve HP ablation).

Response: Not true because the overwhelming bulk of table play doesn’t reach Epic level and the data about that non-Epic play supports there not being a problem at Epic level.

What?

 

[Parmandur]

I take it you've never seen a Variant Human 5e Bard with the Alert feat+16 Dex+Jack of All Trades(so +8 or 9 initiative) with a Bardic Instrument throw down Hypnotic Pattern in every combat and watched every encounter basically auto-fail their saving throws? Because I've sat down at a table where that happened. Or a 9th level caster using Command or Hold Person to make an entire combat unable to act for a round?

At 5th level, that can't happen consistently enough. At 10th level, it starts to do that all the time unless the DM throws in specialized encounters designed to stop it. And the presence of the Fighter doesn't really change. They really just do damage and the DM doesn't have to structure the combats around what they might do. But another problem that shows up here is that the most efficient way to stop casters from blowing up enemies is to spread them out. And that then makes things really difficult for the melee Fighter unable to reach targets.

Why doesn't WotC data show this? Because the majority of games in every edition of D&D stop right around 10th. That's not a coincidence...

I'm not saying it isn't a theoretical issue; I've just never seen anybody take it seriously IRL when I explained the online controversy, nor have I seen any cheese mostly like you describe. My personal experience in play is that spell-casters comically fall on their faces constantly, while Champions and Monks are unstoppable death machines.

 

[Parmandur]

Premise: Epic level play in D&D has a Martial/Spellcaster imbalance, PARTICULARLY in non-combatant resolution (overcoming obstacles and resolving conflicts that don’t involve HP ablation).

Response: Not true because the overwhelming bulk of table play doesn’t reach Epic level and the data about that non-Epic play supports there not being a problem at Epic level.

What?

Premise: Epic level play in D&D has a theoretically unfun martial/spellcaster imbalance

Practical Experience: Everyone I know who plays martial characters doesn't feel that they are playing imbalanced or unfun characters.

What the WOtC designers have spoken of is *narrative balance* between Classes. In 5E, in actual play, everyone has their time to shine. The Wizard will always be flashier, because he is a Wizard. Doesn't stop the whirrling Cusinart of murder that is the Champion having fun.

For practical purposes, refer to Grog Strongjaw, entirely non-magical and nigh-mythic force of death.

 

[MwaO]

I have literally zero interest in actually discussing the actual 4e fighters. Been there. Done that. Never caused anything but stress and Edition Warring.
My 4e books are all boxed up and stored, and I have no intentions of pulling them out to discuss features or individual powers/ builds.

I’m discussing a theoretical 4e fighter that could have been, and how the design might have worked.

Your theoretical 4e fighter isn't theoretical.

The 5e wizard is not quadratic, being solved by not letting their spells automatically increase in power.

Spells increase either in power and/or targets. That's quadratic. Making mass targets helpless or lose actions is much more powerful than against single targets. And there are a number of single target damage spells that can do crazy damage — Animate Object on 10 daggers as an example.

Also... bring below level 11 is literally half the levels. And three-quarters of campaigns... if not more, given the acceleration of levelling after L10. So if it’s solves at levels <11, then it pretty much is solved.

Games don't end because people are still having fun. They end because they stopped being fun. When most games end <11th, ought to tell you that something broke before 11th...

 

[Parmandur]

Your theoretical 4e fighter isn't theoretical.



Spells increase either in power and/or targets. That's quadratic. Making mass targets helpless or lose actions is much more powerful than against single targets. And there are a number of single target damage spells that can do crazy damage — Animate Object on 10 daggers as an example.



Games don't end because people are still having fun. They end because they stopped being fun. When most games end <11th, ought to tell you that something broke before 11th...

What WotC found was that campaigns aren't ended for in-game reasons, but real life rhythms: everyone leaves the campus for the Summer, and only 4 out of 6 people want to keep going in the new school year and the DM had an idea for a new campaign anyways, or half the group moves for work reasons and a new game needs to get organized. It's not that the game isn't fun as it goes on, it's that most people can't sustain a campaign that long.

 

[Alzrius]

Mearls answered this question on Twitter, describing at length how the D&D 4th edition he wanted to make differed from the one which was actually published back in 2008.

Morrus, can you update this link to the actual thread? Right now it just goes to Mike's Twitter page, and I can't find the quoted passages there.

 

[Jester David]

I've literally never been able to get the concept of LF,QW across to anybody outside of these forums: I don't know anybody in real life who thinks there is an imbalance between Fighters and Wizards, or sees it as an issue if discussed. It's a forumite concern, not so much at tables, in my experience and according to WotC data.

I love 3e. I adored that edition so much I bought it three times.
But LF;QW were an issue after mid levels. Even after level 9 or 10 the casters began to pull away from martials, being almost twice as powerful.

The issue was partly the additive number of spells, as low level spells increased dramatically. Which was aggravated by magical items that could boost ability scores, granting even more low level spells, and cheap magic items like pearls of power that could do the same.
Adding to this was that low level spells increased in power. Each level, the fireball spell gained an extra d6 in damage.
So while regardless of level, a caster could cast their most powerful spell a couple times a day (a linear power curve) their existing powers also got better, and the difference in power level between spells also increased (making it a quadratic power curve).

 

[Jester David]

Your theoretical 4e fighter isn't theoretical.

Can you point to the book where either my or Mike Mearl's fighter is published. I think I'd remember writing that book.

Spells increase either in power and/or targets. That's quadratic.

No… that's linear. That's why it's a linear *growth*.

See my above post for why wizards were quadratic.

Games don't end because people are still having fun. They end because they stopped being fun. When most games end <11th, ought to tell you that something broke before 11th...

As Parmandur points out, that's just inaccurate.
Campaigns end because the story ends, the players want to try something new, the group falls apart, the published adventure ends, the party TPKs, or life gets in the way.

Even in 4e, which was ostensibly more balanced, few people ran level 1 to 30 campaigns. There was a reason WotC never did an epic DMG or MM. They had pretty good ideas of the level ranges of games (due to the builder) and even in 2010 and 2011 they were focusing on the Heroic Tier.

 

[Parmandur]

I love 3e. I adored that edition so much I bought it three times.
But LF;QW were an issue after mid levels. Even after level 9 or 10 the casters began to pull away from martials, being almost twice as powerful.

The issue was partly the additive number of spells, as low level spells increased dramatically. Which was aggravated by magical items that could boost ability scores, granting even more low level spells, and cheap magic items like pearls of power that could do the same.
Adding to this was that low level spells increased in power. Each level, the fireball spell gained an extra d6 in damage.
So while regardless of level, a caster could cast their most powerful spell a couple times a day (a linear power curve) their existing powers also got better, and the difference in power level between spells also increased (making it a quadratic power curve).

I should qualify that most of the people I know who play, started with 5E. My 3E/4E experience makes me a crunchy Grognard now?

None of my 3E experience got to that point, because we would leave campus every Summer and essentially start a new game each academic year...

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

So he did want to make a D&D version of Iron Heroes.