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.

 

[Hussar]

I was just thinking that it is really funny watching people with hundreds if not thousands of hours of experience with a game struggling to find actual written examples to support their house rules while at the same time wondering why the designers of the game dont understand it.

Funny how those with all that experience aren't disagreeing with each other though. It's almost like the people with lots of experience in a game actually took the time to understand it instead of cherry picking examples from different books in order to try to prove their point.

 

[Parmandur]

What?

1. First off, you don't keep casting while concentrating. So, no, you aren't waving and chanting. You cast the spell and you're done. That's why I can cast other spells while concentrating.

2. How many skill checks am I making? Wouldn't it be a single Stealth check? Or do you seriously force your players to reroll every ongoing skill check every six seconds?

Just how far are you going to reach on this?

Of course, that's ignoring the druid who gives +10 to stealth checks to the entire party for an hour. Yup, it cost a spell slot, but, what can your fighter do that comes even remotely close to that?

If an action takes longer than a minute, I wouldn't say the spell covers the whole task. Might just be me, but seems reasonable.

 

[Sadras]

So this might have nothing to do with the conversation here but anyways...

This weekend we played LotCS (a 5e Next Adventure). SPOILERS
The PCs are 10th level (so I have had to up the difficulty of the module). The PCs had made their way to the Ice Witch's lair in the Sea of Moving Ice. They had decided to bring the Ice Witch's father along, in hope, to assist them in talking down the Ice Witch, that was their primary plan.

I decided to make it a SC rather than a single check, with the SC requiring 7 successes before 3 failures and ultimate failure leading to combat (4 Air Elementals, a highly improved Akar Kessell spell-casting wight, the Ice Witch herself and 4 x Ice Statues). This is something I obviously borrowed from 4e.
The module provided a +4 bonus to persuasion checks if the father was present, which he was, but I decided against that and instead only ruled true failures to be results of 10 or below, with anything above but below the DC being unpersuasive arguments.

Conversation ensued and every time the PCs made a persuasive point I would allow them to make a Persuasion check.
Given that this was one of the lead BBEG in the module, I made the DC 15 (Moderate) or 20 (Hard) depending on how well they had argued the point.

Conversation between the Ice Witch and the PCs was largely informal with banter back and forth with me as DM calling for a check every time it felt like they had made a decent argument. I would only allow a PC to make 2 consecutive arguments before requiring a switch, that way ensuring it was not just one PC with the best CHA stats dominating the encounter.

The party reached 5 successes and 2 failures, before Akar Kessell revealed himself from behind the Frostmaiden statues in an attempt to nullify the party's successes. The debate, now a three way, had the party face both the Ice Witch and the Wight, with the Wight sometimes negating their success*, until the Cleric PC frustrated by the undead's continuous heckling/meddling cried out" I have had enough of you, return from whence you came" and attempted to Turn him. The Diviner PC used 3 Portent and so the Turn was successful having the wight slink back into the shadows behind the Frostmaiden statue. It was 6-2, and without the wight's interference the PCs made one last plea, so I took an average of all PCs persuasion checks which was 16 beating the DC 15 I had set, resulting in a success.

Having successfully talked down the Ice Witch, she slowly levitated downwards into the Alar of Storms (80' tall chamber) and embraced her father. The PCs quickly ushered them out of the vile building and away from the wight, which they thought was a lich.

I didn't have to consult any DC by level charts. It was easier just adjudicating the DC between moderate and hard based on the argument put forward by the PCs. The other way I could have done it was to make the Ice Witch make WIS saves but I preferred that the PCs made the rolls.


*He could not make them fail a check, only attempt to eliminate successes.

 

[MwaO]

I decided to make it a SC rather than a single check, with the SC requiring 7 successes before 3 failures and ultimate failure leading to combat...

Conversation ensued and every time the PCs made a persuasive point I would allow them to make a Persuasion check.
Given that this was one of the lead BBEG in the module, I made the DC 15 (Moderate) or 20 (Hard) depending on how well they had argued the point.

I would only allow a PC to make 2 consecutive arguments before requiring a switch, that way ensuring it was not just one PC with the best CHA stats dominating the encounter.

This is literally the problematic early adventure 4e skill challenge in a nutshell.

Skill challenges should be arranged in such a way that everyone in the party organically participates because they have incentives to do so and no one PC can dominate because there's nothing to dominate.

Sure, the Cha PC might overwhelm Persuasion, but there might only be a benefit from rolling Persuasion twice. Pretend for a second that we're talking about the party talking to a Duke. The Duke will refuse to talk to them unless they entertain him. Anyone who specifically entertains him will be considered too low class to Persuade him. Also, the Vizier is trying to manipulate the Duke. The Duke's wife has taken 'ill' from poisons the Vizier is giving her.

Entertain a Bored Stressed Out Duke: make an Athletics, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, or Performance check. That PC has the DC of all Persuasion checks by them raised by 5. Doing this opens up one Persuasion check.

Duke's Ill Wife: If no entertainment first, party must distract the King and Vizier to allow a healer to look at them. Stealth, Sleight of Hand or Deception check. Upon a successful Medicine check, this then again opens up one Persuasion check.

Something Funny Going On Here: Make an Investigation, Insight, Perception to realize how the Vizier is manipulating the Duke. This then opens up an option for a PC to distract the Vizier while the Cha-PC is making one of the above Persuasion checks.

-------

See the difference? The party has a variety of organic incentives to figure out things. You can even turn parts of this into a full-blown encounter or sets of encounters — maybe the Something Funny Going On Here is a whole game day in and of itself, where the PCs have to track down the maker of the poison, say a high up member of the Thieves' Guild and get them to be willing to confess to the Duke. Who the Vizier is then so distracted by that the Cha-PC gets their chance to talk. Or the Entertain a Duke requires convincing the local Circus to perform in front of the Duke and let one of the PCs be a member of them. Perhaps the local Circus has a problem needing solving? Or the Duke's Doctor needs some rare herb to be obtained before they'll allow the Medicine PC to look at her.

Run them all and the party might need an entire 3 game days to get the climactic scene of confronting the Vizier with his treachery. And even then, he has some twists ready to go, putting the skill challenge in play...

 

[Manbearcat]

I see the white flag of any pretense of this not being about petty edition warring has formally been waved!

That’s my cue to exit stage left. Enjoy the echo chamber.

I’ll start another thread at some point here about mapping my 5e play excerpt onto 4e to examine why smuggling in Trad play principles and procedures into 4e won’t create a fulfilling play experience (for players looking for a Trad experience or players looking for a Go to the Action scene-based experience). Hopefully that will be an interesting conversation about design, procedures, play conversation and how stuff comes together to make one experience vs another. If you’re inclined to be petty and post nonsense, I’d appreciate it if you kept your impulses under control and stayed out of that thread.

 

[Imaro]

I see the white flag of any pretense of this not being about petty edition warring has formally been waved!

That’s my cue to exit stage left. Enjoy the echo chamber.

I’ll start another thread at some point here about mapping my 5e play excerpt onto 4e to examine why smuggling in Trad play principles and procedures into 4e won’t create a fulfilling play experience (for players looking for a Trad experience or players looking for a Go to the Action scene-based experience). Hopefully that will be an interesting conversation about design, procedures, play conversation and how stuff comes together to make one experience vs another. If you’re inclined to be petty and post nonsense, I’d appreciate it if you kept your impulses under control and stayed out of that thread.

Emphasis mine...

This is where I feel like these threads break down... you aren't trying to present a question and determine if your assumptions are correct. You're coming in with an assumption you've already concluded is the correct one and infallible. And of course those who already agree with you of course don't question it and support your use of cherry picked evidence and dismissal of anything that contradicts your already decided premise.

On top of that those who do not agree and actually make the effort to present evidence that doesn't align with your foregone conclusions are labelled haters and are accused of partaking in edition warring (as opposed to just disagreeing with the group think present with a handful of the 4e community) ... then you claim those who disagree are in fact the ones in an echo chamber, really? Honestly it seems you don't really want a multi-faceted discussion you want acquiescence with what you've already decided is the correct conclusion... or perhaps a passive audience to read over your theories on roleplaying while nodding in total agreement... Don;t get me wrong I find your ideas and thoughts interesting but I'm not going to passively agree with everything you post without questioning and looking at alternate evidence and angles, if you want that well... that's what blogs are for,

 

[TwoSix]

I see the white flag of any pretense of this not being about petty edition warring has formally been waved!

That’s my cue to exit stage left. Enjoy the echo chamber.

I’ll start another thread at some point here about mapping my 5e play excerpt onto 4e to examine why smuggling in Trad play principles and procedures into 4e won’t create a fulfilling play experience (for players looking for a Trad experience or players looking for a Go to the Action scene-based experience). Hopefully that will be an interesting conversation about design, procedures, play conversation and how stuff comes together to make one experience vs another. If you’re inclined to be petty and post nonsense, I’d appreciate it if you kept your impulses under control and stayed out of that thread.

Heh. I avoided this thread for a while precisely because I expected it to end up this way and had no desire to get sucked in again.

I look forward to your next thread and some possible hivemind groupthink.

 

[Parmandur]

Emphasis mine...

This is where I feel like these threads break down... you aren't trying to present a question and determine if your assumptions are correct. You're coming in with an assumption you've already concluded is the correct one and infallible. And of course those who already agree with you of course don't question it and support your use of cherry picked evidence and dismissal of anything that contradicts your already decided premise.

On top of that those who do not agree and actually make the effort to present evidence that doesn't align with your foregone conclusions are labelled haters and are accused of partaking in edition warring (as opposed to just disagreeing with the group think present with a handful of the 4e community) ... then you claim those who disagree are in fact the ones in an echo chamber, really? Honestly it seems you don't really want a multi-faceted discussion you want acquiescence with what you've already decided is the correct conclusion... or perhaps a passive audience to read over your theories on roleplaying while nodding in total agreement... Don;t get me wrong I find your ideas and thoughts interesting but I'm not going to passively agree with everything you post without questioning and looking at alternate evidence and angles, if you want that well... that's what blogs are for,

I'm not even sure what ManBearCat is reacting to...? [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] providing an example of how he took SC from 4E and enriched his 5E game is...edition warring...?

 

[Manbearcat]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]

Please do me the courtesy of PMing me with thoughts like that. I was pretty good with things until the snark accelerated wildly, culminating in a participant offering utterly nothing to the conversation buy edition warring snark and then getting fist-bumped for it. I’m out at that point.

Obviously I don’t agree with your encapsulation of things above. I think you mispercieve me as someone who dislikes Trad gaming. That isn’t remotely the case at all (honestly, the bulk of my play is Step in Up in my gaming career and certainly as of late). My primary issue is when people try to fit square pegs in round holes and then blame the geometry of the hole. What I tried to explain above is 4e isn’t fit for purpose for the kind of Step On Up (logistics and exploration-intensive) trad gaming that went down in that 5e excerpt. It doesn’t possess the machinery or the principles for it. It does something different (Go to the Action, scene-based play). My next thread will go into that.

I’m done with this thread. PM me if you’d like, but please don’t quote or mention me here.

 

[Sadras]

This is literally the problematic early adventure 4e skill challenge in a nutshell.

Skill challenges should be arranged in such a way that everyone in the party organically participates because they have incentives to do so and no one PC can dominate because there's nothing to dominate.

...(snip)...

See the difference? The party has a variety of organic incentives to figure out things.
Run them all and the party might need an entire 3 game days to get the climactic scene of confronting the Vizier with his treachery. And even then, he has some twists ready to go, putting the skill challenge in play...

I understand where you're coming from, but the issue I have is your example and my example are completely different. Yours is a 3-day affair, mine is relatively much shorter.

I did not communicate the 2 consecutive check rule to the players, it was handled informally and without their knowledge so in a sense it was organic.
Fortunately (I suppose), they all participated naturally without any min-maxing / meta-thinking based on classes and proficiencies (Battlemaster, Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard and NPC father).

I intended it to be a conversation. I suppose I could have used Athletics (the growing winds summoned by the Ice Witch to intimidate the PCs) as well as Insight, Deception but it never came to that. I admit I'm no expert on SC, particularly the way 4e handles them, but the argument flowed naturally and the persuasion skill seemed like the best fit.

I didn't have a 3 day idea or using a multitude of skills. For me it is easier planning the idea you mentioned for an exploration challenge and I have done so, successfully I think.