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.

 

[Garthanos]

Admittedly this didn't come online until late heroic, and then really took off in paragon - maybe that's the point I'm missing.

It was definitely @Tony Vargas point of view with Martial Controllers or atleast the polearm build one.

I am looking at medium range Warlord style enemy manipulating martial controller.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I fall into the camp which says "A martial controller IS a defender!" At least there's so little light between these that it makes more sense to call them defenders. "Battlefield Control" has always traditionally (in terms of the understanding of tactics which, say, the US Army would understand) been a function of longer ranged and more individually powerful weapons, for the most part. A machine gun is just not the same as a rifle, it does different things and fills a different role in combat. If you give a rifleman an automatic weapon, he's still not the same as that machine gun. He might sometimes be able to achieve the same effects, but its still 2 roles.

For fighter-type martial controllers, I agree. For rogue-type martial controllers, you’ve got more of a blaster controller, and I think there is room for a scientist/engineer controller, and a leader-ish controller.

It was definitely @Tony Vargas point of view with Martial Controllers or atleast the polearm build one.

I am looking at medium range Warlord style enemy manipulating martial controller.

Dagger thrower rogues could get pretty close to damage based controller, which isn’t as strong as effect based control, but is still control in the 4e paradigm.

 

[Garthanos]

Dagger thrower rogues could get pretty close to damage based controller, which isn’t as strong as effect based control, but is still control in the 4e paradigm.

My Rogue runs past a group of bad guys all enemies adjacent to the rogue during this move take (small amount of damage) and are slowed as he hamstrings them in passing. His armor class vs opp attacks as he does this is at a major bonus unless he ends the move next to the enemy or perhaps they do not get an opportunity attack unless he ends his move next to them.

I think that mechanically if you start thinking in terms like that we can get definitely pull off a controller rogue doing some effect based control.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My Rogue runs past a group of bad guys all enemies adjacent to the rogue during this move take (small amount of damage) and are slowed as he hamstrings them in passing. His armor class vs opp attacks as he does this is at a major bonus unless he ends the move next to the enemy or perhaps they do not get an opportunity attack unless he ends his move next to them.

I think that mechanically if you start thinking in terms like that we can get definitely pull off a controller rogue doing some effect based control.

Absolutely!

Blind with pocket sand, throw ball bearings or caltrops to make difficult terrain with either a knocked prone effect, or some minor damage, etc

 

[Garthanos]

Absolutely!

Blind with pocket sand, throw ball bearings or caltrops to make difficult terrain with either a knocked prone effect, or some minor damage, etc

Caltrops -

1) the initial placement or throwing of caltrops can be also involve a hide check (the enemy then doesn't know the caltrops are there to avoid they will take damage if move normally on their turn). A missed caltrop throw might mean it was too dispersed or the pouch or container didnt open enough or it only hits one square (ie might still have minor effect on a miss). Skill with Caltrops can increase the area of effect they impact.

2) if you are in the zone you only take damage if you cannot freely shift to avoid it and know its there.

3) even uncareful movement is minor damage if no enemy is next to you.

4) if there is an enemy next to you shifting can only avoid triggering opportunity attacks or avoid caltrop damage not both - you don't get to look down at your feet and avoid the enemies opportunity attacks too sheesh

5) Caltrop damage is significant rather than minor if there is an ally next to you while you move as they can interfere or manipulate you.

Yes technically the zone can affect allies but you can start it with enemies not knowing its there and you can put it around enemies feet to begin with

Hmmm now the above can be translated to Ball Bearings for that excessive proning stuff.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For fighter-type martial controllers, I agree. For rogue-type martial controllers, you’ve got more of a blaster controller, and I think there is room for a scientist/engineer controller, and a leader-ish controller.

There's a weirdness which bothers me about this sort of thing though, which is this: If you have such awesome accuracy and ability to toss a knife or shoot an arrow, etc. such that you can pin people to walls, hamstring them, etc. then you CERTAINLY have the accuracy to put one through their left eyeball every time!

I mean, OK, you can come up with some other explanations for some control effects, smoke arrows, a fusillade of daggers so thick the enemy is temporarily unable to get past it, etc. These rarely really provide the kind of paradigm that will support a whole class worth of 'stuff'. I see this as the main explanation for why there are 'off-role controllers' in Martial, like some rogues, some rangers, etc. It might actually be EASIER to imagine in terms of a melee character, but then you sink back into the swamp of "why is this not just a defender?"

TBH I think these are the considerations which lead WotC to never find any attempts at Martial Controller to be really convincing enough to adopt. MANY people pitched the concept to them! Yet they never bit.

Obviously I can't credibly contradict anything Mearls has to say about 4e and who, what, why things were the way they were, but IMHO WotC never cared that much about 'grid filling'. Maybe some people there were in favor of it, but I really don't see strong evidence that they were determined to do it, or that it was a big effort. In fact I think most of the 4e devs must have thought it wasn't a particularly strong idea and weren't that interested in it per se. They were certainly WILLING to fill in a 'gridpoint' if it resulted in a good class, but they were equally willing to simply allocate that concept to a more appropriate role/source if there was one, even if there were already a class in that 'slot'.

The few times they seem to have actually gone for it were NOT memorable! Who is excited by the Seeker? Ranged Primal Controller, weak concept that proved hard to translate into a good implementation!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There's a weirdness which bothers me about this sort of thing though, which is this: If you have such awesome accuracy and ability to toss a knife or shoot an arrow, etc. such that you can pin people to walls, hamstring them, etc. then you CERTAINLY have the accuracy to put one through their left eyeball every time!

I mean, OK, you can come up with some other explanations for some control effects, smoke arrows, a fusillade of daggers so thick the enemy is temporarily unable to get past it, etc. These rarely really provide the kind of paradigm that will support a whole class worth of 'stuff'. I see this as the main explanation for why there are 'off-role controllers' in Martial, like some rogues, some rangers, etc. It might actually be EASIER to imagine in terms of a melee character, but then you sink back into the swamp of "why is this not just a defender?"

TBH I think these are the considerations which lead WotC to never find any attempts at Martial Controller to be really convincing enough to adopt. MANY people pitched the concept to them! Yet they never bit.

Obviously I can't credibly contradict anything Mearls has to say about 4e and who, what, why things were the way they were, but IMHO WotC never cared that much about 'grid filling'. Maybe some people there were in favor of it, but I really don't see strong evidence that they were determined to do it, or that it was a big effort. In fact I think most of the 4e devs must have thought it wasn't a particularly strong idea and weren't that interested in it per se. They were certainly WILLING to fill in a 'gridpoint' if it resulted in a good class, but they were equally willing to simply allocate that concept to a more appropriate role/source if there was one, even if there were already a class in that 'slot'.

The few times they seem to have actually gone for it were NOT memorable! Who is excited by the Seeker? Ranged Primal Controller, weak concept that proved hard to translate into a good implementation!

This is straight up bizzarro world, for me.

The Seeker lacked some mathematically efficacy in an optimized game, but was otherwise one of the coolest post-PHB classes. It’s a strong concept, executed mostly well, with some light number problems, and some powers that weren’t ambitious enough on the effect-based control due to fear of overpowering with weapon attacks with heavy riders.


Anyway, I don’t think the weirdness you mention actually necessarily follows. People are better at defending their face than their legs, for one thing.

Much More importantly, it’s thematically prevalent to have a hyper-skilled combatant cripple rather than kill. Zoro, Batman, various fictional archers.

 

[Garthanos]

P
Anyway, I don’t think the weirdness you mention actually necessarily follows. People are better at defending their face than their legs, for one thing.

Much More importantly, it’s thematically prevalent to have a hyper-skilled combatant cripple rather than kill. Zoro, Batman, various fictional archers.

And those first 2 are moral rogues so good example.

Heros with so much humanity, that they reflexively shoot to disable rather than killing - to add specificity lets add William Tell and some takes on Robinhood. I actually did a Robinhood build using the seeker (I think it was hybrid) where I made sure everything was amenable to being reflavored to not magic.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And those first 2 are moral rogues so good example.

Heros with so much humanity, that they reflexively shoot to disable rather than killing - to add specificity lets add William Tell and some takes on Robinhood. I actually did a Robinhood build using the seeker (I think it was hybrid) where I made sure everything was amenable to being reflavored to not magic.

Absolutely! Two of my three hyper-lethal (in terms of weapon skill) 5e characters almost always avoid killing other sapient creatures when they can. The third isn't as worried about it, as long as the other party is trying to kill him.

 

[Garthanos]

Absolutely! Two of my three hyper-lethal (in terms of weapon skill) 5e characters almost always avoid killing other sapient creatures when they can. The third isn't as worried about it, as long as the other party is trying to kill him.

D&D already allows that final stroke to be as non-deadly as you like it, so its not like using controller effects is actually changing the resolution in a big way it is just expressing how you get to that state with a different flavor in a less boring way. Hit point ablation if its the only offering is rather boring. Hence why I like even the momentary effects. (though I think 4e could have simplified durations down to maybe 2)