Mearls Speaks of 4E

[virgil]

http://www.critical-hits.com/2008/06/30 ... h-edition/

It feels like this is the first time they admitted they were working on 4E as far back as SW-SAGA, and used it for playtesting. I'm fairly certain it isn't, but it's still vexing and an annoying fact.

Think of the DM as a novelist, crafting his own story.

Reminds me of some crappy DMs who thought that way.

Their decision to drop Planescape is somewhat annoying, because it, like other IP items; are chosen to not be used at all, and are left to die because nobody else can use them even when there's a demand for them.

He said he’d rather wait and get it right the first time instead of having to errata it.

Yes, because magic items are the important part, rather than solo mobs which somehow escape notice (maybe because the playtesters were borderline sychophants) or the skill challenge system.

Apparently Kobolds are overpowered and won't get a proper conversion to a PC race like the Warforged.

[K]

Man, he just doesn't get it.

It seriously is a tale of "well, we had this mechanic for this unpopular system and we pretty much got married to it" and "so, we decided we didn't like DnD as a setting so we decided to not do it."

[Voss]

Multiclassing rules were the rules that got the most work.

So, so frightened by this statement. Its also amusing that while apparently, most magic items were 'wait and get it right the first time', multiclassing was do a lot of work, say fuck it, release some crap, and hope they can patch the hell out of it later.

Skill challenges are interesting, since they are not reflected in the written rules as they were intended

This will never, ever make sense to me. Admit you screwed this pooch to tuesday, and fix it, bitch.

A: Things will break in the new system- that’s inevitable. But people should have a better understanding of what’s going on and why.

The clever among us have always been able to figure out why something is fucked up. Shrugging off breakage... huh. This is why you make fail.

Q: What’s something that you feel should have gotten in, but didn’t?....
Of course, right after launch day, these things comes out.

Testing and playtesters, bitch. Some of this shit was glaringly obvious on the first read-through. It definitely shouldn't have made it through any sort of testing. Solo monsters and the fucking skill challenges especially.


I'm also amused by the objection to 'hidden' rules, yet pushing the idea that effects should be a 'black box' where all you care about is the result.

[virgil]

I remember seeing a quote somewhere from Mearls (closer to his IH days) that stated he didn't like to make settings because it was too hard or too much work.

[Koumei]

I wish he'd just come out and admit he failed. Or at least say:

"Here are our design principles:
1) Math is hard
2) If implementing something would take effort, don't do it
3) If a DM or player ever cried about something, don't put it in the game
4) Fuck you"

[The 13 Wise Buttlords]

Is it too early to give Mearls the title 'The Joe Quesada of D&D'?

Nah, that's a little too premature. Mearls didn't demand that a storyline be written where Spiderman begged Satan to abort his kid because he didn't like the idea of there being a married Peter Parker with a baby.

But the groundwork is certainly there.

[Username17]

If 1 power is 25% of a class, and 2 powers is 50%, how much more can we give you to feel like a multiclass character, instead of just a hodgepodge character.

A multiclass character is a hodge podge. That's the entire. Fucking. Point. People want to play a Rogue who casts spells because they want to play a character that is neither a Wizard nor a Rogue, but a hodgepodge of both.

The multiclassing they came up with a Rogue is always a Rogue, all you get to do is spend your limited character resources in order to dumpster dive through lists of different colored attacks in the hope that you can find some desperate piece of synergy that escaped the notice of the designers.

Arrgh.

Taking the feeling of being multiclassed out of the rues for being multiclassed was apparently a design goal. This marks the first of their design goals that I can honestly say they met with shining colors.

-Username17

[Harlune]

If 1 power is 25% of a class, and 2 powers is 50%, how much more can we give you to feel like a multiclass character, instead of just a hodgepodge character.

Well there's your problem... giving a character only four things to do is really bloody boring.

And please stop with the damned 'you gain class X's at will attack as an encounter power' stuff. It's utterly worthless.

----

I've been playing around with houseruling the multiclass feats into something that'll actually feel like multiclassing but I can't quite get a good balance between them being 'worthless' and 'so freaking good that everyone will take it'...

...granted I'm not exactly sure that having everyone take a multiclass feat is such a bad a thing really.

I'm also at a loss at how to handle the non power stuff like hp and weapon/armor feats, all the stuff that leads to stupid situations that shouldn't happen in a sensible system like how a wizard/warrior build is utter crap while a warrior/wizard build can be decent all because of hp and starting feats.

[Voss]

And please stop with the damned 'you gain class X's at will attack as an encounter power' stuff. It's utterly worthless.

Actually, the sad and terrible truth is this actually fairly effective by 4e standards, because you actually get another power that doesn't eat one of your real powers. The main problem is it just isn't effective now, because the class that grants it now (wizzard!) is the only Int using class, and the race that gets it is only passable for one and a half classes, and they don't combine well.

But until you can take an at-will power from somebody else and it actually helps you be whatever you are, it isn't going to be good.

[Psychic Robot]

Mearls, he should be a politician.

[Amra]

He should be stacking shelves in K-Mart.

[Psychic Robot]

"Back in the 80’s, using his d4 hit points and crappy damage, Mearls swore that one day he would make rogues better."

[Tydanosaurus]

Mearl just keeps on giving.

It was related to “everybody can fly all day long” that was a problem in previous editions.

Does anybody remember this being a problem? Anyone?

Teleport. Kind of a problem.

Excessive mobility period. That was kind of a problem, in that balance became difficult if "I stay 80 feet away and kill it" negated the ability of some otherwise really cool foes.

Planar travel. Could be a problem, depending on how mucked up any particular system of rules were.

Flying mechanics. Sometimes a problem.

But flying all day long? Really? PC's can avoid being railroaded into the Forest of Annoying Encounters is a "Problem?"

[RandomCasualty2]

I kind of agree with some of his points, like the one about not doing magic items like figurines of power until they could get them right. That's actually pretty good design. I hated how in 3E they just tried to dump lots of unplaytested shit in there solely because it existed in other editions and didn't really give a damn if it actually worked.

I mean, that's how polymorph came about, and a lot of other game breaking crap. I prefer designers to err on the side of caution rather than to throw in shit and "just see what happens."

As far as the multiclass thing, he's way off. As Frank said, people pretty much do want a hodgepodge character. I can understand why the design team shied away from hodgepodge characters though, because they're incredibly difficult to balance, especially thanks to the fact that the new 4E system really fucking pidgeonholes you. Being a multiclass rogue/anything really sucks because the sneak attack doesn't work wtih any other classes abilities unless you want to carry a separate magic lightblade and heavy blade. Same wtih being a fighter mage. You need a magic sword and a wand.

[Tydanosaurus]

Reading between the lines, what Mearls is saying is that 4E can't have multiclassing because it's complicated if it actually matters. But actually, the fact that multiclassing is even contemplated means that 4E simply is a self-referential pit of stupid.

Classes are supposed to have roles. A Wizard "Controls." If you let a Wizard, who supposedly "Controls," also multiclass into some of the abilities of a Rogue, who "Strikes," you either get BROKEN or WORTHLESS. Either the Wizard gets borderline useless powers that provide minor benefits, but leave it basically a controller, or the Wizard does enough damage that it now fills the role of both Controller and Striker.

Why do I know this?

[RandomCasualty2]

Mearl just keeps on giving.

It was related to “everybody can fly all day long” that was a problem in previous editions.

Does anybody remember this being a problem? Anyone?

Teleport. Kind of a problem.

Excessive mobility period. That was kind of a problem, in that balance became difficult if "I stay 80 feet away and kill it" negated the ability of some otherwise really cool foes.

I always found flight to be a problem. Not so much a balance problem necessarily as a flavor problem.

When one guy can fly, that's his schtick and that's cool. When everyone flies, it means that you basically don't even care about the terrain and it really limits your possibilities for interesting encounters. It's really like if you took every square of the map and just replaced it wtih a blank square. So pits, rubble filled squares, etc, are all meaningless.

One guy flying is cool, the entire party flying... much less exciting. At that point, you might as well put away the battlemap.

While I don't really have a problem with one or two fliers, but the whole flying group. It's about as vanilla as it comes.

[RandomCasualty2]

Classes are supposed to have roles. A Wizard "Controls." If you let a Wizard, who supposedly "Controls," also multiclass into some of the abilities of a Rogue, who "Strikes," you either get BROKEN or WORTHLESS.

That's the perpetual balance problem of the jack of all trades, either you get a druid or you get a bard. Neither one is really acceptable.

[Voss]

Considering the giant pile of things that they didn't wait on and completely fucked up, I don't think he has a point. And I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest there is a lot of unplaytested shit in 4e. Like the entire epic tier.


And... rogues? Really? Rogues have been good for the better part of a decade now. That wasn't something that needed work.

[MartinHarper]

Same with being a fighter mage. You need a magic sword and a wand.

I do hope they don't come out with 94 variations on the theme of:

Wand-like Sword [Multiclass feat]
Requires: Fighter base class
You can use your sword as a wand for the purpose of casting wizard spells

[Tydanosaurus]

Mearl just keeps on giving.

It was related to “everybody can fly all day long” that was a problem in previous editions.

Does anybody remember this being a problem? Anyone?

Teleport. Kind of a problem.

Excessive mobility period. That was kind of a problem, in that balance became difficult if "I stay 80 feet away and kill it" negated the ability of some otherwise really cool foes.

I always found flight to be a problem. Not so much a balance problem necessarily as a flavor problem.

When one guy can fly, that's his schtick and that's cool. When everyone flies, it means that you basically don't even care about the terrain and it really limits your possibilities for interesting encounters. It's really like if you took every square of the map and just replaced it wtih a blank square. So pits, rubble filled squares, etc, are all meaningless.

One guy flying is cool, the entire party flying... much less exciting. At that point, you might as well put away the battlemap.

While I don't really have a problem with one or two fliers, but the whole flying group. It's about as vanilla as it comes.

Uh, RC, Mearls allows Encounter-based flight powers. He's just banned overland flight-type powers. You're cool battle maps are still useless, but now the PC's have to slog through the Forest of Inane Fairy Folk.

[Voss]

Same with being a fighter mage. You need a magic sword and a wand.

I do hope they don't come out with 94 variations on the theme of:

Wand-like Sword [Multiclass feat]
Requires: Fighter base class
You can use your sword as a wand for the purpose of casting wizard spells

Nah. They aren't going that way. They're going the other way- Weapon <X> counts as both a weapon and implement- see pact blades (which are worthless, because a warlock has no reason to attack in close combat ever), and holy avengers, which are worthless because you get them so late in the game they don't even matter.

[CatharzGodfoot]

When everyone flies, it means that you basically don't even care about the terrain and it really limits your possibilities for interesting encounters. It's really like if you took every square of the map and just replaced it wtih a blank square. So pits, rubble filled squares, etc, are all meaningless.

If everybody is flying, that's true. You'd need to account for new types of terrain like thick clouds, thermals, downdrafts, hailstorms, turbulence, and shears.

Once one character decides to flee through a canyon, hide in the woods, or take cover behind a wall and start plinking at the exposed fliers, you're back to having terrain matter.

[Harlune]

Uh, RC, Mearls allows Encounter-based flight powers. He's just banned overland flight-type powers. You're cool battle maps are still useless, but now the PC's have to slog through the Forest of Inane Fairy Folk.

He also put in the cleric's fricking care bear cloud car power, that moronic ritual that gives you magical flying ponies if you crit the skill check, and you start seeing god damn flying mounts by level six or so.

Mearls is just plain talking out of his ass.

[Tydanosaurus]

And again, my main point was. . . Fly? Really? Moving twice as fast as a monster was all you had to do to much up the game, and now that's handed out to everybody.

[ubernoob]

One square plus double. Charging.