Mike Mearls on: Paladin class, Arcane Paladin, and design mentalities of 4e and 5e

[Unoriginal]

https://youtu.be/ZHOnfAFsNrY

A pretty interesting video.

Notably confirm that the 4e design team really *did* have MMOs in mind when designing the game, as they thought their customer base would be people used to MMOs who wanted to play complex, tactical combat as the main part of the game, and so the designers tried to make what (they thought) would attract said people.

Mearls is also pretty critical about how the subclass paladin abilities don't really affect the "core" of the class, unlike how the subclasses for Barbarians affect the Rage feature.

The discussion on Arcane Paladin is at the end (starts around the 47 min mark).

[Millstone85]

Notably confirm that the 4e design team really *did* have MMOs in mind when designing the game, as they thought their customer base would be people used to MMOs who wanted to play complex, tactical combat as the main part of the game, and so the designers tried to make what (they thought) would attract said people.Or at least, the main part of the game mechanics. They were under the impression that people wanted the non-combat side to be "free-form".

[MThurston]

4e was clearly combat tactics heavy. A good amount of abilities worked off of other classes.

They clearly wanted the WOW players to come try a role-playing game with that one.

[Tectorman]

"The tenets are just a ribbon; you can ignore them entirely as you like and the game doesn't change; it all comes down to the individual group"?

I wish that were the case. Were that sidebar telling DMs that enforcement of those tenets lay in their hands not there, it would be. DMs don't need the encouragement; they can do that all on their own.

"So, Mr. Champion Fighter, you're not playing your Fighter the way I think you should be, so you've suddenly forgotten how to crit on a 19."

"So, Mr. Thief Rogue, you're not stealing enough, so you no longer know how to use theives' tools as a bonus action."

He's acting like the Oaths aren't meant to be a Sword of Damocles hanging over the player's head, when they still very much are. That's why, this reason right here, I'm still waiting patiently for the Oath of Treachery to be released in print. Not to be a treacherous, evil prick, or even for the Trickster angle to his Oath features (though I do like that part). But simply because it tells the DM to put away the Sword, and let the player (even if he is playing a Paladin) just play the game and engage with it at whatever level he's comfortable with, just like every other player at the table. And the DM can still bring out the Sword, but he has to be on his own recognizance, just like with a Champion Fighter or a Thief Rogue.

[Mikaleus]

Arcane paladin? Interesting. Despite my love of druids, Ancients Paladins is my favourite class at the moment.

[jaappleton]

Regarding 4E and the MMO design...

Yes. This is 100% confirmed, and has been (although widely unknown) for years.

I read... And forgive me, as I said, it’s been years, I don’t recall where... But I read that there was always supposed to be a digital companion to 4E. You’d move the creatures around the grid, and click buttons to use their powers, etc.

You can see some super early development video around the web somewhere. Then, suddenly, it disappeared. It was available to view on the old (long since redesigned, twice I think) WOTC site. They never mentioned it again after that one video, but I do think it’s archived.

What I read, and some people privately confirmed happened, is that the person in charge of that digital toolset ultimately took their own life over a variety of issues. I don’t want to speculate as to why.

And they just never returned to trying the digital companion for 4E.

They eventually did made a character creator using Microsoft Silverlight (if you know what the hell Silverlight is, you’re likely facepalming over what a bad choice that was) for 4E, but that was the extent of their digital tools.

As far as 5E digital tools... Well, let’s say Beyond (developed by Curse, those who run Twitch) was not the first company to take a crack at it...

——

Now, as far as the Paladin’s Oath not really changing much about how he Paladin plays? He’s right. IMO a bit too much gets baked into the core class and nowhere near enough crunch goes into the Oaths.

[Millstone85]

Now, as far as the Paladin’s Oath not really changing much about how he Paladin plays? He’s right. IMO a bit too much gets baked into the core class and nowhere near enough crunch goes into the Oaths.In older videos, he presented that as a conscious decision. Some classes have a strong core identity, while others are expected to vary widely depending on their focus. They had the latter get their subclasses at 1st level.

But now that there is such demand for new subclasses, I can see the designers starting to regret that approach.

[Corran]

Now, as far as the Paladin’s Oath not really changing much about how he Paladin plays? He’s right. IMO a bit too much gets baked into the core class and nowhere near enough crunch goes into the Oaths.
I don't know. Most of the oaths give you stuff you cant find in the paladin chassis, which can make a real impact in combat. When you can adopt an impactful strategy the backbone of which is an oath feature, then the oaths justify their existence mechanically IMO. For example, crown, conquest and oathbreaker, allow you to lockdown enemies (in slightly different ways; do note though that they are distinct enough to require different kind of investment -which leads to different builds), which is an area the core paladin falls kind of short. Or vengeance for example, gives enough incentive to prioritize investing in things other paladins would probably avoid, and can play a lot easier like a mobile dpr than a core paladin would, if the player chooses to go that way of course. Devotion and ancients seem kind of lacking in that sense (not that they are bad, they get nice things too), so one could say that they don't differentiate all that much from the core paladin. That's because the things they get act mostly as passive boosts or as ''reactions'' to a situation, at least more than as something on top of which you can build a tactic (but perhaps I am missing something).

I would bet that the designers agree with you though, seeing that the conquest oath was designed very carefully (I'd say it's a good design even, if I judged its merit only from a mechanis' perspective). It's a rare thing for an oath to make more sense mechanically than conceptually...

[R.Shackleford]

Regarding 4E and the MMO design...

Yes. This is 100% confirmed, and has been (although widely unknown) for years.

I read... And forgive me, as I said, it’s been years, I don’t recall where... But I read that there was always supposed to be a digital companion to 4E. You’d move the creatures around the grid, and click buttons to use their powers, etc.

You can see some super early development video around the web somewhere. Then, suddenly, it disappeared. It was available to view on the old (long since redesigned, twice I think) WOTC site. They never mentioned it again after that one video, but I do think it’s archived.

What I read, and some people privately confirmed happened, is that the person in charge of that digital toolset ultimately took their own life over a variety of issues. I don’t want to speculate as to why.

And they just never returned to trying the digital companion for 4E.

They eventually did made a character creator using Microsoft Silverlight (if you know what the hell Silverlight is, you’re likely facepalming over what a bad choice that was) for 4E, but that was the extent of their digital tools.

As far as 5E digital tools... Well, let’s say Beyond (developed by Curse, those who run Twitch) was not the first company to take a crack at it...

——

Now, as far as the Paladin’s Oath not really changing much about how he Paladin plays? He’s right. IMO a bit too much gets baked into the core class and nowhere near enough crunch goes into the Oaths.

Look in the back of 4e books and you will see different advertisements. Some for digital components, some for Paizo work (who was all for 4e until the OGL came out and they said "nooooope"), and some for new public play or whatever other books coming out.

A character generator that you would normally see in games like Dark Souls.

A dungeon generator that you could hook up to a projector via computer.

A monster generator was also rumored but I'm not sure if it was ever legit.

All my books are in storage right now, but if I recall later I'll take pictures of thr back. Anyways, that all vanished when there was a restructuring at Hasbro and suddenly they just stopped talking about it.

I remember just so many people being so crushed when people realized these items weren't going to be a thing. Some people say that Essentials was the start of the end for 4e (which if you like 5e... Essentials might be your thing, lot of cool stuff there btw), but the rug beimg pulled out from under players about all this cool stuff...

Ugh.

3e was Diablo, 4e was WoW, and 5e is the child of both that I really hope grows up.

[Arkhios]

I'm just as displeased about how things turned out with 4e and all as anyone here, but could someone please share some details on the Arcane Paladin? I'm currently unable to watch the video myself for some time. (bad internet where I'm at right now).

[Millstone85]

I'm just as displeased about how things turned out with 4e and all as anyone here, but could someone please share some details on the Arcane Paladin? I'm currently unable to watch the video myself for some time. (bad internet where I'm at right now).There is not much to share.

Someone in the chat suggested an arcane paladin and Mike was like "Okay, let's do that". Then he talked about the class in general, which he considers a good way to start working on a subclass, but he did so for a really long time and went on tangents like 4e or the idea the 5e design team briefly had to reinterpret Charisma as a divinely granted ability.

In the end, we just have some fluff. The arcane paladin is someone dedicated to the preservation of the Weave and the responsible use of arcane power.

[Unoriginal]

Mearls does suggest having the Arcane Paladin's smite get the bonus damage for more creatures than Undead, tbf.

[Misterwhisper]

Mearls does suggest having the Arcane Paladin's smite get the bonus damage for more creatures than Undead, tbf.

Another reason he should never be in charge of crunch.

He always just goes with, that sounds cool, so yes.

[Daghoulish]

Another reason he should never be in charge of crunch.

He always just goes with, that sounds cool, so yes.

I far prefer Mearls "rule of cool" style to Jeremys "Is that a cool thing sorcerer's can do? BAN IT!" style.

[Misterwhisper]

I far prefer Mearls "rule of cool" style to Jeremys "Is that a cool thing sorcerer's can do? BAN IT!" style.

Jeremy just wants his wizard gods of 3.5 back and will make sure they get it in subtle ways, well sometimes.

His obvious fanboy love pops up sometimes, look at his magic missile rulings.

Mike just makes rash decisions without ever once thinking long term.

[Daghoulish]

Jeremy just wants his wizard gods of 3.5 back and will make sure they get it in subtle ways, well sometimes.

His obvious fanboy love pops up sometimes, look at his magic missile rulings.

Mike just makes rash decisions without ever once thinking long term.

I agree with this. Mearl doesn't look at the long term, but all of the subclasses he's made on Happy Fun Hour have been for his own homebrew games that run on rule of cool. However, I can totally understand why Jeremy is required to reign him in to keep things from going out of control.

I still advocate that Jeremy should be banned from making any errata or sage advice regarding sorcerers however.

[Unoriginal]

Another reason he should never be in charge of crunch.

He always just goes with, that sounds cool, so yes.

Dude, you're talking about a very early concept before any crunch is ever made. At this point "it sounds cool" is the only criteria.


Jeremy just wants his wizard gods of 3.5 back and will make sure they get it in subtle ways, well sometimes.

That's a straight up lie.

Pretty funny when you accuse someone of not being subtle.


However, I can totally understand why Jeremy is required to reign him in to keep things from going out of control.

You know Mearls has Crawford checks the rule side of things to make it work on purpose, right?

He's not kept chained by two goons and screaming while Crawford takes over the designing stage.

[jdolch]

Interesting how he makes it perfectly clear, that the Paladins Oath doesn't really bind him and "It's more of a guideline than a Rule" and in a similar sense how alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

And then he blew my mind by whipping out the Charisma definition. "divinely conferred power or talent" Wow. I did not know that. That gives the Stat CHA a completely new spin. (Finally nobody needs to claim: I am a strong caster, cause i look good!)

[Millstone85]

Listening to his ideas regarding what arcane paladins do, I can't help but envision their tenets like so:
Oversee the Art. Persuade mages to confide in you regarding their experiments. Discover what they haven't told you. Advise them on safer methods. Discipline them when necessary.
Secure Magic Artifacts. Seek items of tremendous power. Keep them away from those who would misuse them. Destroy them only as a last resort, for they might be needed one day.
Contain Otherworldly Intrusions. Aberrations, fiends, as well as certain elementals and fey, seek to remake the world in their images. Do not allow this to pass.
Protect the Weave. Stay attentive to signs of magic becoming dead or wild. Find the causes of such illnesses and restore the proper flows of arcane energies.

[Kane0]

Nobody expects the Arcane Inquisition!

Edit: Bonus points if it's called the Brotherhood of Steel

[jdolch]

Listening to his ideas regarding what arcane paladins do, I can't help but envision their tenets like so:
Oversee the Art. Persuade mages to confide in you regarding their experiments. Discover what they haven't told you. Advise them on safer methods. Discipline them when necessary.
Secure Magic Artifacts. Seek items of tremendous power. Keep them away from those who would misuse them. Destroy them only as a last resort, for they might be needed one day.
Contain Otherworldly Intrusions. Aberrations, fiends, as well as certain elementals and fey, seek to remake the world in their images. Do not allow this to pass.
Protect the Weave. Stay attentive to signs of magic becoming dead or wild. Find the causes of such illnesses and restore the proper flows of arcane energies.

I like it.

[Zonugal]

Listening to his ideas regarding what arcane paladins do, I can't help but envision their tenets like so:
Oversee the Art. Persuade mages to confide in you regarding their experiments. Discover what they haven't told you. Advise them on safer methods. Discipline them when necessary.
Secure Magic Artifacts. Seek items of tremendous power. Keep them away from those who would misuse them. Destroy them only as a last resort, for they might be needed one day.
Contain Otherworldly Intrusions. Aberrations, fiends, as well as certain elementals and fey, seek to remake the world in their images. Do not allow this to pass.
Protect the Weave. Stay attentive to signs of magic becoming dead or wild. Find the causes of such illnesses and restore the proper flows of arcane energies.

So, would a Paladin following these tenets (particularly that last one) hunt down Wild Mages?

[Asmotherion]

4e was clearly combat tactics heavy. A good amount of abilities worked off of other classes.

They clearly wanted the WOW players to come try a role-playing game with that one.

Oh, now I get it. That's why I dislike 4e despite all my best intentions not to hate it. It's secretly a backhand WoW thingy. (Not that I have any problem with WoW lore... It's the actual game that I'm not fond off).

[dgnslyr]

Jeremy just wants his wizard gods of 3.5 back and will make sure they get it in subtle ways, well sometimes.

His obvious fanboy love pops up sometimes, look at his magic missile rulings.

Even if that was true, it'd hardly be a conspiracy, considering casters are still king and martials, while significantly idiot-proofed compared to 3.5, still have the same weaknesses while also losing their biggest strength of dealing truly absurd amounts of damage. I'll give them credit on making your average My First 5e Fighter a lot less useless compared to its 3.5 counterpart, but the ceiling gap between casters and martials is still hard to ignore.

[Millstone85]

Nobody expects the Arcane Inquisition!

Edit: Bonus points if it's called the Brotherhood of SteelI was going for a different reference (http://www.scp-wiki.net).


I like it.Thanks.


So, would a Paladin following these tenets (particularly that last one) hunt down Wild Mages?If a wild mage was confirmed to leave a lasting mark on the Weave, they might be ordered into a nomadic life so each region can recover, or quarantined to a dead magic zone where they would either be powerless or actually help unflatten the Weave, or put into a special cell, or killed.

Different arcane paladins could have different opinions on what should be done.

[Theodoric]

This talk of an Arcane Paladin's basically a roundabout way of discussing an arcane half-caster, right? So fluff-wise it could just as easily be a Swordmage, instead?

[Millstone85]

This talk of an Arcane Paladin's basically a roundabout way of discussing an arcane half-caster, right? So fluff-wise it could just as easily be a Swordmage, instead?I would prefer if they made a swordmage class.

But a paladin subclass has to be fluffed around a paladin oath, not just a practice of arcane spellcasting in combination with weapons. At least in the book.

[Sception]

Yeah, I'd prefer an 'arcane paladin' type to be a new class with different core features, not just subclass features, and in particular a different casting stat.

As for paladins, I do see the point about how little oath changes about the core gameplay of the paladin, especially early on, with channel divinity only being once every short rest and oath spells often getting supplanted by divine smite, which isn't necessarily better but absolutely is flashier and easier than most spells, and interacts with a paladin's martial combat abilities more directly.

That's actually something I particularly love about the Oath of Conquest - granted it doesn't fully manifest until level seven with the Aura of Conquest, but once that ability is online, the conquest paladin really does feel and play completely differently from other paladins, up to and including actually using those spell slots to cast thematically appropriate spells to inflict the frighten condition, with divine smite only really significant as a fallback option against fearless foes. With this spell priority shift comes a stat priority shift where charisma matters more than your attack stat since you need targets to fail their saves, so the overall playstyle shifts from aggressive burst damage to a more defensive tanky control style favoring defense over offense. And since you're prioritizing cha anyway, conquest paladins give the time of day to a number of existing paladin spells that otherwise get overlooked by typical paladins with lower charisma and smites to feed.

And it's not just spells, but other class features as well. Aura of Courage goes from a ribbon to a significant ability when you have a party member constantly throwing out unfriendly frighten AoEs. Cleansing Touch is more significant on a defensive tank than a DPS striker as well.


...........

but that's just conquest, and just conquest-post-level-7 at that. It would have been nice to see oaths interacting more directly with smite to begin with. Maybe pull 1d8 out of smite damage, and then have every oath add a unique smite effect that they add on top of that? Maybe make those unique effects require action investment to lessen the alpha strike tendencies of the class?

So:

Divine Smite: as is, except 1d8 damage per level of slot burned, still maxing at 5d8

Devotion: When you deal radiant damage to an enemy with divine smite, you can use a bonus action to heal an ally you can see for an amount of HP equal to the radiant damage dealt

Vengeance: When an enemy within 10 feet of you deals damage to one of your allies, you can use a reaction to mark the enemy with a curse of vengeance. The next time use use divine smite against that enemy before the end of your next turn, the target takes additional radiant damage equal to your charisma modifier * the spell slot level used (max charisma modifier * 5).

Ancients: when you deal radiant damage to an enemy with divine smite, you can use a bonus action to cause magical roots and vines to bind them. They must pass a will save equal to your spell save DC or become entangled until the end of your next turn.

Crown: When you deal radiant damage to an enemy with divine smite you may use a bonus action to issue a divine challenge. The target suffers disadvantage on attacks made against any target other than you until the end of your next turn.

Conquest: when you deal radiant damage to an enemy with divine smite, you can use a bonus action to fill the target with fear. They must pass a will save equal to your spell save DC or become frightened of you until the end of your next turn.

Oathbreaker: When you use divine strike against a humanoid target and either the divine strike or the triggering attack reduce the target to 0 hit points then you can use a bonus action to raise the target as a zombie under your control. The zombie is destroyed at dawn the next day, or if you use this ability again.



I don't know, obviously would have to tinker with the exact bonuses, and making so many of these bonus actions discourages two weapon fighting more than is probably necessary, though I like the way making them bonus actions discourages spamming as many smites in a single round as possible without outright preventing you from doing so when appropriate.

On the other other hand, it does put even more weight on smiting instead of casting spells, which further marginalizes the paladin's otherwise very nice spell list.

Maybe as an alternative, make divine smite a class feature that doesn't use up your spellcasting, and give oaths variant smites instead of channel divinities? And then smite spells can exist as augments to the smites you're already doing?

Bleh, I don't know. Just spitballing.

[Theodoxus]

Am I taking crazy pills? I distinctly recall vehement arguments on the 'net back in the day regarding how 4E was NOT, NOT! NOT!!!!!! A WoW Clone!!!!234111!11!!!! ARGH!!!!

And now it's officially described as such by the actual designer?!?!? Jezus crispycrackers, I hate this revisionism fake news BS I have to suffer with, even within my own beloved hobby.

That out of the way, I do think that placing archetypes beyond 1st level was a mistake on the classes that have them. It means it's nigh impossible to have an actual arcane half-caster built on the chassis of a current class - and developing new mechanics for a new class as is all the rage for it, tends to become OP very quickly.

Barbarians can't have a modified rage mechanic; bards, paladins and rangers can't have a modified spell list; druids can't have a modified wildshape mechanic; monks can't have a modified ki mechanic; rogues can't have a modified sneak attack mechanic...

Fighters don't really get anything particularly modifiable on their chassis. A 1/3 caster class works with a 3rd level archetype...

I'd much rather have seen something like the warlock, with an archetype granted at 1st level and a refinement offered at 3rd level that could take the class in a whole new direction.

[Misterwhisper]

Am I taking crazy pills? I distinctly recall vehement arguments on the 'net back in the day regarding how 4E was NOT, NOT! NOT!!!!!! A WoW Clone!!!!234111!11!!!! ARGH!!!!

And now it's officially described as such by the actual designer?!?!? Jezus crispycrackers, I hate this revisionism fake news BS I have to suffer with, even within my own beloved hobby.

That out of the way, I do think that placing archetypes beyond 1st level was a mistake on the classes that have them. It means it's nigh impossible to have an actual arcane half-caster built on the chassis of a current class - and developing new mechanics for a new class as is all the rage for it, tends to become OP very quickly.

Barbarians can't have a modified rage mechanic; bards, paladins and rangers can't have a modified spell list; druids can't have a modified wildshape mechanic; monks can't have a modified ki mechanic; rogues can't have a modified sneak attack mechanic...

Fighters don't really get anything particularly modifiable on their chassis. A 1/3 caster class works with a 3rd level archetype...

I'd much rather have seen something like the warlock, with an archetype granted at 1st level and a refinement offered at 3rd level that could take the class in a whole new direction.

Well you have to realize something, WOTC is a company who will lie like a criminal to make their business look better and sell more.

4E is not a clone of WOW, we are doing our own thing.

That was an outright lie, they specifically wanted to make it like WOW, it even has tanking abilities to draw threat and powers based on cool downs of encounters.
The people that work there knew they were lying every time they said that, the players knew it too, that is one of the reasons 4e was a total failure.

The other reason being that Mike sucks at game mechanics, but other than his Mary Sueing of the Raven Queen he is actually kind of good with fluff and basic creative ideas.

EDIT: IF they wanted to make 5e work better they should have ripped off Pathfinder instead of just dumbing down their own mechanics to make it noob-friendly.

[Pex]

When 4E first came out one the major complaints was that it was like WoW while its defenders were saying it isn't. Has the argument been won but now the defenders are proud it's like WoW?
Interesting.

[Knaight]

Look in the back of 4e books and you will see different advertisements. Some for digital components, some for Paizo work (who was all for 4e until the OGL came out and they said "nooooope"), and some for new public play or whatever other books coming out.

A character generator that you would normally see in games like Dark Souls.

A dungeon generator that you could hook up to a projector via computer.

A monster generator was also rumored but I'm not sure if it was ever legit.
A few things:

1) The OGL didn't come out after 3.5. It's in the 3.0 PHB (I assume also other books, but I only have the 3.0 PHB), front and center, and the whole OGL boom kicked off pretty quickly, including Paizo's 3.x work. Paizo bailed when the 4e non-OGL license came out.

2) All of the digital tools promised were essentially versions of tabletop tools that already existed, with some really ambitious ideas about asset quality and some dubious monetization schemes. That character generator resembles something like Dark Souls because the Dark Souls character generator is a direct descendant of ones that have been used for D&D videogames since the early MUD era, literally in the 1980's. It's a common root, and on the tabletop side it was after a whole bunch of different character generators for a bunch of different games, from a lot of excel spreadsheets to a lot of programs that were basically glorified excel spreadsheets. Similarly, that dungeon generator? Maptools had been kicking for years by that point, and that's without getting into older tools, like Ascii, or going right back to excel spreadsheets (each cell is a square, color code them for terrain). 4e was just going for a fancy, proprietary, 3D dungeon generator because WotC theoretically had the resources to be a lot fancier than circa 2008 Maptools.

Basically, they weren't pulling from videogames with the digital tools. They were essentially going to have a professional team make nicer versions of tools that already existed, the best of which usually came down to "something one person made as a hobby during off hours in Java", most of which came down to literally an excel spreadsheet.


Dude, you're talking about a very early concept before any crunch is ever made. At this point "it sounds cool" is the only criteria.
There's a lot of conceptual work that can be done beyond "it sounds cool", as is routinely seen in mediums that don't have crunch.


Am I taking crazy pills? I distinctly recall vehement arguments on the 'net back in the day regarding how 4E was NOT, NOT! NOT!!!!!! A WoW Clone!!!!234111!11!!!! ARGH!!!!

And now it's officially described as such by the actual designer?!?!? Jezus crispycrackers, I hate this revisionism fake news BS I have to suffer with, even within my own beloved hobby.
They're not describing it as a WoW Clone. They're saying that they saw WoW players as a market, and made design choices to try to appeal to them, meaning tactical combat based in positioning and use of powers. An actual clone would have operated very differently, and exceptionally worse.

[Zonugal]

IF they wanted to make 5e work better they should have ripped off Pathfinder instead of just dumbing down their own mechanics to make it noob-friendly.

Ahaha, going to have to disagree with you mighty hard there.

[Theodoxus]

They're not describing it as a WoW Clone. They're saying that they saw WoW players as a market, and made design choices to try to appeal to them, meaning tactical combat based in positioning and use of powers. An actual clone would have operated very differently, and exceptionally worse.

Not the company, the players: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/8728184045

https://www.ddo.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-307877.html?

https://geek-related.com/2008/06/06/dd-4es-out-and-its-awful-heres-why/

That's just the tip of a very large iceberg. RPGNet is undergoing maintenance, else I would have linked the massive thread arguing why 4th Ed isn't a WoW clone...

Now, I wouldn't have used "clone" myself, as you correctly state, it's not really a clone of the gameplay - but it's the word of choice from 2004 on, and I was simply following suit.

I never had an issue with the gameplay of 4E. I have a suspicion that folks who played it came away with pieces they liked - I have anecdotal evidence from the AL games I play now - players asking for Marking mechanics or Skill Challenges or short rest abilities that recharge per encounter instead...

So I hope (especially if Mearls stays with WotC through the next edition incarnation) that they resurrect and revise at least some of the innovative ideas from 4th.

I do think that 4th had too many innovations all at once - something that made it hard to see the forest for the trees. 30 levels? Why? Every class had powers? Why? Codified Skills but open ended Challenges? Why? Archetypes by Tier and Limited MC by feat? Why?

Too much, too soon. Had the conceptualization for 4th and 5th editions been swapped (and then some ideas cut from 4th, like 30 levels), I think it would have been better for both games.

5th is like a grown up 2nd edition. 4th is like D&D Pro. If one were backwards compatible with the other, it would be amazing.

I hope 6th edition goes back to D&D Pro, while being compatible with 5th - so AL style 1 shots can remain in 5th; new gamers learn the ropes and the wonderful worlds that RP opens up. And 6th can get into a mix of tactical and social mastery again.

[R.Shackleford]

Ahaha, going to have to disagree with you mighty hard there.

I'm with you.

Pathfinder is a jumbled mess and 2.0 looks to not be all that much better.

4e simplified 3e. 5e simplified 4e. This isn't dumbed down, this is cuttimg the fat and organizing their stuff better.

If Pathfinder was a better product, I would actually jump on board but... If I want to play 3.5e, I'll play tier 3 3.5e.

I still haven't seen anything from Paizo that even comes close to touching the tier 3 options in 3.5 (specifically tome of Battle, magic of incarnum, and all the specific caster classes).

Edit


A few things:

1) The OGL didn't come out after 3.5. It's in the 3.0 PHB (I assume also other books, but I only have the 3.0 PHB), front and center, and the whole OGL boom kicked off pretty quickly, including Paizo's 3.x work. Paizo bailed when the 4e non-OGL license came out.

2) All of the digital tools promised were essentially versions of tabletop tools that already existed, with some really ambitious ideas about asset quality and some dubious monetization schemes. That character generator resembles something like Dark Souls because the Dark Souls character generator is a direct descendant of ones that have been used for D&D videogames since the early MUD era, literally in the 1980's. It's a common root, and on the tabletop side it was after a whole bunch of different character generators for a bunch of different games, from a lot of excel spreadsheets to a lot of programs that were basically glorified excel spreadsheets. Similarly, that dungeon generator? Maptools had been kicking for years by that point, and that's without getting into older tools, like Ascii, or going right back to excel spreadsheets (each cell is a square, color code them for terrain). 4e was just going for a fancy, proprietary, 3D dungeon generator because WotC theoretically had the resources to be a lot fancier than circa 2008 Maptools.

Basically, they weren't pulling from videogames with the digital tools. They were essentially going to have a professional team make nicer versions of tools that already existed, the best of which usually came down to "something one person made as a hobby during off hours in Java", most of which came down to literally an excel spreadsheet.


There's a lot of conceptual work that can be done beyond "it sounds cool", as is routinely seen in mediums that don't have crunch.


They're not describing it as a WoW Clone. They're saying that they saw WoW players as a market, and made design choices to try to appeal to them, meaning tactical combat based in positioning and use of powers. An actual clone would have operated very differently, and exceptionally worse.

4e had the liscense issue and it wasn't under the same type of open liscense that 3e/5e has, I typed the wrong acronym (I'm bad about acronyms) but essentially once 4e's GSL cane out, that is when Kaizo said "noooope". They tried to back peddle by saying they didn't like 4e... But they were all on board and singing praises until 4e's liscense came out ans they realized they could get screwed over.

If 4e had an open liscense, Paizo would have stayed buddy buddy with WotC.

[Sception]

If you watch the video, he says that minis and grids and tactical combat was what their (now admittedly mistaken) market research told them existing d&d players wanted and how those players already played the game. They pulled from video games (including but not just WoW) for some framing, and some of what character archetypes could do, as an attempt to reach new players. But most of what they took from those games was just a refinement/evolution of concepts that came from d&d in the first place. WoW, Diablo, Final Fantasy, Dark Souls, a lot of the Fantasy video game space (much like the fantasy television space) traces directly or indirectly from D&D.

One of the things the anti-4e crowd most hated and claimed most marked 4e as a "wow clone" was the concept of 'class roles', but that especially is directly rooted in D&D concepts of party balance dating back to the iconic "mage/cleric/thief/fighter" of which every other class has always been described as a substitute for one or blend of multiple of those four. Had they pulled from WoW, the key archetypes would have been tank/healer/dps. Honestly, the game might have been better for it if they had, since while the defender(fighter) and leader(cleric) roles were well defined in their key mechanics (mark & punish vs. healing words) such that pretty much every defender and leader in 4e worked well while still having plenty of variations on how those mechanics play out, the 4e designers never really did nail down exactly how much extra damage a striker(thief) is supposed to be doing to justify it as a combat role of its own, and never really figured out what a controller(mage) is supposed to do at all, so they ranged from orb wizards who could stunlock entire encounters to binders who couldn't really do much of anything at all.

[Millstone85]

powers based on cool downs of encounters
short rest abilities that recharge per encounter insteadTechnically, 4e "encounter" powers recharge on a short rest, with short rests being 5 minutes long.

[Princess]

He's acting like the Oaths aren't meant to be a Sword of Damocles hanging over the player's head, when they still very much are. That's why, this reason right here, I'm still waiting patiently for the Oath of Treachery to be released in print. Not to be a treacherous, evil prick, or even for the Trickster angle to his Oath features (though I do like that part). But simply because it tells the DM to put away the Sword, and let the player (even if he is playing a Paladin) just play the game and engage with it at whatever level he's comfortable with, just like every other player at the table. And the DM can still bring out the Sword, but he has to be on his own recognizance, just like with a Champion Fighter or a Thief Rogue.

Especially with the backing off on the issue of clerics - it makes way more sense for someone angering the god that gave them powers to have negative consequences than a paladin's oath (there are far more examples of angering a god ruining everything in religion and story telling in general). So if they don't have a side bar about clerics inciting their own god's wrath and being ruined forever, why pick on paladins?

[Theodoxus]

Technically, 4e "encounter" powers recharge on a short rest, with short rests being 5 minutes long.

Fair enough, though I don't recall it ever being an issue in actual game play. Even dungeon delving, it was an unspoken understanding that the group wouldn't go open the next door or look down the next corridor without taking a short rest (catching our breath, I believe we called it).

It was one reason that the 1 hour short rest was so jarring when we first cracked open the 5E PHB (and definitely the reason I ultimately shortened them to 10 minutes).

[Zalabim]

While some of this has been answered already...

Am I taking crazy pills? I distinctly recall vehement arguments on the 'net back in the day regarding how 4E was NOT, NOT! NOT!!!!!! A WoW Clone!!!!234111!11!!!! ARGH!!!!

And now it's officially described as such by the actual designer?!?!? Jezus crispycrackers, I hate this revisionism fake news BS I have to suffer with, even within my own beloved hobby.

It was inspired by WoW mechanics mostly seen in boss fights. Dynamic battles, the importance of positioning and movement, and reactive ability or even phases triggered by an HP threshold. To a lesser degree, the idea of every class having something useful they contribute.

Well you have to realize something, WOTC is a company who will lie like a criminal to make their business look better and sell more.

4E is not a clone of WOW, we are doing our own thing.

That was an outright lie, they specifically wanted to make it like WOW, it even has tanking abilities to draw threat and powers based on cool downs of encounters.
The people that work there knew they were lying every time they said that, the players knew it too, that is one of the reasons 4e was a total failure.
However, these are the usual reasons given for calling it a WoW-clone, and they're absolute bunk. The AEDU power structure doesn't work anything like WoW's resources and cooldowns. The defenders' marking mechanics aren't anything like threat-tanking mechanics. The leader isn't a dedicated healer. There's no holy trinity. The four roles aren't based on the 3/4 roles in WoW, since they're flexible and multifaceted.

They're not describing it as a WoW Clone. They're saying that they saw WoW players as a market, and made design choices to try to appeal to them, meaning tactical combat based in positioning and use of powers. An actual clone would have operated very differently, and exceptionally worse.
This kind of stuff, basically. The formatting of the description of powers is probably inspired by video game UIs, but the actual function and recovery of those powers is still traceable directly to D&D.

[Sception]

AEDU was great, and i myself miss it. Granted, i wish the forms those powers had taken had a bit more conceptual distinction between what made something a short rest power vs. a long rest one, and more design freedom in how one classes encounter or daily resources worked vs. another's.

Executioner did this really well, i think, with at will martial arts maneuvers, one big assassiny damage boost per encounter (distinct from the 3-4 encounter powers every other class got), and then the special poisons they brewed as daily powers. Their encounter and daily "powers" didnt look or play like those of any other class, freeing them up to be much more thematic, but they still had those resources to draw on, so you still had that same excitement curve, the same ability to adapt to shorter or longer days, etc.

Their assassin strike was significantly under the damage curve compared to the multiple encounter powers they were replacing, but that was nothing a slight tweak couldnt have fixed, and the inability to maintain consistant damage from one 'striker' to another was a problem for the entire life of 4e, not something specific to any one class.

My favorite 5e classes also blend at will, short rest, and long rest abilities, though the balance is never as good. Paladins get extra attack at will, channel divinity on short rest, and spells & lay on hands on the daily, but I do wish some of those daily resources were shifted to short rest. Maybe reduced spellcasting slots, and shift smites to their own short rest resource? Maybe add a few minor, utility only cantrips?

Warlock has at will cantrips, short rest slots, and long rest higher level spells, with invocations and patron features potentially adding to any of those, but the long rest spells dont come online until pretty late. Maybe if arcana were a thing from the start?

It's probably why my favorite 5e characters have been paladin/warlock multiclasses, even before hexblade made that combo a bit too obvious to ignore.


And sure, having some classes lean way more heavily on long rest abilities, and others on at will or short rest abilities allows a bit more gameplay variety between classes, but i dont think its a good kind of variety. Think how many threads weve seen of DMs having difficulty managing rest schedules, or about spellcasters and paladins being overpowered compared to other classes because a game wasnt running enough encounters per day. Especially where a dm tries to compensate for not having as many encounters as expected vy making individual encounters harder. If every class had a similar pool of both short rest and long rest combat resources that wouldnt be nearly as much of a problem.

[Rowan Wolf]

EDIT: IF they wanted to make 5e work better they should have ripped off Pathfinder instead of just dumbing down their own mechanics to make it noob-friendly.

Can I really be called ripping off as pathfinder is basically house ruled 3.5.

[Misterwhisper]

Can I really be called ripping off as pathfinder is basically house ruled 3.5.

Yeah, the best thing about pathfinder was what they added to it. More feats for optimizing, 100’s of archetypes, some of which can eve. Be combined with each other, the best srd site in the business, and they kept things challenging enough that monsters were more than just bags of hp with bigger damage.

The monster thing was in 3.5, but the other stuff was amazing.

Not all archetypes were great but there were so many that there was not so much repetition.

[Millstone85]

New video on the arcane paladin.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM_3lEVR0F0

For the oath's tenets, pause at 19:00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM_3lEVR0F0#t=19m).

For the 3rd, 7th and 15th-level features, pause at 55:00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM_3lEVR0F0#t=55m)

For 20th-level feature, pause at 50:30 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM_3lEVR0F0#t=50m30s).

[Anymage]

Nobody who was paying any attention could dispute that 4e had a strong WoW influence.

What 4e detractors tried to tap into by calling it a WoW clone was the worst elements of the WoW player base. Which if you have no-lifers and a toxic community at your table, I think you have deeper problems than the rules you're using.

[ad_hoc]

I hope 6th edition goes back to D&D Pro, while being compatible with 5th - so AL style 1 shots can remain in 5th; new gamers learn the ropes and the wonderful worlds that RP opens up. And 6th can get into a mix of tactical and social mastery again.

Not going to happen. AL is what, like 1% of the 5e player base?

People aren't playing D&D for tactical combat, they're playing it to have a social time with friends.

There are plenty of better thematic strategy games out there too for people who want that sort of thing.

This is the lesson they learned with 4e.