Question: Now that we have a few years of perspective. Is there anything you think 4e did better from a design point of view than 5e?
Like, something that was removed or modified that you wished had stayed a core aspect of the game design?Hard to answer, because the 4e I wanted to do and the 4e we ended up publishing were different on a fundamental level. I wanted classes to have different power acquisition schedules, and more thematic ties between power types.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
Example – In the wizard, your daily spells would unlock words of power, the component words needed to cast the spell, as encounter powers. The idea was you’d cast part of a daily spell as an encounter power.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
The 4e we ended up designing lost a lot of thematic power concepts that I think would’ve made the core design a lot stronger.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
That said, skill challenges were an interesting concept, but we simply lacked the time to properly tested them and had this bad tendency to post errata for them without giving it a proper. I‘ve tinkered with a new approach in my Nentir Vale campaign that is working well so far.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
There’s an entire book I could write about 4e and why it ended up the way it did. It’s a great example of a really good concept falling victim to what felt like every single land mine that plagues game development.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
But peeling away from that digression – I’m a little angry at myself for not looting more of the at-will powers. Eyebite is such a fun toy, no idea why we did not pick that one and others up for 5e more often and for more classes.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
It was a core concept, but it was somewhat frustrating. 4e had a tendency to build matrices and try to fill them without thinking through whether that was a good idea, especially in a system where each class had an enormous overhead. Forced power design into narrow niches.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
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.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
I could definitely see the need to broaden it out and make the whole system more… relaxed, but I really enjoyed the tight structure of it all, especially as a DM. Yeah, it’s brilliant at what it focused on. Best take on D&D combat across all editions.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
So, you could have a ranger who had a subclass that made him a Striker, Leader, Controller or Defender? I like that. Yes, exactly. Might be:
Controller – Animal companion
Leader – Aragorn-like herbalism
Striker – Hunter mechanic
Defender – Mobile interceptor (melee or ranged)— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
I loved the combats. They were really dynamic. I’ve been looking at how to make my 5e combats more 4e-like, adding auras and abilities with forced movement and shifting. Here’s what I do – put those things in terrain features. That way, even as enemies drop you don’t lose combos or stuff that drives the action.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 8, 2018
