Again, stuff that you may have seen before, gathered together for reference purposes.
Enjoy!
Mike Mearls on Quests - you've read the EN World thread already.
This is the original source: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14491016#post14491016
Mike Mearls on Armour as DR
Original thread
We tried a few methods for using armor as DR in 4e. None of them proved viable. Even systems that looked good on paper failed in playtest. Typically, the problems we encountered were:
1. DR makes it hard to balance the heavily armored guy against the lightly armored guy. In the AC system, you simply compare expected attacks vs. expected AC, and expected hit points vs. expected damage. You can then cross reference those two to figure out how long a PC can survive.
For instance, you might want a fighter to stand toe-to-toe with a monster for 8 rounds before dropping, but a mage only lasts 3. You can manipulate both AC and hit points to hit that sweet spot. Then, you can increment both values up at about the same rate to keep that comparison (mage vs. fighter) intact.
Once you add DR to the system, things get a little weird. It makes it hard to use all three factors (hit points, hit rate, DR) without dropping one or making one a constant.
For instance, you might say that all melee attacks hit 50% of the time, then use DR and hit points to differentiate survival. Or, hit rate and DR might change, but everyone gets the same hit points.
Now, DR works very well in online games that have threat/aggro systems. Under these rules, the guys with high DR focus almost exclusively on drawing attacks. That can be fun in a real time game, but in D&D it's a real drag. MMOs don't have to worry as much about the disparity between the heavily armor guy and the guy in light armor because there are lots of mechanics that simply prevent the light armored guy from suffering attacks.
2. DR adds an extra step of work. Rolling to hit is something we expect to do, and accounting for armor in that step speeds up the game. Adding another step, the check for DR or the time spent resolving it, slows the game down on every successful attack.
If I wanted to add DR to D&D, I think I'd do away with scaling attack bonuses. The to-hit number of the 1st and 30th level fighters would look a lot alike, as would their defenses. The issue would be that the 1st level guy would do little to no damage with each hit, while the 30th level guy smears the 1st level one in a single shot.
The potentially interesting thing is that it makes for a clear distinction between high defense, low armor guys, and low defense, high armor guys. The fighter might take hits all day, but his DR lets him shrug them off. The rogue dodges attacks, but if he takes two or three hits he needs to run. We don't really have that in D&D, because both rogues and fighters play with the same defense value.
Mike Mearls on Why Sunder is Lame
original thread
Here's why I think sunder is lame:
It doesn't respect the DM's control of the campaign. Sunder can destroy items that are important to the plot. It's an end point, rather than an extra complication. Contrast that with disarm: if you're disarmed, the weapon is still there, you just need to take a risk to get it back.
In particular, since so much of 3.5's firepower for PCs and NPCs is tied up in gear, giving you a way to destroy that gear works against the system.
If D&D's system didn't rely on items at all, sunder would be fine, but it does, so I don't think it helps the game.
Sunder also gives you another reason to stop adventuring. I think D&D works best when the PCs are playing a game where they worry about diminishing hit points and spells. Adding other resources to drain or destroy muddies the waters.
Mike Mearls on Battlegrid: Squares or Hexes?
this thread
I'm rather torn on the hexes vs. squares question. It's like the chocolate vs. vanilla argument: nobody can agree, but we're all happy with what we have.
Hexes are nifty because they remove the question of diagonals, though at the cost of creating a playing board that newbies might find a little strange. Most people are used to looking at grids for movement (checkers and chess being the first "miniatures" games people encounter).
Hexes are also troublesome for an aesthetics reason: dungeons mapped in hexes, especially tactical maps, look a little strange. Straight walls either clip parts of the hexes or must be transformed into jagged lines.
I think D&D has stuck with squares because, since the beginning of the game, dungeons have been mapped on square graph paper. Changing at this point might be more trouble than it's worth.
Hexes do have some strengths:
1. Flanking is a lot easier, since you just have to look at opposite sides of a single hex. There are no corners to worry about. Veteran players may find this odd, but flanking is one of the hardest things for new players to understand.
2. No worries about 1.5 square diagonals, or 1 for 1 diagonals that ignore the Pythagorean theorem.
The aesthetics issue might the the root of D&D's use of squares: it's worth noting that back in the day, Gygax used square graph paper for dungeons and hexes for outdoor maps (no dungeon walls, there).
Mike Mearls on Shields
this thread
Shields are a little tricky, because if they're too good everyone wants one, but if they are too lame everyone wields a big weapon. For 4e, we've taken an approach with shields (and most other weapons) where classes that are supposed to be good with something have options and abilities that augment that thing.
So, a fighter might take maneuvers or feats that improve his shield use. A cleric might carry a shield, but the cleric class lacks any specific mechanics to make the shield better.
Mike Mearls on Mounted Combat
this thread
There are rules for it in the DMG and player options for it in the PH. It's in the DMG because DMs have the option of giving out mounts and using them as extra party members (like in 3e), or using rules similar to the mount rules in the latest set of D&D Minis.
We also allow the option for DMs to mix the two: mounts that are low intelligence or that don't normally attack in melee use rules similar to DDM, a creature like a dragon uses rules similar to 3e (it's effectively an extra PC).
Mike Mearls on Portmanteaus
this thread
Querent: So, I was looking at the Desert of Desolation gallery and I see a "visejaw" alligator and a "thundertusk" boar and a "macetail" behemoth.
And upcoming adventure H2 "Labyrinth of Lost Souls" is now Thunderspire Labyrinth.
And we're getting some nifty plane renames like "shadowfell" and "feywild".
Who in the design staff is pushing portmanteaus so damn hard? They're going to find they're reaching a point where all of these compound nouns start sounding very ubiquitous.
In many cases, these names come about for a surprisingly mundane reason. Whenever we name a new product, the legal team does an exhaustive search to make sure no one already owns it. Even in cases where there is only a near match, it's safe to avoid a possible problem. So, we have to get pretty creative with names.
For miniatures, we typically slap words in front of a monster's name to reserve space for a later versions of the figure for miniatures use. For instance, a person who buys minis only for the RPG just wants a troll. However, it's more fun for the miniatures game to have a lot of different trolls, with different effects, powers, and abilities.
To make both sides happy, we can create trolls that look like plain old trolls, but give them different names and miniatures game stats. The different names are necessary on the minis side of things to keep things clear: the Bloodthirsty Troll is a different monster in the minis game than the Feral Troll, even if both look pretty much like standard, D&D trolls.
###
Now to look for what the other designers have been saying!
Cheers,
Merric
Enjoy!
Mike Mearls on Quests - you've read the EN World thread already.
This is the original source: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14491016#post14491016
Mike Mearls on Armour as DR
Original thread
We tried a few methods for using armor as DR in 4e. None of them proved viable. Even systems that looked good on paper failed in playtest. Typically, the problems we encountered were:
1. DR makes it hard to balance the heavily armored guy against the lightly armored guy. In the AC system, you simply compare expected attacks vs. expected AC, and expected hit points vs. expected damage. You can then cross reference those two to figure out how long a PC can survive.
For instance, you might want a fighter to stand toe-to-toe with a monster for 8 rounds before dropping, but a mage only lasts 3. You can manipulate both AC and hit points to hit that sweet spot. Then, you can increment both values up at about the same rate to keep that comparison (mage vs. fighter) intact.
Once you add DR to the system, things get a little weird. It makes it hard to use all three factors (hit points, hit rate, DR) without dropping one or making one a constant.
For instance, you might say that all melee attacks hit 50% of the time, then use DR and hit points to differentiate survival. Or, hit rate and DR might change, but everyone gets the same hit points.
Now, DR works very well in online games that have threat/aggro systems. Under these rules, the guys with high DR focus almost exclusively on drawing attacks. That can be fun in a real time game, but in D&D it's a real drag. MMOs don't have to worry as much about the disparity between the heavily armor guy and the guy in light armor because there are lots of mechanics that simply prevent the light armored guy from suffering attacks.
2. DR adds an extra step of work. Rolling to hit is something we expect to do, and accounting for armor in that step speeds up the game. Adding another step, the check for DR or the time spent resolving it, slows the game down on every successful attack.
If I wanted to add DR to D&D, I think I'd do away with scaling attack bonuses. The to-hit number of the 1st and 30th level fighters would look a lot alike, as would their defenses. The issue would be that the 1st level guy would do little to no damage with each hit, while the 30th level guy smears the 1st level one in a single shot.
The potentially interesting thing is that it makes for a clear distinction between high defense, low armor guys, and low defense, high armor guys. The fighter might take hits all day, but his DR lets him shrug them off. The rogue dodges attacks, but if he takes two or three hits he needs to run. We don't really have that in D&D, because both rogues and fighters play with the same defense value.
Mike Mearls on Why Sunder is Lame
original thread
Here's why I think sunder is lame:
It doesn't respect the DM's control of the campaign. Sunder can destroy items that are important to the plot. It's an end point, rather than an extra complication. Contrast that with disarm: if you're disarmed, the weapon is still there, you just need to take a risk to get it back.
In particular, since so much of 3.5's firepower for PCs and NPCs is tied up in gear, giving you a way to destroy that gear works against the system.
If D&D's system didn't rely on items at all, sunder would be fine, but it does, so I don't think it helps the game.
Sunder also gives you another reason to stop adventuring. I think D&D works best when the PCs are playing a game where they worry about diminishing hit points and spells. Adding other resources to drain or destroy muddies the waters.
Mike Mearls on Battlegrid: Squares or Hexes?
this thread
I'm rather torn on the hexes vs. squares question. It's like the chocolate vs. vanilla argument: nobody can agree, but we're all happy with what we have.
Hexes are nifty because they remove the question of diagonals, though at the cost of creating a playing board that newbies might find a little strange. Most people are used to looking at grids for movement (checkers and chess being the first "miniatures" games people encounter).
Hexes are also troublesome for an aesthetics reason: dungeons mapped in hexes, especially tactical maps, look a little strange. Straight walls either clip parts of the hexes or must be transformed into jagged lines.
I think D&D has stuck with squares because, since the beginning of the game, dungeons have been mapped on square graph paper. Changing at this point might be more trouble than it's worth.
Hexes do have some strengths:
1. Flanking is a lot easier, since you just have to look at opposite sides of a single hex. There are no corners to worry about. Veteran players may find this odd, but flanking is one of the hardest things for new players to understand.
2. No worries about 1.5 square diagonals, or 1 for 1 diagonals that ignore the Pythagorean theorem.
The aesthetics issue might the the root of D&D's use of squares: it's worth noting that back in the day, Gygax used square graph paper for dungeons and hexes for outdoor maps (no dungeon walls, there).
Mike Mearls on Shields
this thread
Shields are a little tricky, because if they're too good everyone wants one, but if they are too lame everyone wields a big weapon. For 4e, we've taken an approach with shields (and most other weapons) where classes that are supposed to be good with something have options and abilities that augment that thing.
So, a fighter might take maneuvers or feats that improve his shield use. A cleric might carry a shield, but the cleric class lacks any specific mechanics to make the shield better.
Mike Mearls on Mounted Combat
this thread
There are rules for it in the DMG and player options for it in the PH. It's in the DMG because DMs have the option of giving out mounts and using them as extra party members (like in 3e), or using rules similar to the mount rules in the latest set of D&D Minis.
We also allow the option for DMs to mix the two: mounts that are low intelligence or that don't normally attack in melee use rules similar to DDM, a creature like a dragon uses rules similar to 3e (it's effectively an extra PC).
Mike Mearls on Portmanteaus
this thread
Querent: So, I was looking at the Desert of Desolation gallery and I see a "visejaw" alligator and a "thundertusk" boar and a "macetail" behemoth.
And upcoming adventure H2 "Labyrinth of Lost Souls" is now Thunderspire Labyrinth.
And we're getting some nifty plane renames like "shadowfell" and "feywild".
Who in the design staff is pushing portmanteaus so damn hard? They're going to find they're reaching a point where all of these compound nouns start sounding very ubiquitous.
In many cases, these names come about for a surprisingly mundane reason. Whenever we name a new product, the legal team does an exhaustive search to make sure no one already owns it. Even in cases where there is only a near match, it's safe to avoid a possible problem. So, we have to get pretty creative with names.
For miniatures, we typically slap words in front of a monster's name to reserve space for a later versions of the figure for miniatures use. For instance, a person who buys minis only for the RPG just wants a troll. However, it's more fun for the miniatures game to have a lot of different trolls, with different effects, powers, and abilities.
To make both sides happy, we can create trolls that look like plain old trolls, but give them different names and miniatures game stats. The different names are necessary on the minis side of things to keep things clear: the Bloodthirsty Troll is a different monster in the minis game than the Feral Troll, even if both look pretty much like standard, D&D trolls.
###
Now to look for what the other designers have been saying!
Cheers,
Merric
