D&D 5E EN World Interview With Mike Mearls, Lead Designer of D&D Next

DerekSTheRed · May 21, 2012

habaal said:
Now we ARE talking mechanics now, right?
So my question to ENWorld is this: Do high level games play fluently and as fast- paced as low level ones? We were promised short and fast combat turns and general task resolution, and I wanted to know if this premise still holds at the higher levels of the game. Almost all feedback we will give will be of the game portions they provide, and to my understanding, most of it will be for Heroic (low) level games. How much of the open playtest will be for post- 10th level characters?
I do like what I've read so far, and an answer to sooth my concerns would be very much obliged.

I don't think they've looked at high level play much. I'm concerned that hit point dominance of fighters won't scale well. High level play that involves monsters capable of killing non-fighters in one hit while the fighter shrugs off the same hit? No bueno.

Bran Mak Morn · May 21, 2012

I liked the interview,!
Game Tonic, I believe we are all waiting for you this evening

ColonelHardisson · May 21, 2012

Kzach said:
Umm... how are you getting that out of that?

All he's saying is that things are more balanced between the pillars, not less. If things are more equal then there ISN'T a focus bias.

I understand the confusion, and I think what Mearls said isn't as clear as it could have been. What I took it to mean (and I could be wrong in my interpretation) when he said "till, a guy who takes a combat-based is only marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere" is that someone who takes a combat-based theme is only marginally better at combat than someone who takes a non-combat-based theme, not better in general.

filthgrinder · May 21, 2012

ColonelHardisson said:
I understand the confusion, and I think what Mearls said isn't as clear as it could have been. What I took it to mean (and I could be wrong in my interpretation) when he said "till, a guy who takes a combat-based is only marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere" is that someone who takes a combat-based theme is only marginally better at combat than someone who takes a non-combat-based theme, not better in general.

I think the issue is that Mike answers the questions like the person having a conversation with another person, as opposed to a political press announcement that will be dissected line by line and quote mined for issues. I think your interpretation matches what we know so far.

What he seems to be saying is that someone who makes ALL their character creation choices combat focused, will only have a marginal advantage in combat effectiveness over someone who made choices for interaction and exploration. This is the correction of 3E and 4E, where you can have someone who min-maxed his character into a combat machine having a huge advantage in combat over another character. This imbalance can ruin the fun for everyone at the table when an actual combat encounter happens.

So ideally I'd like to see the combat focus guy only have a +1 damage or maybe a different attack than a melee basic. This means he's got a bonus, but it's not SO great that you feel bad for skipping it. Like the +1 to hit feats in 4E. The combat mechanical feats are more attractive than History or another language. Ideally I'd like to see the combat feats give less of a bonus, and the noncombat ones give something extra.

dkyle · May 21, 2012

Themes should be the 100% Combat pillar counterpart to Backgrounds, if Themes are simply packages of feats. Feats should be 100% combat. Trying to balance combat vs. non-combat feats has never worked well.

Now, I've mentioned before that I'd like Themes to be more than the sum of their component parts (or else custom Themes are virtually guaranteed to overpower the named ones, making them newbie traps). Adding Exploration/Interaction bonuses to Themes, on top of the feats, could be a decent way to do this.

Could even make these bonuses available to custom Themes as well, if they take certain sets of feats.

ColonelHardisson · May 21, 2012

filthgrinder said:
I think the issue is that Mike answers the questions like the person having a conversation with another person, as opposed to a political press announcement that will be dissected line by line and quote mined for issues.

Yep, I think you articulated it well. Still, one would think they'd have learned by now to be a bit more precise in what they say in interviews like that. I'm put in mind of the early assertion that they were working on an edition that would allow all editions to be played, and we saw people coming up with elaborate theories on a system that would allow people to literally play all editions in the same game. :erm:

Orryn Emrys · May 21, 2012

ColonelHardisson said:
I understand the confusion, and I think what Mearls said isn't as clear as it could have been. What I took it to mean (and I could be wrong in my interpretation) when he said "till, a guy who takes a combat-based is only marginally better than a character who takes a theme that focuses elsewhere" is that someone who takes a combat-based theme is only marginally better at combat than someone who takes a non-combat-based theme, not better in general.

I agree. Mark's perception is very understandable, however, if you read Mike's comments through the lens of 4E-design-philosophy expectations. This has also been a fear of mine, as the focus on combat in 4E was a serious enough detraction to keep me from indulging.

That being said, it is possible that comments which suggest a focus on combat are intended to mollify any fears that characters who are built with emphasis on other pillars will become superfluous in combat encounters. My group has always been interested in characterization and role-playing, so combat abilities are often a secondary interest (if that), but we have noted during campaign play that some characters can easily begin to feel outclassed and useless when faced with any given combat scenario, because they have a stunted ability to contribute alongside their fellows.

Often, of course, these same characters outshine their allies in other areas, but combat is always a relevant portion of any game that includes it because it is so very time-consuming at the table. It's one thing for the fighter to feel out-of-place in a social engagement that takes 20 or 30 minutes to resolve, quite another for the noncombative player to feel useless for a couple hours of real time while a combat encounter is resolved.

Naturally, I tend to limit combats in my game, but many of my players enjoy them and like to build capable PCs. But they also tend to focus on character personalities and motives, so they are typically just as engaged as everyone else when their PC is out of his/her depth. After all, poor social skills still lend themselves to entertaining roleplaying opportunities.

Poor combat skills, on the other hand, often lead to a slightly less enjoyable experience.

I continue to be cautiously optimistic, and I am looking forward to the playtest.

am181d · May 21, 2012

dkyle said:
Now, I've mentioned before that I'd like Themes to be more than the sum of their component parts (or else custom Themes are virtually guaranteed to overpower the named ones, making them newbie traps). Adding Exploration/Interaction bonuses to Themes, on top of the feats, could be a decent way to do this.

Here's why I don't like this:

Imagine a scenario in which a DM is creating custom Themes for his campaign. Per your preference, he's creating a "topper" ability for each Theme. Now imagine that one of his players come to him with a concept for a new Theme. Does he get a topper ability or not? What if his Theme idea is *based* around the topper? Suddenly you've got this whole other type of ability that you need to consider in character creation, and you haven't solved the original problem.

Morrus · May 21, 2012

ColonelHardisson said:
Yep, I think you articulated it well. Still, one would think they'd have learned by now to be a bit more precise in what they say in interviews like that.

That, I'm sure, is why 99% of anything we hear outside DDI articles is officially sanctioned stuff through press agencies, rather than direct communication from the designers. One wrong word... you can't blame them, really.

Though I definitely feel that the designers are interacting with the fans directly a hell of a lot more this year than they had been in the years preceding it. I like it!

That said, I'm sure they'd rather we were pouring over every word than ignoring it - when people care enough about your game to discuss it endlessly 18 months before release, that can only be a good thing.

ColonelHardisson · May 21, 2012

Morrus said:
That, I'm sure, is why 99% of anything we hear outside DDI articles is officially sanctioned stuff through press agencies, rather than direct communication from the designers. One wrong word... you can't blame them, really.

Though I definitely feel that the designers are interacting with the fans directly a hell of a lot more this year than they had been in the years preceding it. I like it!

That said, I'm sure they'd rather we were pouring over every word than ignoring it - when people care enough about your game to discuss it endlessly 18 months before release, that can only be a good thing.

I'm sure they do see it as a positive that we're all examining what they say like it was the Tetragrammaton. As a gamer and their intended audience, I've definitely noticed and appreciated their coming out of their shell and engaging the audience directly. Reminds me of the early days of 3e, which is a good thing.