Mike Mearls Discusses the First Round of Public D&D Next Playtests

UngeheuerLich · May 28, 2012

Stormonu said:
Background and Theme providing equipment... that's a cool way of doing starting gear, so long as we still have the option to customize gear.

Not sure I like the idea of racial weapon boosts. I've got a feeling that will backfire into locking characters into certain weapons, even with it generally being a small advantage. I'd rather they got automatic proficiency but no boost like a bonus to hit and especially damage.

DM: "Why is your dwarf cleric holding an axe? Aren't clerics of Moradin more well known for wielding hammers - the tool of a smith?"
Player: "Because I don't get a damage bump with a hammer - or a mace."

Also, don't like the spell formatting. As far back as I can remember, there's always been some sort of stat block for a spell's basic information - school, range, area, components, etc.

The other things mentioned haven't even raised an eyebrow as I read through the docs, so I'm neutral on them.

But...

Good God, the whiners in the comments. Which one of the designers kicked their dog?

I myself am somewhat hesitant about what I've seen and read, but I'm rather shocked that the 4E'ers feel so excluded. The playtest strikes me as a 4E skeleton with OD&D language at the moment. As a bit of a grognard (I missed OD&D, but have played all other versions), so far I'm not feeling like D&DNext is speaking to me entirely.

I wonder if, as a compromise edition (as in committee-made), 5E will end up pleasing no one.

You notice a good compromise, if everyone is equally unhappy.

I like all editions since 2nd edition (i don´t know the rest). So I am quite happy. I personally believe their admixture could result in a fun game. But please, don´t listen to the whiners. They most probably didn´t even try it out.

Compare it to playtest reports here on enworld. Some of them are really great.

Ichneumon · May 28, 2012

Good God, the whiners in the comments. Which one of the designers kicked their dog?

Indeed. No matter how universally appealing DDN turns out to be, I doubt that I'd ever want that bunch of crybabies at my gaming table.

pemerton · May 28, 2012

Stormonu said:
The playtest strikes me as a 4E skeleton with OD&D language at the moment.

The wizards and clerics seem pretty 4e-ish: at wills, dailies, but no encounter powers that I noticed. The fighter seems 3E-ish to me - basic attacks but with a couple of feat riders.

The action resolution seems like a version of 4e but with non-combat resolution mostly stripped out. There doesn't seem to be any very special nod to exploration. The stealth rules struck me as a variant on 4e. And the interaction rules are pretty sparse.

I agree with you that the spell descriptions are hopeless.

Li Shenron · May 28, 2012

Always good to read the "behind the curtains" of design...

The only one thing in the article which worries me, is the concept that the Rogue is more reliable with skills (OK) but won't generally be able to achieve things that the others cannot do. I have a similar concern from advantage replacing circumstance bonuses.

Maybe I'm just overreacting, but I cannot help but imagining a group with a task that would be impossible, but thank God we have a Rogue!

This tells me that the designer have had probably in mind situations that MUST be overcome, such as opening a door that leads the party to the end of the adventure, rather than situations that DON'T HAVE TO be overcome but can grant a nice prize, such as opening a door that leads to a room with treasure or weapons.

Blackwarder · May 28, 2012

I promised myself that I won't talk about it until we had 2-3 sessions with the new rule but frack it.

Yesterday our group had our first session with the playtest material and we had a really good time, we've been playing 4th ed since its release, thre of my players have their roots deeply in 3rd another one played 2nd and OD&D and skipped 3rd and we also had a brand new player at the table.

We had a really good time, every player felt like it was his favorite edition and we managed to spend a lot of in game time in the four hours we played.

I'm not going to comment on the rules just yet though, I want to see how they play a bit more.

Warder

Klaus · May 28, 2012

In the chat a couple of weeks ago, Mearls (iirc) mentioned wizards getting d6 HD. I wonder if the high elf has a trait lowering the HD to d4...

The Shadow · May 28, 2012

Klaus said:
In the chat a couple of weeks ago, Mearls (iirc) mentioned wizards getting d6 HD. I wonder if the high elf has a trait lowering the HD to d4...

That's my guess: That instead of elves getting a Con penalty, they get an HD size penalty. Not sure how I feel about that, if so. Also, I give long odds that elves bump up the damage die on bows. (And, given the history of the game, perhaps longswords - though I'd think a finesse weapon like a rapier would make more sense.)

The idea of races bumping up the damage die of weapons is an intriguing one. It's definitely an incentive to stick with an 'appropriate' weapon, but not an overwhelming one. There's some other interesting aspects too - rolling crappy damage is no better than before, but rolling well is more awesome than before. I think I like that.

I like what I see in this article, but I worry a little about giving the fighter two themes, as awesome as that is. I foresee lots of one-level dips into fighter, in that case. Or if it only applies to 1st level characters, lots of people starting out as fighters. I mean, getting double the feats for the first 6 levels is GOOD.

Perhaps the second theme could be 'only fighter levels count'? Though that's getting into mildly complicated territory.

Blackwarder: That all your players felt 5e was their favorite edition already is highly encouraging news.

delericho · May 28, 2012

Well, he hit pretty much everything that I liked about the playtest materials (on a read-through at least; haven't had chance to play yet), and explained why I like it.

And there is a lot that I like about the playtest materials. I was surprised at how much I like them.

Now, next week, it would be really good if he could hit all the things I don't like, and explain those in the same way - at least then while I wouldn't agree I could at least understand.

ren1999 · May 28, 2012

Thanks for giving us the link to this article. It really explains a lot.

TarionzCousin · May 28, 2012

Klaus said:
In the chat a couple of weeks ago, Mearls (iirc) mentioned wizards getting d6 HD. I wonder if the high elf has a trait lowering the HD to d4...

That doesn't seem very elfy, but it should make [MENTION=990]Buttercup[/MENTION] smile.