Penny Arcade Podcast with Mike Mearls

VinylTap said:

I think you're right, but its slightly more complicated... I think they're intentionally bringing up larger issues that the community is digesting and making sure those issues are framed in a way that's good for WOTC.

Click to expand...

I really, really don't think that's the case. It is entirely possible to maintain an open mind, be interested in the changes without being judgemental, and have a good time learning about the new game with its prime mover guiding you through the process...even if you think you don't need a new edition or even particularly like what they're doing. (Especially if you're getting paid, natch.)

VinylTap said:

I think you're right, but its slightly more complicated... I think they're intentionally bringing up larger issues that the community is digesting and making sure those issues are framed in a way that's good for WOTC. I believe they like where the game is going, but i think there's a bit of PR going on too. I think they're acting tough in regards to their questions so the final glowing recommendation at the end of it is that much more convincing.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is that. I think that they are acting the way they because that is what they *really* feel. They are *very* passionate people about the games they play, and it surprises me not that they are asking the tough questions. Not to get a better "payoff" or "reward" when they say that they like it at the end, but because they would ask the same questions if it was the next instalment of a videogame that they enjoyed.

I'm liking what I'm hearing, especially how Cleric Domains essentially give you huge variance in builds and how Magic-Users (I love that they said Magic-User at the end instead of Wizard) are going to have Traditions. Fighters with Combat Styles would fit the bill nicely too. By the end of this we could have all 4 Cardinal Classes with a good set of build options that prior editions would force you to take as a separate class after waiting 2-5 years for a splat-book.

- Marty Lund

If you ever watch any of the Penny Arcade TV videos the way they are talking, asking questions, and making jokes is very similar to the way they come up with their comics. It's just how they are, and how the think /process information.

I wouldn't read anything "sinister" into it.

The warlock thing was the newest random tidbit I noticed. It actually sounds a lot like this idea Someone had for psionics (#2 in his post): you start with one or more at-will powers, but have the ability to "boost" them to encounter powers, and maybe even to daily powers.

So at level 1 I can eldritch blast for (let's say) 2d6 damage vs. AC against one target every round, but once per encounter I can blast for 3d6 vs. Dexterity, and maybe once a day I can turn that into a 4d6 fireball-type area effect.

That would be a very cool thing if there are a number of sufficiently distinct base abilities to choose from (e.g. telekinesis, blink/teleportation, etc). It would also cordon off "encounter powers" which some people hate into a class that's relatively new and since 3e has traditionally been mechanically weird.

Also in the podcast, the Leader specialty sounds cool, even though it's pretty clearly cannibalizing the Warlord class (which I had hoped to see as a class). A wizard-Leader

But I'm confused about cleric healing again; I thought Mearls had meant that healing is being cordoned off into Channel Divinity to free cleric spell slots up for other actions, but now he made it sound like you can use Channel Divinity AND spells for healing, which might not solve the initial problem at all (that is, clerics will still feel pressured to reserve all their slots for Cure X Wounds IN ADDITION to their Channel Divinity).

Also, the back-and-forth made it unclear whether ALL cleric spells are spontaneous- Vancian (a la 3e sorcerer) or whether non-domain spells need to be prepared wizard-style. I'm 99% sure it's all spontaneous, but the conversation confused me again.

Pour said:

I just don't see a logical evolution they're expressing from 4e to 5e , ie I can't make the jump with them that 5e is some sort of advancement/fix/reaction to 4e. Maybe in a few ways, though it feels more like inclusion than advancement from following the L&L on here. Were they speaking solely to the idea that every class now gets its own mechanical schtick, which 4e forgoes for a uniform AEDU model? Is that what they're saying 5e advances from 4e? I'm just a little confused there.

Click to expand...

I played 4th as soon as it came out, but only the once. My initial reaction was "wow, this is a lot of fun right off the bat! This is great, and I can see why they chose this direction". I found a group of people willing to play, but after some web-research decided pathfinder was a safer bet for my group as they seemed to lean more towards narrative than combat. The only problem I have with pathfinder is it holds true to a lot of aged game mechanics that drive me nuts,

I'm looking forward to that feeling I got with that initial 4th introduction ("wow, all of this makes a lot of sense!"), but as a very basics, polished open-ended framework of rules I can adapt to my own devises.

That's really exciting for someone looking for an elegant, innocuous-as-possible system. It does feel like a bit of a regression, but in the long run, 4th might end up feeling like a smaller blip on the culture than any of the other editions.

Not only that, but the slowing of power-creep of abilities/items, bounded-accuracy, and larger level range for monsters really speaks to the game designer in me.

VinylTap said:

I played 4th as soon as it came out, but only the once. My initial reaction was "wow, this is a lot of fun right off the bat! This is great, and I can see why they chose this direction". I found a group of people willing to play, but after some web-research decided pathfinder was a safer bet for my group as they seemed to lean more towards narrative than combat. The only problem I have with pathfinder is it holds true to a lot of aged game mechanics that drive me nuts,

I'm looking forward to that feeling I got with that initial 4th introduction ("wow, all of this makes a lot of sense!"), but as a very basics, polished open-ended framework of rules I can adapt to my own devises.

That's really exciting for someone looking for an elegant, innocuous-as-possible system. It does feel like a bit of a regression, but in the long run, 4th might end up feeling like a smaller blip on the culture than any of the other editions.

Not only that, but the slowing of power-creep of abilities/items, bounded-accuracy, and larger level range for monsters really speaks to the game designer in me.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm even more confused now. And I don't want to stir any edition war sentiments here, so I'll mosey on off. Maybe if we had the full podcast I could make some overarching assumptions *shakes fist at Wizards*.

Chris_Nightwing said:

Things I recall from listening to it just now:

Clerics start with no armour or weapon proficiencies - their domain decides that, as well as what minor (at-will) spells they can cast and the spell list they have to cast from 3E-Sorcerer style.
Wizards will have a tradition, that does something..
Backgrounds (which appeared to be 3 skills and a trait) mentioned included Noble (you get henchmen!), Soldier, Bounty Hunter, Artisan, Knight.

Click to expand...

If I heard aright, Mearls said that each character gets 3 skills from his or her background, except that Rogues get additional skills as part of their class. However, he also mentioned that Clerics get the Religion skill from their class. (The rules are probably still in flux. . . .)

Themes are now specialities or something, mentioned are Leader (Feat 1 Battle Commander will give allies advantage and a move, for your action), Magic-User.
< snip >

Click to expand...

Yeah, the thing that used to be called "Theme" -- i.e. a list of feats that the character gets progressively starting at Level 1, then more at later levels -- is now called "Specialty"; and the word "Theme" is now a blanket term covering both Background and Specialty. (Again, if I heard aright.)

I kind of wish every class got one skill - Cleric: Religious Lore, Ranger: Nature Lore, Fighter: Athletics, Wizard: Arcane Lore etc. Well, except for the Rogue archetypes would've got a slew of skills, what with it being their shtick and all.

- Marty Lund

I may be reading to much into it here, but when mike said "clerics get religion" I almost felt like it was a omg how could we not think of that butt pull