pukunui
Legend
Hi all,
Mike Mearls is currently doing an AMA session over on Reddit (link). Mostly he's talking about general stuff, but there are a few gems in there:
On the Mystic:
On the Artificer:
On Changing 5e:
On 6e:
On the Revised Ranger:
On Creating Something New for 5e:
On Eberron:
On D&D Settings in General:
On Power Creep:
On the Arms & Equipment Guide:
On Campaign Building:
On Live Streaming:
On UA Content:
On New Subclasses:
On Mass Combat:
On Rules that Get in the Way:
On D&D Novels:
On Overlooked Niches in the D&D Multiverse:
On Adventure Anthologies:
On the Best Way to Support the D&D Staff:
On Puzzles:
For more, see posts #4, #7, and #14.
Mike Mearls is currently doing an AMA session over on Reddit (link). Mostly he's talking about general stuff, but there are a few gems in there:
On the Mystic:
Moving the mystic back a bit - it lacks a clear conceptual boundary. The design right now kind of does everything. We're looking at it in terms of settings. What does a psionic-user in Dark Sun do, etc.
Artificer is moving up ahead of it, would like to have something by the middle of the year.
On the Artificer:
Hoping to get something out by mid-year, using Eberron as more of an inspiration for the next draft. Tested well, so more refinement than wholesale reinvention.
On Changing 5e:
I'd remove bonus actions, rebuilding specific abilities to capture what they are trying to do. For instance, healing word could let heal someone and include a melee or ranged attack as part of the spell.
Bonus actions add complexity that doesn't need to be there. I like keeping things streamlined when I can.
On 6e:
For a new edition, we'd need to see player demand for a revised PHB. I'd prefer to continue incremental updates and improvements, and then let you all let us know when it's time to take the best improvement and fold them into a new edition. Backward compatibility would be a high priority.
On the Revised Ranger:
Unfortunately, no schedule right now. We're specifically looking at how we can integrate it as smooth as possible into the existing ranger. For instance, we want to make sure that someone using D&D Beyond isn't confused or making a weird choice (this ranger, or that ranger - pick one) that is nonsensical to a new player.
On Creating Something New for 5e:
Nothing in the sense of a new thing for the sake of a new thing. We usually think more in terms of what players and DMs might want or need, then look at how that might manifest as a story.
Classic stuff is easier to get a handle on. People know they like Ravenloft and want it, so we tackle it.
Really, for something new I want to create - new players and DMs.
On Eberron:
Eberron is seen as a core D&D setting, alongside the Realms and Ravenloft. What does that mean? Can't say yet...
I would not be surprised to see Keith [Baker] working with us in some capacity in 2018.
On D&D Settings in General:
The settings are definitely on my mind. We have some fun stuff planned for 2018. I hope we can pull it off.
Can't say anything, but (with some modifications) we see Spelljammer as a part of the D&D cosmology.
On Power Creep:
Power creep is definitely a concern. We don't want people to feel they need to buy the newest thing to make characters (really hurts bringing in new players).
That said, we try to balance against where things should be rather than where they ended up. Player perception is also very important. Since D&D is coop, the perception of imbalance takes priority over mathematically proven imbalance.
On the Arms & Equipment Guide:
Not at this time, but it is definitely a product concept that we have on our list.
On Campaign Building:
I tend to build my campaigns in quick episodes, with a good knowledge of the main NPCs who might drive the action to help flesh stuff out.
This article has proven useful to me:
http://slyflourish.com/fronts_in_dnd.html
On Live Streaming:
We work with a number of streamers directly, and for newer ones we don't have a specific plan right now. We are thinking about what streaming means for the game, though, and how we can encourage it. Might be simple stuff, like guides on equipment, tech set up, and so on.
On UA Content:
If the concept is interesting and distinct, we send it back to the drawing board for a re-concept based on what people rated well. In fact, you might see a few new subclasses in January's UA that look a little familiar.
On New Subclasses:
I'd like to see a subclass that does more with spirits and primal entities. I'd also like to see one that does something meatier with elementals and elemental power.
On Mass Combat:
Talking to a designer now about tackling that topic.
Yes, we are talking to a designer about tackling it in 2018 in UA.
On Rules that Get in the Way:
When it happens, it's almost always because of bonus actions or the goofy definition of what a weapon actually is. Also, implements can cause headaches.
I obviously use bonus actions in my game, but otherwise pay no mind to what is actually a weapon or whether someone has the right implement to cast a spell. Those rules are basically there to help a DM if a player is doing something cheesy.
On D&D Novels:
It turns out that as a game company, we're not so good at being a novel publishing company. We've talked about them, but nothing to announce.
On Overlooked Niches in the D&D Multiverse:
Genies - I think the elemental planes as a whole could use some more detail.
On Adventure Anthologies:
Tales did very well, and we still see people asking for adventures. I would not be surprised if we did something similar.
On the Best Way to Support the D&D Staff:
Recruit more players and DMs!
On Puzzles:
I usually start with a solution in mind, then work backward to how to present it. I like the solutions to be relevant to a location or dungeons's flavor. For instance, in an ancient library you might need to find the specific book that the ghostly sage wants.
For more, see posts #4, #7, and #14.
Last edited: