D&D Next Chat Transcript (Mike Mearls & Jeremy Crawford)

[Tsuga C]

And Get Offa My Lawn, Young Hellions!

At most, the 4e characters have abilities that were once only the realm of the Monster Manuals.

This is natural evolution, not stretching.

This in and of itself I find an objectionable devolution and remains one of the myriad of reasons that some players and DMs just couldn't make the edition jump last time around. And, as duly noted by thzero, magic missile was never an at-will ability for player characters using core materials.

*grumbles*

I never did run high-magic campaigns and was hoping that 5E would back away from such significantly.

 

[Kobold Boots]

This in and of itself I find an objectionable devolution and remains one of the myriad of reasons that some players and DMs just couldn't make the edition jump last time around.

Sure. I respect that people may feel this way. At the same time, I don't agree with you. I just don't see much to get that invested in.

And, as duly noted by thzero, magic missile was never an at-will ability for player characters using core materials.

Sure, if you want to take something I wrote the way someone else interpreted it; your response makes sense. What I actually meant was more in line with:

The fighters primary attacks are at will . The rogues primary attacks are largely at will. The mage's primary attacks were not at will by nature of the vancian casting system, so spell combinations aside this creates an imbalance that should be corrected by giving mages at least one or two attacks that can be at will.

I never did run high-magic campaigns and was hoping that 5E would back away from such significantly.

It's not the responsibility of the rules system to back away from a type or style of play. It's the responsibility of the DM to take the rules set and play the game the way his or her group wants to play.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Even for an early playtest I'm a little peeved that they're giving out pregens and not some kind of basic quickstart character creation rules. The character creation process is step 1 of playing a D&D game (and arguably the most important part and the most fun part). Seems like it should be step 1 of testing the game.

The hints at mechanics at least suggest that they're taking a sensible approach to balance and that they have some idea of what magic needs to be. At-will magic isn't a necessity, but the cantrips sound appropriate.

Sorry, but I disagree. You need the system done before you can make characters for it. Sure, once the game is done making characters is first, but the game is not close to done.

 

[Dice4Hire]

At-will magic for fighters and rogues? What a crock! Fighters should fight, rogues should steal and backstab. Leave the 4E homogenization in 4E where it belongs.

They said that kind of things would be in themes.

If a fighter or a rogue wants to go that way, I say let them. The option should be there.

 

[Dark Mistress]

This is reminding me a bit of the run up to 4E release. I am liking some of what I am hearing and disliking some of what I am hearing. So all and all interested to learn more but mostly meh about it. Though the PR has been TONS better so far for this edition.

 

[Mark CMG]

Though the PR has been TONS better so far for this edition.

XP to you! Yup. Good point. The PR has been very, very good and respectful of the customer base. They seem to have turned that around since last time and everyone should give them their due for that.

 

[pming]

Hiya

Sure, if you want to take something I wrote the way someone else interpreted it; your response makes sense. What I actually meant was more in line with:

The fighters primary attacks are at will . The rogues primary attacks are largely at will. The mage's primary attacks were not at will by nature of the vancian casting system, so spell combinations aside this creates an imbalance that should be corrected by giving mages at least one or two attacks that can be at will.

Hate to sound like a child here, but...why? Honestly, *why* does a mage have to have at least one or two attacks "at will"? On the flip side, why not say that everyone who isn't a spell caster "needs to have at least one or two spells they can cast each day"?

I think you are forgetting that the game isn't just about "dealing damage in combat"; warrior types are the meat of the 'combat guys'...they fight all day long, any time, any place. They dont' have fancy spells or abilities other than the sheer capability to dish out damage and take it. Magic users *don't* fight all day long, any time, any place. In fact, they try to (or should try to) avoid combat like the plague...they'd get their butts handed to them in short order 9/10 times. So, their idea of a "fair fight" tends towards the "all or nothing"...either they spend 4 seconds casting a spell that kills/stops their foe, or they die 4 seconds after that. This, IMHO, *is perfectly fine*.

Magic users *shouldn't* be very versitile in combat. They *shouldn't* have "at will" magic missiles and stuff like that. Simply put, they are not fighters. They shouldn't be treated like it. To treat them exactly like any other class is to totally miss the entire point of being a magic user; spells and magical'ness.

It's not the responsibility of the rules system to back away from a type or style of play. It's the responsibility of the DM to take the rules set and play the game the way his or her group wants to play.

I half-half agree/disagree with this. The rules should, at it's core, be the absolute most BASIC of rules and assumptions. The rules have the responsiblity to present the least amount of 'unusual/interesting' stuff as a core...then allow the DM to add-on what he/she wants or needs. The reasoning is simple; it's much easier for a DM to give something to players than to try and take it away. If the rules give the players base choices to play psionic characters, and the DM doesn't like that, if he tries to say "No psionics in my game", he has a *much* higher chance of hearing whiny players pouting about the mean ol' DM taking away their fun! But if the core rules don't have that as a base option, and the DM says "There are psionics in my game", he has a *much* higher chance of hearing elated players exclaiming Awesome! I love 'em! I have this idea for a character.... Now, I ask you, what would you rather have your players be saying to you?

Rules are the same thing; It should be "Falling damage: take 1d6/10' fallen". Period. Done. That's the base rule. Now...under the skill Tumbling, lets say, there could be an option that says "A successful Tumble skill against [rules for figuring out DC], reduces the damage taken by X". Now the DM can use/not use it. But if that is the base assumption, and the DM tries to say "No, I don't use that; too complciated. Just a flat d6/10', please"...well, you're back to the whiny vs. happy player thing again. So...most BASE of rules = GOOD.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Kobold Boots]

Hi Paul - Thanks for your reply.

I think the strength of my argument is that I don't need to explain myself to have it be consistent. I appreciate what you're saying, but I think it's pretty clear that if your preferences are specific to feel of a particular character class, that it won't be core. However, that's not saying you won't be able to play the game your way, which is awesome.

Thanks,
KB

 

[El Mahdi]

...*grumbles*

I never did run high-magic campaigns and was hoping that 5E would back away from such significantly.

...It's not the responsibility of the rules system to back away from a type or style of play. It's the responsibility of the DM to take the rules set and play the game the way his or her group wants to play.

I don't entirely agree with the idea that it's the responsibility of the DM to take the rules and make them play the way they want for their group. It really shouldn't be necessary for a DM to have game design skills in order to play the game they want...which is essentially what you're saying. ?For those that do have such skills, they do definitely come in handy...but a system should not be designed with an expectation that it's users will have those skills.

As for the responsibility of a rules system, it's only responsibility is to do what the designers intended for it to do...period. Though some designers are more successful than others.

However, I will cede that a game system that's flexible enough to be used for mutiple styles and feels, and is inuitive or easy enough to adapt to do that, is likely going to be a much more successful system than one that doesn't. And one that's actually designed to be variable is even better.

So far though, that kind of flexibility and intuitiveness is what the designers of 5E are aiming for.

We'll see just how successful they are at that when we see the final product (though we all do get a chance to help ensure that through the open playtest and our feedback). 5E should be able to run both high-magic and low-magic with equal ease, and have the mechanisms for doing this already in the rules. Or at least that's a goal the designers have stated (they're called "dials").

 

[El Mahdi]

Hate to sound like a child here, but...why? Honestly, *why* does a mage have to have at least one or two attacks "at will"?

So a magic user can continue to contribute all the time without having to resort to an un-magical, non-wizardly option...such as a crossbow or using a staff in melee.

This is a concern of may players and DM's. It may not be a concern for you, but that doesn't make it any less of a concern for those that it is important to. And apparently the designers agree, and are incoporating a mechanical aspect that addresses this concern for those who feel it is important. If you don't like at-wills, simply ignore them.

On the flip side, why not say that everyone who isn't a spell caster "needs to have at least one or two spells they can cast each day"?

One: because that's just silly.

Two: because it turns a non-magic class into a magical class...ruining the entire feel or reason for playing such a class in the first place.

Third: it's a completely unrelated, and unreasonable comparison using poor logic.

Fourth: because that's just silly.


The designers of 5E have already said that magic-users are going to have some at-will elements, mainly for the reason I stated above. If you think the problem that it is fixing really isn't a problem, then it's a very simple thing to simply prohibit the use of the at-will magic-user class components in your games.

Problem fixed. No muss, no fuss.