Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

First of all, thanks [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] for collecting this. I generally avoid Twitter because, frankly, it's full of a$$holes.

That aside: this is an interesting way of looking at it, and underscores the difference in design philosophies between the WotC team and the Paizo team. There is a lot of room for both philosophies of design, and I don't think there is any reason for fans of one to be hostile to fans of the other, but those differences do matter. There are ways in which I like the prescriptive elements of 3.x era games (I like set skill difficulty lists, for example) but I tend to run by the seat of my pants and the effects of my beer, so a fast and loose and forgiving version like 5E really enables me running a game the way I like to.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hmm, I rarely get involved in these lovely back-and-forth discussions, but I must admit that this got me a bit stumped.

You do realise that every feature of a character in 4E was in the nature of a power and every power in 4E was in the same format and relied on exactly the same mechanics, right? Roll an attack roll, do damage, apply condition. Rinse, repeat. To suggest that there was somehow "more variety" in character options in 4E than in 5E is, to my mind, contrary to evidence. 4E was the absolute pinnacle of less mechanical variety in character options of any version of D&D yet. Deliberately. That there were ten different powers that attacked an individual creature's Reflex defence, did 3 dice damage, and pushed them 2 squares, is not the definition of "variety". And something that was deliberately moved away from in 5E.

Like many in this overly long discussion, I emphasise I am not making any judgements about the merits or otherwise of the editions, nor of people's opinions. I just gotta call out the "what the..." moment I had reading the above statements.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

Pemerton’s response captures my stance on this pretty much perfectly.

 

[TwoSix]

In a lot of ways, I feel too much was designed into the base class, leaving too little to differentiate in the various subclasses. The reason the Urban Ranger is hard to design as a subclass is an example of this, and I feel paladins have too many of their abilities baked into the core class as well (e.g a Vengeance Paladin doesn't really need Lay on Hands thematically; would have been nice to see that as an option, with something more vengeful to replace it).

Lots of classes would differentiate nicely with more options moved from base to sub-.

I swear I remember some of the Next design in late 2012, maybe into 2013 experimenting in that direction. There were only 4 classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard), with a very loose skeleton, and most of the differentiation was within the subclass. Like sorcerer and warlock were wizard subclasses, and druid was a cleric subclass.

I actually like that design direction, Shadow of the Demon Lord does something very similar and that's one of my favorite systems.

 

[TwoSix]

What are the 10 powers you've got in mind?

But in any event, I think you've missed [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION]'s point, because you've misdescribed 4e powers.

Most 4e powers are a distinctive, perhaps unique, combination of actions for the attacker (move, shift, heal, etc) and effects on the target (various conditions and forced movement effects). This satisfies Charlaauin's request for uniqueness.

And you get to make a new power choice at most levels. Which satisfies the request for frequent, beyond-starting-levels, PC build options.

Not to mention that powers weren't the only features that distinguished 4e characters; feats and magic items were concurrent vectors of character building that had, at most, a moderate overlap with powers.

And that's not to mention Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies; I don't remember a class power that gave you abilities like "steal the eye color from a prince" or "wander to any point you wish in the multiverse".

But really, this is all in the past and I have no desire to relitigate the edition war.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Charlaquin]

Really? While the "monk chassis" might not be a perfect fit for everything, IME and IMO, the Open Hand and Shadow are two of the best designed and realized subclasses out there!

In fact, I often think of the Monk when I think of a well-designed class that's a little different and lives up to its design goals.

I’m not a fan of 5e’s Monk Personally, but it is absolutely well-designed and meets its design goals.

 

[OB1]

Well this takes us back to the heated discussion of several pages ago: 5e doesn't seem especially story-driven, nor especially light!

The design concept is story first. That is what Mearls was talking about. 5e doesn’t design a class to fit a role or the need for a INT based melee attack, it comes up with a story based idea first, then fits the mechanics to that.

And I didn’t say light design. I said light as possible design. Specifically, light as possible to reach the desired goal. In this case to tell an EXCITING story about brave adventurers facing deadly perils. In other words, only be as heavy as is absolutely necessary to reach that goal.

I’d argue that the problem with a truly rules lite system such as Fate is that it’s simplicity requires the players to bring the excitement and ideas to the table on their own while a game like PF gets so bogged down in minutia as to make combat tedious rather than exciting.

If you look at every possible rule addition through the lens of “is this necessary to reach the goals of play” it means editing out ideas that can be fun on their own but don’t support the core experience, much like a film editor cutting a scene that is exciting or funny or thrilling because it isn’t necessary to tell the story.

 

[qstor]

I think his comments go in line with a saying I've heard. In D&D 3.5/Pathfinder there's a rule for everything. In 5th edition the DM makes a rule up for everything.

 

[Greg K]

Really? While the "monk chassis" might not be a perfect fit for everything, IME and IMO, the Open Hand and Shadow are two of the best designed and realized subclasses out there!

In fact, I often think of the Monk when I think of a well-designed class that's a little different and lives up to its design goals.

It lives up to the design goals. However, I think the monk continues the tradition of sucking, because it is the only martial arts class and,therefore, ninjas. practitioners of any Asian martial art, and martial artists from other cultures (mystical and not) continue to all get lumped into the monk, due to the monk's unarmed damage and ac bonus. As a result, they pick up abilities along the way that are inappropriate.

Furthermore, the design continues to be based upon the 1e Monk which in turn was based upon a single source- Chun, from the Destroyer Series of novels (or the Remo Williams movie adaptation for those familiar with the movie). Even with subclasses, 5e monks could use more differentiation in style.
Personally, as a DM and, even as a player, I would have liked some more choices early and later. The basics of the 1e Oriental Adventures Martial Arts system, in my opinion, would have been great- Choose your style (is it Hard, Hard/Soft, or Soft) and your style's primary method (Kicking, Locks, Movement, Push, Strike, Vitals, Weapons). These combine to form your base AC Mod, your base unarmed damage, and base number of attacks. You then get an maneuver or ability based off your primary method. Additional combat maneuvers, Mediation abilities, Ki Abilities, Body Conditioning, can be additional choices at certain levels and/or put into style based subclasses.

Also, nice would have been an iron /body shirt Monk variant at first level, because there are examples of monks in movies that prefer to take hits and let their iron body/shirt ability protect them. Even in the real world, iron body is associated with some styles of Shaolin kung Fu and they practice by taking full body blows, being struck full force with staves or 2 x 4 wood.

I think some my first issue above may be addressed in part by Mearls as he worked on a Brawler subclass for the fighter which is a non-mystical martial artist that receives increased unarmed damage and a monk-like AC. If he keeps with WOTC's design goals, that should mean he creates a brawling style and, perhaps, a variant that encourages the fighter to remain unarmored at first level. However, as he is basing the subclass on WWE wrestlers, I have reservations.

 

[Hriston]

Because the initiative order is locked in, the game mechanics thus force me to want to have the highest init. I can so that each round I can act before as many opponents as possible. But if I want to wait during the first round and react to how the fight develops I'm mechanically hosing myself for the whole combat by moving myself down the locked-in initiative order.

Actually, the Ready action doesn't change your place in the initiative order. It gives you a reaction you can use when a trigger of your choice occurs before your next turn, which occurs on your initiative in the next round.

 

[Lanefan]

Actually, the Ready action doesn't change your place in the initiative order. It gives you a reaction you can use when a trigger of your choice occurs before your next turn, which occurs on your initiative in the next round.

I was thinking of 3e, where if you held you'd fall down the initiative ladder.

Still doesn't convince me away from re-rolling each round, however.