D&D 5E Mike Mearls - Reddit AMA

[flametitan]

I don't really agree with cutting out bonus actions. As is, bonus actions are a lot more flexible than actions that give you a sub-action. Like, how would you write a rogue's Cunning Action without it losing out on its main perk, which is flexibility? How do you keep it so that if you do have this flexibility it doesn't go overboard with mechanics that would originally compete with it as a bonus action?

Sure, maybe too many things were made into bonus actions, but that's not an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[ad_hoc]

I don't really agree with cutting out bonus actions. As is, bonus actions are a lot more flexible than actions that give you a sub-action. Like, how would you write a rogue's Cunning Action without it losing out on its main perk, which is flexibility? How do you keep it so that if you do have this flexibility it doesn't go overboard with mechanics that would originally compete with it as a bonus action?

Sure, maybe too many things were made into bonus actions, but that's not an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I don't think he wants to cut Bonus Actions, I think he just regrets that they are in the game. I don't think it would be particularly hard to have special actions that the various classes, including Rogue, gain access to.

It's too late. While I think the game would have been better without them, we have them now.

To put it another way, if Bonus Actions were never a thing I don't think people would be passionate about adding them.

 

[flametitan]

I don't think he wants to cut Bonus Actions, I think he just regrets that they are in the game. I don't think it would be particularly hard to have special actions that the various classes, including Rogue, gain access to.

It's too late. While I think the game would have been better without them, we have them now.

To put it another way, if Bonus Actions were never a thing I don't think people would be passionate about adding them.

I think it cuts both ways. It honestly depends on how a bonus actionless game would look, but I can see a bonus actionless game adding bonus actions being well received for adding flexibility or making certain interactions more clear rather than less clear.

 

[pukunui]

More stuff:

On New Classes (Given Response to Mystic/Artificer):

Polling wise, both classes scored well. Both need some work, but they are definitely on a track to completion. We're just taking our time to get it right.

On Design Being Affected by Magic Items:

Very little, though we did revise how we place them in adventures based on Adventurers League feedback. Otherwise, we don't assume them. We want magic items to feel like a reward that makes you stronger, not something you need to keep pace.

On the Hexblade:

... the hexblade is there to make a melee warlock easier to play. It was a concept that you could make work, but in a more convoluted way than we intend for 5e.

On Prestige Classes:

The concepts are more likely to show up as subclasses. The prestige class as a thing does not seem to fit well into 5e overall. Tested poorly.

On "Mixed Classes" (a la Pathfinder's Bloodrager):

Not likely. I think multiclassing and subclasses handles most of the iconic mixtures well.

On Greyhawk:

I'd love to tackle Greyhawk, but I'd want to approach it from the original Gygax material, ignoring most everything post-1983 (unless he was the author).

On D&D and New Technology:

It's a balance, but we are definitely at a stage right now with D&D where we are much better at focusing on stories and tabletop mechanics than trying to build stuff ourselves.

On Why He Doesn't like Bonus Actions:

Bonus actions are clunky because they are solving the wrong thing. The problem is what you combo on your turn, not that you are making a combo of several action. So, for Cunning Action I'd redo it like this:

Cunning Action As an action, you do two of the following things. You can't do one of these things twice: * Make a weapon attack * Dash * Disengage * Hide

In some ways, a more explicit approach would actually encourage some more fun design.

On Twitch:

We definitely think of it as an extension of the hobby and what we do overall. I think we'll be doing more streams ourselves. They keep threatening to put me in front of the camera on a weekly basis...

But it's really awesome, and a great way for D&D DMs and players to connect in a much more meaningful way.

On Setting Themes:

• Dragonlance: Emphasis on relationships, love, and epic events
• Greyhawk: Imminent evil powers like Iuz, a darker flavor for D&D
• Mystara: Classic pulp fantasy, fueled by adventures like the Isle of Dread and The Lost City

On Class Power Levels:

Power disparity between builds is something we try to avoid, but we also have to compare the class to the game as a whole. If a class lags, or an archtype is tough to pull off, we can compare a subclass to a stronger overall class (like wizard) rather than restrict it to its current boundaries. We don't do this often, but in some cases it makes sense.

We primarily rely on playtests to fine tune things. One thing to keep in mind is that we do see a sometimes big disparity in how a more detailed, mathematical analysis might show as compared to actual play.

On Downtime & Tools:

I thought downtime would be something that saw more use, but it hasn't taken off like I thought. Tools are another one that kind of lagged. We supported them in XGtE precisely because the feedback we saw was that they were kind of half-baked.

No real surprises. The long playtest meant we ironed out the really big issues before release.

On the Ranger:

Ranger is something I want to finish by March, but we'll see.

On the Shared Campaign Suggestions in XGE:

The idea is to make it as easy as possible for a DM to verify that someone's character is fair and correct. It aims to avoid lots of fiddly details to check, so a DM can have faith that the characters are all on a level playing field.

On Revising Monster Math & Abilities to Make Them More Unique (a la 4e):

The issue is that doing that makes combat slower, which is one of the really big reasons why 4e struggled so mightily. We're doing some stuff to push the envelope a bit, but a tabletop RPG has a fairly low ceiling for complexity before you start losing players and DMs.

On the UA Weapon and Skill Feats:

No news right now - we revising subclasses and making new ones to start with.

On Putting Out Fewer Sourcebooks:

Customer feedback, combined with an analysis of sales over the years.

We found that people wanted to buy only a handful of books. Most wanted to buy less than one a year.

In looking at historical sales, we found very few books that sold at numbers to justify their release. Which was surprising only until we studied what people wanted the product line to look like.

On Theater of the Mind vs Using a Grid:

I mix them, theater of the mind for most fights, grid for ones that are more complex.

On Supporting Settings in 5e:

I think we will eventually get to them all, but Greyhawk will be the toughest nut to crack to keep it true to its roots while also making it standout as something interesting to new players.

On Class Capstone Abilities (like Archdruid and Superior Inspiration):

We wanted them to feel broken, to provide a real reward for hitting 20. I don't know if I would change them yet - not seeing enough play at 20 to get a true sense of it.

On the Planeshift Articles:

Planeshift is not official. It's basically a thing James does for fun, and we don't want to burden it with needing all the work required to make it official.

On the Possibility of Kyuss Appearing in 5e:

Not in the near future, but he is still out there as a threat to the world.

On Campaign Setting Books:

Something a bit different, a product that let you make the setting your own, that showed you how to really dive deep into the things that make the setting unique.

On "Re-Balancing" Less Popular Archetypes (eg. Way of the Four Elements):

More likely to produce options that have similar story elements but better mechanics.

On Least Favorite Class Mechanics:

All the paladin ones. The balance between core class and subclass mechanics is way off. The class overall functions very well, but there's not enough room to make the subclasses there really shine from 3rd level.

On Developing More Alternative Systems (like the Alternative Initiative):

Considering using an alternative stealth system, with Wisdom saving throws replacing passive perception and stealth and perception checks made against static DCs based on the environment.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm with Mike on this one.

Bonus Actions are really just a 2nd action in your turn. They're hacky and unnecessarily confusing.

If a character has special actions, it's easier to just write them down on the sheet. Then everyone still just has 1 action. Abilities which grant a different action are simple. There is no longer a need to make a distinction about what sorts of things are bonus actions and what are actions. And when a bonus action is used, does it have to be before the action or after? What kind of restrictions does it put on the action that turn? Etc. Just have 1 type of action and have it be 1 action per character turn.

This was exactly the same conversation that went on during the open playtest. Is it better to have multiple action types coded into the rules that different Things You Can Do On Your Turn can be hung off of, or to stick to one action type by default and define exceptions on a case-by-case basis? WotC tried to have it both ways by pretending Bonus Actions don’t exist until you have something to use them on. Now that everyone has figured out they’re just Minor Actions with more obtuse presentation, we’re seeing more and more features that utilize them, and the exceptions-based-design crowd (Mearls included) are turning against them.

 

[Wrathamon]

I think Eberron might be added to DM's Guild like the Realms ... and Keith Baker would be able to create content

 

[pukunui]

It's hard trying to keep up with this AMA. Need to take a break ...

 

[ad_hoc]

On "Re-Balancing" Less Popular Archetypes (eg. Way of the Four Elements): "More likely to produce options that have similar story elements but better mechanics. "

It's funny because this is the Sun Soul.

 

[Henry]

I still think Mike is barking up the wrong tree with respect to bonus actions, but I’m willing to be convinced. I just think it would lead to a more confusing and bloated set of rules defining explicit extra actions than defining bonus actions once, as it is now. It would be like having to explain hand size every time you described a given Poker hand. Healing Word is more than just “take an extra attack along with this spell.” What if you want to dash, or dodge? What if you want to take second wind while casting that healing word, how would you write it to limit one or the other? There’s a lot of corner cases that would require a lot of extra words to explain that aren’t needed because bonus actions are defined. If it could be pulled off, I’m all for it, because they are indeed a pain to explain to new players, but i’m Still doubtful.

 

[Charlaquin]

I still think Mike is barking up the wrong tree with respect to bonus actions, but I’m willing to be convinced. I just think it would lead to a more confusing and bloated set of rules defining explicit extra actions than defining bonus actions once, as it is now. It would be like having to explain hand size every time you described a given Poker hand. Healing Word is more than just “take an extra attack along with this spell.” What if you want to dash, or dodge? What if you want to take second wind while casting that healing word, how would you write it to limit one or the other? There’s a lot of corner cases that would require a lot of extra words to explain that aren’t needed because bonus actions are defined. If it could be pulled off, I’m all for it, because they are indeed a pain to explain to new players, but i’m Still doubtful.

It’s a question of where the complexity lies. Having only one action by default with explicit exceptions called out on a case-by-case basis gives a simpler baseline with more room to expand the complexity by learning the exceptions as they become relevant. Having more categories of actions that are baked into the system and specific abilities utilize front-loads the complexity a bit more. There’s more to learn at first to master the basic system, but with fewer exceptions to the baseline it’s easier to keep everything in your head once you’ve learned it. Personally, I think it’s well worth the trade-off in favor of multiple action types, because once you’ve learned what actions are, the cognitive load of learning there are multiple types of them that you can do different things With is comparatively small. But it is a choice. If Mearls were to say, “I don’t like Bonus Actions because I prefer simpler systems with more exceptions over more complex systems with few exceptions,” I think he’d get less pushback.