Mike Mearls is holding [EDIT: held] an "Ask Me Anything" on Reddit from noon PDT today (Friday, June 15th): "I’m Mike Mearls, head of the Dungeons & Dragons Research and Design team at Wizards of the Coast. We just launched a public playtest for the next iteration of D&D. I’m here to answer any of your rules and mechanics questions about D&D Next, D&D in general, or whatever else comes up. I’ll answer any questions that don’t give away stuff that is still unsettled, like future product plans, release schedules, or specifics on the future of our digital tools for D&D. I’ll start answering questions around noon PDT on Friday, June 15th."
I thought it was nice to get confirmation that they were designing for 20 levels in the core. It jives with the way the Wizard spell slots progressed vs. 7 spell levels on the character sheet. Level 20 gives you 4 slots each for 1st through 7th level spells and 21 would normally open up an 8th tier of spells.
It was also good to hear that they aren't nearly satisfied with non-cleric healing, armor, and the ability to flit in-and-out of melee casually.
There is: at the bottom of each of his answers is a link labelled "context"; if you open that link in a new tab or window, you get Mike's answer in the context of the question to which it is a reply, plus some additional comments in some cases.
I'd like to incorporate a core "swarm" rule into the game, an easy way for DMs to group up monsters into single attacks. For instance, something that lets you combine X attacks into one die roll, with some small amount of damage even on a miss to make that an appealing option. Hopefully, that solves the rat issue and also the humanoid horde issue at higher levels.
[FONT="][/FONT]The orcs can all hit as often as they should, but it might be better/faster/easier for the DM to resolve their 18 attacks in fewer die rolls.
Considering changes to skill mechanic
We're looking at skills right now and trying to determine if skills make you better than you are (a flat bonus that adds to your ability check) or strictly make you good (a flat bonus that takes the place of your ability modiifer). So, the 8 Wis rogue with perception training might just be at, say, +5, rather than at +3 added to a -1 Wis check.
·Conversion guidelines, not necessarily a direct conversion manual
[FONT="][/FONT]The trick with direct conversions is that it requires a lot of time and can easily lead to broken stuff. That said, we're starting with the most popular stuff from each edition, and we should have general conversion guidelines that let you do some conversions yourself.
Considering Warlord as theme
[FONT="][/FONT]The warlord is tricky, because I think a theme might work pretty well for it. I can see wizards or fighters or rangers as warlords. That said, we're not wedded to that. It'll depend on what we see as the key features of a warlord and the best way to express them.
It'll really come down to how it feels in play. I wouldn't be surprised if we tried designing it both as a class and as a theme to see how it plays out.
Maneuver system details: anyone can take (theme related), fighters are best at them
[FONT="][/FONT]For the fighter - lots of feedback that it needs more. We're working on a set of maneuvers that the fighter and other classes can access through themes.
[FONT="][/FONT]Anyone can take maneuvers.
[FONT="][/FONT]We're introducing a system of combat maneuvers, and we're also looking at stuff like the Book of Nine Swords, psionics, and the focus feats from the 3.5 PH 2 for inspiration for martial characters. In many ways, the key is finding a way to express those options that preserves the feel and flavor of D&D while also keeping the classes unique.
[FONT="][/FONT]How would this strike you - would you be cool with a maneuver system that also included tactical plans, and if fighters are the best at using maneuvers, a fighter with a warlord theme feels a lot like that class in play?
Organizing rules modules
[FONT="][/FONT]Yes, the idea is to give each one a clear identity/name, and then if there are some logical groupings present those as campaign recipes.
Random HP and fixed HP both options
[FONT="][/FONT]Random HP will be an option alongside fixed HP. The key to Con is that adding the bonus at each level can overwhelm class contribution to total HP. We need to find a middle ground.
Level 20 cap, then optional epic level advancement?
[FONT="][/FONT]We're looking at capping at level 20, but giving a set of options for uncapped advancement beyond that.
Spellcasting monsters will be made easier
[FONT="][/FONT]I like monsters with spells, especially NPCs. What I'd like to do is develop a slimmed down spell format that lets us place spells in a stat block in a concise, easy to use manner so that DMs can run them just like any other creature.
[FONT="][/FONT]A lot of common spells - fireball, hold person - are no more complex than the typical monster special ability, so I think we can pull this off.
Starting equipment packages based on background and class
[FONT="][/FONT]We're actually looking at making buying equipment optional. Instead, you are given a starting package based on background and class.
No alignment mechanics in core
[FONT="][/FONT]The goal is to remove mechanics from alignment. It's a key part of the world, but not the rules or spells.
Healing rules far from done
[FONT="][/FONT]The healing rules are going to get a complete overhaul.
[FONT="][/FONT]The idea behind making [the healer’s kit] an item was to make it something anyone could take. One direction we're thinking of taking is making a cleric's healing a separate ability from spells, so that we can give more healing without also having to give more spells in total.
[FONT="][/FONT]Healing is definitely going to get a number of dials to let DMs tweak it to fit their games. You can imagine a range that starts with "Festering wounds and missing limbs" on one end and has "Sleep cures all ills" on the other.
[FONT="][/FONT]In the closed playtest we ran before the open one started, we had a lot of feedback that healing was too limited. With hit dice, we tried to introduce a more robust mechanic for natural healing to give characters more healing overall. They are supposed to change the game so that the characters aren't as reliant on the cleric, but so far the rules don't seem to work well enough. We will be revising them for the next round of testing.
[FONT="][/FONT]One of the key hang ups we have with healing is trying to find a way to make the cleric optional. So, we're definitely aiming to make it so that you can remove classes, races, or entire types of magic without screwing up the game's balance. I think restricting that sort of thing is one of the ways that DMs like to make unique campaigns, so we want to allow for that.
[FONT="][/FONT]The feedback on long rests has primarily been that they are far too forgiving. It feels lame that the party can be on the edge of death, sleep for eight hours, and bounce back up to full strength.
Multiple XP options, including treasure XP and story XP
[FONT="][/FONT]The XP system is the kind of thing where I want to do a few different systems and have the DM pick one (XP for treasure, XP for killing, XP for meeting story goals, etc) to establish the tone for his or her campaign.
Morale and reaction rolls!
[FONT="][/FONT]Yup, you can expect both in rules modules. I wrote a set of morale rules for tactical play, and I expect we'll include reaction tables for our interaction mechanics.
Opportunity attack if you leave melee
[FONT="][/FONT]Yes, we're looking at adding a free attack against you if you try to leave melee.
[FONT="][/FONT]Keep in mind that our goal for adding a mechanic like this would be to keep it very, very simple. We are 100% NOT going to give you a long list of things that provoke. It would be moving away from an enemy and nothing else.
[FONT="][/FONT]We actually did some research on this, and even back in AD&D there were some pretty serious penalties for trying to move away from someone in a fight. IIRC, in AD&D the attacker got a +4 bonus to the attack and you couldn't use your shield or Dex bonus to AC.
[FONT="][/FONT]We're strongly considering adding a free attack if someone breaks away from a melee. The playtest feedback has been a little soured on letting people move around without consequence. However, the rule would be much simpler than attacks of opportunity - likely it'll be that if you start your turn in someone's reach, they get an attack on you if you try to leave their reach using an action to withdraw.
Core leans towards Combat as War, tactical rules module is for Combat as Sport
[FONT="][/FONT]If you look at where we are right now, the core game leans more toward combat as war. Fights are fast and reward people who can get advantage or force the monsters to commit piecemeal. You can become overwhelmed if you let all 10 goblins rush you at once.
[FONT="][/FONT]For combat as sport, that is 100% where the full blown tactical rules module is aiming. This is one of those areas where groups have very different tastes, and modularity should help us bridge that gap if we do it right.
Armor is getting an overhaul
[FONT="][/FONT]We're completely re-working armor. We're bulking up heavy armor, giving medium armor a better definition, and slightly pulling back on light armor.
[FONT="][/FONT]Heavy armor allows no Dex bonus but has a high base value. Heavy armor always gives disad on attempts to be stealthy.
[FONT="][/FONT]Medium armor has +2 Dex max or no Dex allowed. It sits below heavy armor. Classes like the ranger and barbarian are proficient with it. Some medium armors give disad on checks to hide or move silently. Basically, if you play a ranger or barbarian, you can either junk Dex and take a "heavier" medium armor or take a lighter one that lets you be stealthy.
[FONT="][/FONT]Light armor allows full Dex and has no stealth drawbacks.
Return to the Celtic bard of 1e
[FONT="][/FONT]The first pass on bards is going back to their Celtic roots while also looking at making a jack of all trades mechanic that doesn't make the bard second best at everything. It's still early, and the final design might be much different, but I really want to give the bard something unique that really speaks to their roots.
They get the message about the rats.
[FONT="][/FONT]You could say it was a good idea in that it gave us a lot of immediate, aggressive feedback to never, ever, ever do that again and to immediately, right now, fix that.
There is a background that gives you noncombatant lackeys
[FONT="][/FONT]In this week's playtest, Chris Perkins took a background that gave his fighter three combat-useless lackeys. They carried his gear for him. When the party was ambushed by an ogre, in a rare fit of consideration he ordered the lackeys to run for their lives. They beat his fighter's initiative and did indeed run off - while still carrying his crossbow, shield, and other gear.
unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w
