Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

pemerton said:

Sounds a bit suspect to me. How does having a vibrant personality help me hit things? Why can't a charming fighter do it?

Click to expand...

Cha to attack or Cha to help attack could be magical boosts from a Cha caster *or* a deceptive sttiker maneuver like feinting or even a Intimidation style "startle".

I seem to recall "startle" feats/advantages allowing use of "intimidate" for in combat benefits in other d20 based products from the 3.x era... If not exactly "to hit" then helping.

But regardless, certainly the publishing of a mechanical element in official product tends to seed/encourage homebrew utilization.

But some folks seem to have real "issues" with hexblade dip and Cha to hit that i dont recall seeing with say shillelegh and its Wis to hit from a simple druid dip.

Remember in 5e Cha is not just "charming".

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION],
Two observations. First, I agree that not all build combinations would make sense. But just taking sub classes times races, we get 2,960 (assuming I counted right) alternatives. Even if 90% of those don't make sense for some reason, that leaves close to 300 options. Heck, make it 99% and throw in a smidgeon of feat/build/multi-class choices (i.e. champion fighter with dex vs strength, sword and board vs great weapon) and I think there are more builds than I could ever personally play.

Second is just a general observation that may or may not apply to any specific individual that posts here. I played/judged a lot of living campaigns in 3.x and 4E. In my experience with those campaigns and editions, most people that cared about optimization gravitated to a handful of builds.

In other words, to many people the multitude of options in previous editions was an illusion.

I get the desire for more options and especially more significant choices at higher levels. I guess the difference may be that I have fun coming up with a character concept and then seeing if I can approximate that concept given the (somewhat limited) options I have.

Ultimately you're going to have a few builds that do approximately the same thing. Blaster caster, control, hit things with melee, or hit things with ranged (I may be missing an option or two and there are combos). That's just the nature of the genre and foundation of the game. Are different ways of achieving that goal really going to feel all that different?

Or ... what from a mechanical perspective what would you want to see? Not talking "I'd like to do a <insert class or prestige class I may or may not have heard of>", but mechanically. What gaps are missing? If you want to run a shaman for example, how does that differ from a druid (perhaps with multi-class) other than flavor that could be added with a background?

TwoSix said:

I think it's probably more around "concept" than it is about "narrative". Not to trivialize other people's play agendas, but I think their focus is on demonstration of backstory, concept, and capabilities, not generation of plot.

Click to expand...

Where capabilities are in the non-combat but also non-spellcasting sphere, I'm reminded a bit of [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s "DCs > 30" thread (which I think was lost in a crash a year or three back). They seem to be heavily gated behind GM decision-making. Do you have thoughts on how this works out in practice?

Sorcerers Apprentice said:

The more of Mearl's postings I read, the more I'm convinced that the success of 5E as a system is a happy accident rather than deliberate. Either that or it's really Jeremy Crawford who's sitting at the steering wheel.

Click to expand...

A lot of playtesting went into 5E that being said I do think maybe Jeremy Crawford does not get as much credit as he deserves. From Sage Advice and everything else I wonder he is more of the tactical mind behind 5E whereas Mike is the overall big picture guy/narrative guy...

Lanefan said:

what would happen if one threw out 5e's cleric-turning-undead rules and replaced them with the 1e turn-undead table?

Click to expand...

Can't that question be answered just by comparing the two rules?

In 5e, there is no limit on how many undead can be turned; in AD&D it is 1d12 (except at high levels vs comparatively weak undead).

In 5e, the duration is much shorter in absolute terms (1 minute rather than 3d4 minutes) but a bit better in combat effectiveness (10 rounds rather than 3d4 rounds).

In 5e, the undead get a saving throw (vs a DC of 13-ish at 1st level up to 19-ish at 20th level), with a bonus of -2 for zombies, -1 for skeletons, +0 for shadows, +1 for wights, and +2 for wraiths and vampires (vampires also have legendary resistance). That makes 1st level clerics better at turning than their AD&D equivalents; but the AD&D progression is far more generous, especially vs weaker undead and once the cleric reaches mid-to-upper levels. Eg a 7th level AD&D cleric turns a wraith on a 7, an 8th level on a 4; whereas the saving throw number in 5e will be around 13 for the wraith facing a 7th cleric, around 14 vs an 8th level cleric - ie much less of a generous progression. A 14th level AD&D cleric has a 17 in 20 chance to turn a vampire, which is better than a 20th level 5e cleric.

So the AD&D rules will tend to weaken lower-level 5e clerics and tend to power-up the mid-to-upper level ones. Whether that's desirable or not would seem to be table-relative. (And whether the additional costs of bringing in an ad hoc table rather than just sticking to the spell DC save rules are worthwhile also seems table-relative.)

Is there a reason you think that this would be worth doing?

pemerton said:

A couple of initial things:

(1) They don't approach combat this way: "Hey, GM, I've got a claymore rather than a dagger - does that give me advantage on killing orcs?"

(2) They don't approach prayer and sorcery this way: "Hey, GM, I've got a holy symbol blessed by St Sigobert - will that give me an advantage to repel the vampire?"​

That tells me something about their expectations - they expect everyone's games to have rather circumscribed fighting, prayer and sorcery (unsurprisingly, much like most editions of D&D since forever!).

Those discrete, different, detailed and tigjhly circumscribed systems also are the reason I can't take the idea of 5e as "rules light" seriously. I mean, yes if the comparison class is Hero and Magic Realm - but otherwise not remotely.

And this goes back to the issue of equipment lists: the game doesn't just have an equipment list for swords and shields, for wands and bat guano. It has ultra-detailed rules for how these things factor into key activities of gameplay: a sword boosts your damage roll - a mechanical thing - in this precise way; a shield boosts your AC - a mechanical thing - in a precise way; a wand boosts your spell DC - a mechanical thing - in a precise way; having a pouch of bat guano and other knick-knacks opens up mechanical possibities that otherwise aren't there.

The fact that the game takes one design approach to fighting and casting spells (which themselves tend to have a strong focus on their use in fighting) and a different approach to dressing up in fine clothes to impress people tells me something about the game.

Click to expand...

Sure. It's D&D. There's going to be fighting in nearly all games. The importance of the fighting or the frequency of it may change, but I think in most cases, combat is an expectation.

There's also going to be exploration and interaction with NPCs. There are rules for these things, but they're less codified than the combat rules, generally speaking.

pemerton said:

But grappling, or conjuring prismatic spheres, or repelling vampires through prayer, is of equal importance at all tables?

Click to expand...

Individually, who can say? A group of PCs may not contain any casters, or may never run into a vampire. But under the larger umbrella of combat actions, yes, very likely.

pemerton said:

In this discussion there's also a recurrent tndency to think that uniform resolution = 3E-style "rule for everything". But Cthulhu Dark has uniform resolution rules that fit on less than an A4 page. Prince Valiant has uniform resolution rules that fit on a couple of pages. HeroWars/Quest has uniform resolution rules that fit on about half-a-dozen pages.

Part of what makes 5e a rather complex system is its wide vareity of resolution subsystems that aren't straightforwardly integrated (eg deft finger moves to pull of stage magic may well invoke the skill/ability resolution system; deft finger moves to cast spells rarely do - they are a player-side fiat mechanic) but generally can't just be ignored (eg in Burning Wheel the sorcery subsystem can be ignored, and magic use resolved by a skill check - on the Sorcery skill - like anything else; in 5e there's no default generic mechanic that can be used in lieu of the magic subsystem).

I think that Moldvay Basic is basically a complete game - it puts itself forward as a dungeoncrawl game, and it has the mechanics to deal with that. I think that 5e is an incomplete game, in that it puts itself forward as covering a range of stuff for which its rules and mechanics are incomplete. Not because they need to be if it's to be kept "light", but because there are other design sensibilities at work - in particular, a preference for GM decision-making as to what happens in most cases that don't involve fighting or casting spells.

It's like a feature of classic D&D, which results from the extension of gameplay beyond the dungeoncrawling it was designed for, has been erected into a principle.

Click to expand...

I think this is pretty accurate, overall. There's no doubt that past editions and the play experiences they created were a consideration. There are certain elements that have become fundamental to D&D, and I wouldn't expect them to go anywhere. Most of these....HP, AC, Saving Throws....are related to combat. The game has its roots in war gaming, and that sensibility has informed every edition. Combat is expected to be a fundamental part of the game.

I don't think that the "preference for GM decision-making" makes the game incomplete, though. Perhaps this is semantics, but again I see that as a feature, not a bug. I prefer the flexibility that design choice allows. I prefer the creative approach it fosters in my players. They're less likely to resort to what the rules allow and instead attempt ideas that they come up with at the table. This is the piece of the puzzle that I think perhaps you are overlooking. My players are coming up with all manner of ideas that aren't covered by the rules, and we adjudicate pretty quickly and smoothly, and we find out play (both in combat and outside of combat) to be more varied than we did in recent previous editions.

Could things have been done differently? Sure. Are there games with specific systems for other areas of the game that could have been mimicked here? Sure. But I don't think that means they are better.

I can understand people who feel that is the case. Many folks want as much structure as possible. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. This is purely a matter of preference.

pemerton said:

What I find most striking about this is that you classify all this action as "not mechanical".

Click to expand...

What mechanics did I use?

pemerton said:

The last sentence seems pretty absurd in the context of a RPG: I don't think you can have a game in which fiction >> mechanics >> fiction without some sort of judgement being made, and in anything like a traditional RPG allocation of participant roles that will be the GM.

I just don't think that "the GM decides what happens" is a very interesting example of "light" design, especially when it's not implemented consistently (which it isn't in 5e - that's not the rule for resolving fighting in 5e).

I also think that "the GM decides what happens" isn't the best recipe for satisfactory play, but in the context of this discussion that's a secondary thing.

Click to expand...

How is it absurd? The PC needs to influence a noble, the PC has X amount of gold, the PC buys the fine attire, the PC receives a bonus on his attempt to influence the noble. The GM has little input on this. Sure, the narration of this sequence may vary from GM to GM, and some may elaborate to create a whole scene around it. But the results of what happen don't require the GM's judgment, unless the rules indicate that the advantage gained by the fine attire is up to the GM or something like that.

And again, as far as who decides what happens, I think you're leaving out the role of the player here. It's not just the DM deciding. The player has an idea. Instead of consulting the rulebook, or instead of the DM saying "per the Persuasion rules on page 210..." the DM is able to take the player's idea, the other prevailing factors of the current fiction, and then determine how things proceed from there.

*Deleted by user*

5ekyu said:

Remember in 5e Cha is not just "charming".

Click to expand...

From the Basic PDF (pp 8, 61):


Under what circumstances can (say) a Champion fighter use CHA to attack (and to forestall the question as to "why", maybe this PC is built with CHA higher than STR and DEX; or has had STR drained by a shadow)? Is it enough that s/he feels confident that s/he can best the opponent?

hawkeyefan said:

The PC needs to influence a noble, the PC has X amount of gold, the PC buys the fine attire, the PC receives a bonus on his attempt to influence the noble. The GM has little input on this. Sure, the narration of this sequence may vary from GM to GM, and some may elaborate to create a whole scene around it. But the results of what happen don't require the GM's judgment, unless the rules indicate that the advantage gained by the fine attire is up to the GM or something like that.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the GM be framing the scene in which the PC attempts to influence the noble? Which normally would include setting the DC? And working with the player to establish what follows from success and what follows from failure?

pemerton said:

And D&D just happens to use arms and armour - things that are not consumer goods in the world most of its players are familiar with, and that most of those players wouldn't know how to extrapolate from for other stuff that is more familiar - as its benchmark?

Sometimes this can be an abstract - wealth ratings and DC checks or rank and quartermaster checks - but if this is something the game wishes to have in play it helps to provide benchmarks.

None of this addresses my point: if the argument against including the mechanical significance of fancy clothing is that each GM should individualise it for his/her table, why is combat gear different?

Which is exactly what I've been saying - there is no uniform resolution system, as combat has a fixity and a mechanical granularity that non-combat does not.

And in that way is also supported as a focus of play that contrast quite markedly with other fields of endeavour.

I mean pre-MegaTraveller. (I use the 1977 edition with a few mods drawn from the 1981 (?) updates, the Special Duty line on the MegaTraveller lifepath tables, and Andy Slack's Backdrop of Stars articles in White Dwarf.)

Classic Traveller has price lists, but those aren't what tell you what the gameplay purpose of money is. That is ascertained from the rules for combat, for bribery, for interstellar travel, and for world exploration.

Click to expand...

DnD designers *chooses* to provide arms, armor, mounts, day-to-day services and expenses, vehicles, carts, food, booze, parchment, inks, perfumes, fine clothes etc etc etc to give a fairly broad comparision of things as benchmarks - some of which are realtable to the IRL of its players and others which are not relatable IRL and that allows the players a form of cross-tab basis.


As for the need or desirability of a fancy clothes mechanical system to be added or included...

The fact that different weapons and different armor provides distinct drfined mechanical differences is typically a desired granularity level for a game with a fairly technical combat system is not surprising or unexpected. Its fairly status quo. It would be jarring or a disconnect to have one without the other.

But this will vary from the game type. A game with much less expectstion of combat scenes or seeing less tactical resolution might have very little - even turning weapon type into just a cinematic flourish. Chargen would also tend to focus less on combat type stuff.

For many swords and sorcery type games/settings in TTRPGs the idea of applying that same level of gear related granularity to every facet of play doesnt usually ring "true" to the genre.

How many fantasy movies or novels do you recall where the choice of non-magical clothing played as much to the plot or advancement or resolution as the hero arms and armor did? LotR many of their weapons had names - some fans can tell you them, the mithril shirt gets its moment of spotlight... But what was the name of gandalf's sandals? Should we represent that source material with rules for how much gandalf needs to spend on those sandals to help with his intimidate check?

Most of the players i have encountered would not be as expecting, accepting or even immersively inclined to see tables of "blue silk shirt +1 intimidate" type gear expansive detail as they see in arms and armor because it is a departure from,the focus and direction the spurce material takes the game is trying to represent.

They would be sooner willing to accept or expect better deep dive gear details of say foods (impact on healing or resistance or carry), alchemy and medicinal herbs as various media and source tend to spotlight those.

If one was playing a setting for a culture where high end social ettiquette is key (thinking japanese old samurai stereotypes) then one would expect to see more details for "type of garments gsins you this" and "tea set made by so-n-so gains you that".

To me, just as an observation, the idea that a game system needs or benefits from a universal resolution mechanic is a trope trotted out now and again that is mostly not true in,my experience.

Games are not served by having the same redolution in the same detail for cooking the evening meals, performing an artistic dance, trick riding on a combat field, winning a poker game, fighting a duel, etc etc because i just have not seen a setting or game where for the typical play each of those served equal import to the play and story.

When its tried, its more of a non-resolution indie thing where its more authorship than resolution and its more about screen time than "how to use..." be it gold, weapon, blue silk shirts etc.

Ymmv.