D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out

[GX.Sigma]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130422

I love this direction he talks about. Pretty much everything in this article sounds perfect.

New background system? Love it.
Feats optional? Love removing complexity.
Skills optional? Love removing complexity.
Classes more complex? Lo--wait, what?

 

[innerdude]

First-- this is the most clear, coherent explanation given by Mearls of any D&D Next playtest material to date. Whether you agree with every decision or not (and frankly this sounds, for the first tine since Next was announced, like something I'd be interested in playing), kudos to Mearls for being straightforward and to the point. This single article has done more to generate interest for me than anything done in the entire year previous.

Second --- Kudos to Dario Nardi of Radiance RPG fame. Looks like the D&D Next design team saw something in your game, because from where I stand, the "everything is a feat" concept runs parallel to Radiance.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Overall, I didn't really get a whole lot out of this article despite the length.

Feats - Personally, I thought this section said a whole lot of nothing. Basically, feats are going to continue being the catch-all bucket they've always been. I will say I'm cautiously optimistic about the prestige/paragon stuff being moved here, but I'll wait and see before judging.

Skills - The idea that, to continue the article's example, either you're trained in Sailing or not I like. However, I don't like the idea of special skill-restricted rolls; it seems to add needless complexity to the system. If we're gonna roll for skill checks, I much prefer the earlier version that gave you some sort of bonus (via advantage, static number, whatever) on proficiency-related checks. Otherwise, if you want to dictate what a character can and can't attempt, why not go all the way and remove skill checks altogether (especially for knowledge checks)? For the purposes of narrative (and skills are a narrative tool), either you can sail a boat or you can't.

Classes - I don't particularly care one way or the other about sub-classes, but at least the logic here makes sense. You can't have class options tied to the feat system, so sub-classes are really the best way to go.

 

[JamesonCourage]

If nothing else, Mr. Mearls seems much more clear in this article than in many others. I'm really digging that clarity.

My thoughts: mixed feelings on feat direction; okay with skill direction (but I don't like skill dice); backgrounds sound fine to me. As always, play what you like

 

[GX.Sigma]

However, I don't like the idea of special skill-restricted rolls; it seems to add needless complexity to the system. If we're gonna roll for skill checks, I much prefer the earlier version that gave you some sort of bonus (via advantage, static number, whatever) on proficiency-related checks. Otherwise, if you want to dictate what a character can and can't attempt, why not go all the way and remove skill checks altogether (especially for knowledge checks)? For the purposes of narrative (and skills are a narrative tool), either you can sail a boat or you can't.

I like it as long as they keep it reasonable. It makes sense that only a trained sailor can sail a ship effectively (and the DM can always waive this for untrained, Cast Away-type stuff).

okay with skill direction (but I don't like skill dice)

To quote the article:

The skill die mechanic really doesn't address either point...We can also allow skills to give you a steadily improving, static bonus.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Obviously, I will have to see it in actual play, but the skill system sounds like a good replacement for the current one. As DM, I probably would allow characters to attempt to things that they are untrained at disadvantage if their actions are plausible.

 

[JamesonCourage]

To quote the article: (skill dice leaving?!)

Oh, thanks for pointing this out. I must've misinterpreted it on the first read. That's good news, in my book. As always, play what you like

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Most of this sounds promising. Rolling prestige classes or paragon paths into feats could really clean up the game.

More robust backgrounds appeals to me, though I'm not sure how the individual elements will play out. I already don't like the lack of symmetry implied by the +10 knowledge bit, and he didn't really describe how the actual skills are going to play out, so we'll have to wait and see. Still, I'm mostly glad to see the skill die going away. It wasn't terrible, but it didn't feel right.

Finally, I fully support subclasses as the primary form of providing differing classes.

All in all, I greatly look forward to the packet that includes all of this.

 

[Falling Icicle]

When he says skills and feats aren't going to be in the basic game, I really hope this means we won't have to buy separate books just to have the rules for them. Making them optional is fine. Failing to include them in the core rulebook is not fine.

 

[GX.Sigma]

When he says skills and feats aren't going to be in the basic game, I really hope this means we won't have to buy separate books just to have the rules for them. Making them optional is fine. Failing to include them in the core rulebook is not fine.

As described a while ago:
The basic game is a box marketed towards newbies and casual gamers. The standard rules are in a book (basically the PHB), and the advanced rules are in another book (basically the DMG).

As of now: Presumably the feats, being a player option, will be in the standard rules. Skills, while technically DM-optional, will probably be in the standard rules as well (with something saying "if your DM chooses...").