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

[Li Shenron]

I also endorse going back to 3d6 starting scores (4d6 can be a high-powered campaign variant).

Maybe also change the cap to 18.

Perhaps with the caveat that if your race grants you a +1 bonus to ability X, then the cap for that ability only is 20 instead.

 

[Jack99]

I think (though might be completely wrong), one of the older editions granted a character with 19 con the ability to regenerate. That's freaking cool.

Everyone in next will regen - sort of. They are removing HD and changing it to regen. Then the DM can decide how fast it should be, depending on what type of campaign he wants. Like oldschool, hardcore would be 1 hp/day and superhero over-the-top would be like 1 hp/10 min.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Ok, this is already ten pages long, and I've only read the first one. I've only one thing to comment on: the skill system. The very first time I got in a rowboat, I rowed it across a lake. Sure, it took me two or three times as long as it would have for anyone who knew what they were doing, but I did it! According to this, I performed the impossible!

 

[Li Shenron]

Ok, this is already ten pages long, and I've only read the first one. I've only one thing to comment on: the skill system. The very first time I got in a rowboat, I rowed it across a lake. Sure, it took me two or three times as long as it would have for anyone who knew what they were doing, but I did it! According to this, I performed the impossible!

I am not sure, but IMHO the article refers to sailing not rowing. Anyone can row a boat, but sailing... I wouldn't even know how to get the damn sail up.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I also endorse going back to 3d6 starting scores (4d6 can be a high-powered campaign variant).

Maybe also change the cap to 18.

Perhaps with the caveat that if your race grants you a +1 bonus to ability X, then the cap for that ability only is 20 instead.

This is exactly what I want to the letter.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I am not sure, but IMHO the article refers to sailing not rowing. Anyone can row a boat, but sailing... I wouldn't even know how to get the damn sail up.

You pull a piece of rope right by the mast and when the sail is up, you tie it up. It would probably take you whopping 1 minute to figure out. The rudder on small sailing boats go the opposite way of where you point them, so 1 minute to figure that out as well. You will probably be becalmed a couple of times and have the boom(?) (long stick connected to the mast that the bootom of the sail is fastened to) hit you over the head a couple of times, but otherwise, you would get the hang of it pretty quickly.

Even bigger ships could probably be sailed by noobs, with less sail and at a snails pace and not against the wind.

Remember, sailing was something you got press-ganged into doing!


... So, my conclusion is that having skills that say: "you can't do this without the skill" is just not right. Of course you can do it! Most likely very poorly - depending on how complex it is, but you can do it.

For instance, if you had access to a smithy, you could most likely make arrow-heads, spear heads and so on, while making chain mail or swords just wouldn't be successful.

In other words, when describing the skills, I think they should mention a lot of the things you could do untrained, what you could do untrained but poorly, and what things you could do if trained.

... I think I just came up with a skill system without bonuses, to dice throws, but descriptions of what you could most likely do. Take the sailor example, you could have three levels: novice, apprentice and journeyman. A novice could row a boat ok and sail a boat poorly. Trying to run a ship would probably end up in disaster. An apprentice could row a boat well, sail it decently and run a ship poorly. A journeyman could do all those things well.

To differenciate between the apprentice and journeyman when it comes to for instance sailing a boat, you could say that the apprentice would have to roll to see how well it goes if there is any stress, while the journeyman doesn't have to roll at all.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Let's also not forget that if they do indeed add in the "maneuvers" and "tricks" for the Fighter and Rogue that are complementary to the Cleric's and Wizard's "spells"... there's always a good chance that those two mechanics eventually end up taking enough of the load that feats can go back to being an equal number per class. As it stands... it seems like the F&R get extra feats because they are meant to bring those two up into balance with the C&W. But if we can really hammer the maneuvers and tricks to the point where they become on par with spells (both in power and numbers)... uneven feat acquisition will no longer be necessary to make up the difference.

Which would certainly be my preference, all things equal.

I was thinking the same thing myself. If they did go in that direction, we might finally see some interesting feats geared for the cleric and wizard.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Mike said in a tweet about six feats for spell asters and up to twelve feats to non casters.

Warder

Mike Mearls? I just went through all of his tweets from the past week or so and I can't find anything that resembles this statement.

 

[Dausuul]

To differenciate between the apprentice and journeyman when it comes to for instance sailing a boat, you could say that the apprentice would have to roll to see how well it goes if there is any stress, while the journeyman doesn't have to roll at all.

That's pretty much how I'd do it. For any given skill, there are "simple uses" and "expert uses" of that skill. For a simple use, the untrained person has to roll; the trained person automatically succeeds. For an expert use, the trained person has to roll; the untrained person automatically fails.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Mike Mearls? I just went through all of his tweets from the past week or so and I can't find anything that resembles this statement.

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/323949429168160768