D&D 5E L&L December 1st design finese. Part 2

[Gundark]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20131202

I like the idea of having one overall rule for opportunity attacks,then having a subset of situations that will only come up if a certain class Is in play.

I like unwiedly as well

 

[Plaguescarred]

Glad to see a return of concentration spells being broken by damage, i always been for it. I also like the idea of some weapon being unwieldy in melee and attack with disadvantage as it put the exception into the weapon itself and not a general rule. It also fit well for especially long weapon not particularly well suited to attack at close range.

 

[jeckyllgeek]

This article only continues to reinforce my belief that Mearls is only trying to oversimply the game. That and also the game will be horridly unbalanced given the predilection of removing the previous edition locks on being a spellcaster and yet somehow thing that won't overpower a fighter much less a "simple fighter."

 

[MarkB]

All these compartmentalised, individual rules sound like they'll make things a lot harder for the DM, because he can't really ignore any of them.

He needs to know the Concentration rules, because his NPCs will be trying to disrupt the PC Casters' concentration, and because in any given session he may have to run at least one caster NPC. Likewise the specific rules for pretty much every class. Likewise the rules for any specific weapon, because an NPC might be wielding it next combat.

That's always been the case, but the more specific, corner-case rules the game contains, the harder it will be for DMs to master them.

 

[Blackwarder]

All these compartmentalised, individual rules sound like they'll make things a lot harder for the DM, because he can't really ignore any of them.

He needs to know the Concentration rules, because his NPCs will be trying to disrupt the PC Casters' concentration, and because in any given session he may have to run at least one caster NPC. Likewise the specific rules for pretty much every class. Likewise the rules for any specific weapon, because an NPC might be wielding it next combat.

That's always been the case, but the more specific, corner-case rules the game contains, the harder it will be for DMs to master them.

D&DNext, as it is, is realy simple, the concentration rule is one of the more easy to use rules around the table, having damage interrupt it is also quite logical, also trying to use an heavy crossbow or a long spear on some who stand right next to you is hard and it's also logical.

Compared to some of the rules in 3.xe and 4e Next is shaping up to be the most easy to use game around the table.

Warder

 

[delericho]

I do like both the examples Mearls gives here. Though it's somewhat amusing to see 5e's version of AoOs going all the way back to the way it was in the Mentzer Red Box I started with.

(It's worth noting, though, that unwieldy doesn't really put "the burden on the attacker", because PCs are notorious for 'forgetting' whenever they have a penalty or disadvantage to apply. The burden is on the DM, just as it was with AoOs.)

But...

All these compartmentalised, individual rules sound like they'll make things a lot harder for the DM, because he can't really ignore any of them.

...

That's always been the case, but the more specific, corner-case rules the game contains, the harder it will be for DMs to master them.

Yep, this is true. WotC really need to remember that the DM doesn't get the luxury of only learning the few bits related to his class. So, while I agree that the standard rules should be reasonably few, WotC should also make sure that the total number of exceptions is manageable.

(Also, part of what Mearls describes in his article is the dreaded system mastery - you don't need to learn the rules to play, but those players who do learn the rules have an advantage. And the more rules they learn, the greater that advantage.)

 

[Jan van Leyden]

The take on opportunity attacks sound just like a re-organization. the rules for the specific cases are there, but not under the heading of opportunity attack. Instead of having a central effect - the opportunity attack - we have three different ones (oa, check for concentration (?), disadvantage), which even prompt different persons to act.

Furthermore, with the rules for "making something while in melee" dispersed to different places it might get hard to quickly find it. Is it in the Magic chapter, in the description of keywords, or in the Combat section?

How do the different rules interact? What if the ranger uses Conjure Volley while in melee? Or Hail of Thorns?

Even if all these things are manageable in the basic game, with more and more additions, modules, sourcebooks, it might become a nightmare.

Btw: is this the legacy of 4e? "Local rules" are pretty similar to character specific rules like 4e use them for the powers.

 

[MerricB]

This article only continues to reinforce my belief that Mearls is only trying to oversimply the game. That and also the game will be horridly unbalanced given the predilection of removing the previous edition locks on being a spellcaster and yet somehow thing that won't overpower a fighter much less a "simple fighter."

The thing is, both 3e and 4e make it superbly easy for a caster to be in melee. 2e is the last edition where failing to cast a spell was a thing. 3e might look like it's hard, but between Concentration, feats and the 5' step, it was rare to see an AoO be triggered by a spellcaster. A lot of rules for no effect!

 

[Balesir]

Btw: is this the legacy of 4e? "Local rules" are pretty similar to character specific rules like 4e use them for the powers.

Quite the opposite, I would have said. 4E may have specific rules for how individual powers and so on work (which I think is inevitable, unless they are all the same!), but one of its hallmarks is solid underlying frameworks for things like "how an attack is made", "what the elements of a power description mean" and "how stealth works". 4E opportunity attacks, for example, can be done in a myriad ways, but the basic rules for them are simple (you get one per turn when a creature you threaten moves - not shifts - or makes an Area or Ranged attack).

The thing is, both 3e and 4e make it superbly easy for a caster to be in melee. 2e is the last edition where failing to cast a spell was a thing. 3e might look like it's hard, but between Concentration, feats and the 5' step, it was rare to see an AoO be triggered by a spellcaster. A lot of rules for no effect!

Isn't that like saying that threatening a knife-wielding attacker with a pistol has "no effect" if the attacker drops the knife and runs away because the gun wasn't fired? Spell users that wanted to go into melee needed to invest resources into it or move carefully and in a limited way to avoid harm. That doesn't sound like "no effect", to me!

 

[gweinel]

Just a clarification: Concetration rules applies only to the spells which say that need concetration in order to go on like hold person and fly or is something else? If this is the case means that a mage can hurl fireballs in mellee without fear of the enemies?