D&D 5E Interesting talk with Mike Mearls (a few secrets slip too!)

[Agamon]

I'm not sure what else goes into Dragon. Long-form journalism?

I've been rereading the old Dragon mags from my CD Archive. And the most interesting articles are the fluffier pieces. Same with when I read the new Gygax magazine, the best articles are the ones that don't focus on system.

That's just me, of course.

 

[billd91]

I love the idea of the proficiency bonus being a die instead. The nice thing about the rule is that it can even vary player-to-player, with no real impact on the game as a whole.

Personally, I prefer a more advanced character's skill to reliably ameliorate the effects of random distribution, not potentially exacerbate it. So that's an option I think I will avoid when playing.

 

[Lalato]

I'm not sure what else goes into Dragon. Long-form journalism?

Like Agamon above, I feel Dragon is at its best in the pieces that are fluff heavy. Sure, there is probably no getting around system mechanical bits making their way into Dragon, but I would much rather that be the exception than the norm.

And if they do make it into the magazine, I would rather see modules/variants instead of straight up crunch. Something along the lines of a variant HP system, or how to adapt a 1e adventure into 5e.

 

[Boarstorm]

This doesn't feel right to me. Shouldn't the tactically clever player have at least a tiny bit of an edge over the brute-force mook?

In addition to what others have said...

There's more to the tactical fighter than damage. The whole point is that he can sacrifice some of his damage for utility in combat, enabling others to do more damage (via positioning, or warlord-esque granted attacks, or knocking his target prone, or... whatever else maneuvers can do). What does it matter if he's 3 DPR (or whatever) lower than the champion build if his maneuvers increase the party's DPR by 15?

(Parenthesis!)

 

[Kinak]

I'm not sure what else goes into Dragon. Long-form journalism?

Ecology of the X articles!

Seriously. Those were awesome.

Also setting bits, articles about gaming, monsters, optional rules, reviews (yeah, I'm an old-timer), character portraits, cut-out minis, previews of upcoming content, articles about deities and demon lords, discussions of recent or upcoming organized play, preconstructed characters, character hooks, errata notifications, and probably some other stuff I'm missing.

Of course, when I was hooked on Dragon, it was as more for GMs than for players. But there's still plenty to talk and write about, especially if it's intended to be the player companion to Dungeon or touches on organized play.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Umbran]

This doesn't feel right to me. Shouldn't the tactically clever player have at least a tiny bit of an edge over the brute-force mook?

It sounds like you should play the complex fighter if playing around with rules, in and of itself, is rewarding to you. You take the simple fighter if manipulating rules isn't really your cup of tea. That way, two different types of players can sit at the same table, and both have fun and be effective.

If the point is to do better than the other players... well, that's a separate question.

Being tactically clever should not be considered a reward in itself.

Why not? I do the occasional logic puzzle - sudoku, or what have you. There is no exterior reward from this - the exercise generates its own reward, not validated by any exterior measure whatsoever.

Why can't playing the complex fighter be the D&D equivalent?

 

[drjones]

It's a role playing game, not a tactical boardgame. If you want to play the role of a tactically-clever Batman like fighter and your buddy wants to play the role of a brute-force Conan-from-the-movies like fighter then why should the game punish him by making his style of character a sub-optimal choice?

Plus there is a DM there. If Player A attacks with his sword and Player B carefully plans out some elaborate attack sequence involving a table and a roast turkey there is no reason you can't make the outcome more thematic and rewarding for B without changing the amount of damage done. They both killed one goblin but both got a reward tailored to their interests (hopefully). This isn't an MMO. People remember that time the barbarian ripped his way out of the purple worms belly and when the wizard levitated himself into the lava pit, not the time the fighter did 3% more damage than the thief.

 

[Lalato]

Oh... remember the issues of Dragon that came with a whole mini board game? I loved those!

Stuff like [MENTION=9849]Echohawk[/MENTION]'s Monster Encyclopedia would be awesome in Dragon, especially if it was accompanied by a revamped Ecology column.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not sure what else goes into Dragon. Long-form journalism?

Some of my favorite articles from the 3.x era were fairly crunch-lite: an article on steampunk D&D, or knights/knighthood, or swashbucklers/Merry-Men style, or an article on the D&D Zodiac. The articles on deities, monsters, places, and such (Giants of the Earth, Demononicon of Iggwiv) might give some stat blocks or a feat, but they were mostly good inspiration and ideas.

Of course, I want to spell Spellbook, Bazaar of the Bizarre, and crunchier stuff too. It never hurt to have a new subclass or feat or spells, as long as its balanced.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have to say, after decades of DM'ing and experimenting with rules and design, I no longer see any value in insisting on playing "the vanilla game". I could if one were new to it.

I do. I think it's a good thing to see what the baseline is before you start messing with it. I don't think you can be sure that you like/don't like an aspect of the game that you've never played with.

Knowing the baseline well also helps you to have an idea of which way to go to make it better for you.
I've sometimes found that rules changes that I THINK I would like better than what I'm seeing never really work out. A good example is rolling for defense. I like it in theory, but not in practice.

I'm pretty sure I don't like the skill/tool/save system, but I'll give it a shot for awhile while I consider just what I'd like it to be instead. (I"m leaning toward using the skill die but not the skill list they came up with - perhaps just letting people roll the die for any check that sounds like their class/race/background/personal-character-fluff... a bit like 13th Age backgrounds)