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

[ZombieRoboNinja]

(Emphasis mine.)

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? I'd be fine if he said the two were mostly commensurate, but when he says, "They come out even," what I hear is, "One guy has to expend a lot more effort than the other to end up in the same place."

Being tactically clever should not be considered a reward in itself. You should actually be able to come out slightly ahead if (and only if) you are up to the challenge of playing the build to its full potential.

The quote says that your overall average damage is the same. Now ask yourself, would you rather Have your big bursts of damage come randomly, when you happen to crit, or exactly when you choose?

If you can't answer that question, you probably shouldn't be playing the tactical option anyway.

 

[Nellisir]

You should actually be able to come out slightly ahead if (and only if) you are up to the challenge of playing the build to its full potential.

No. No. A thousand times, no.

 

[Dausuul]

I would prefer that the complex/tactical builds enable you to make the party as a whole stronger. In other words, playing your tactical fighter optimally won't increase your personal damage output beyond that of the simple fighter; but it will give a slight advantage to the other PCs over having a simple fighter in the group.

That way, there is still a benefit to skillful play, but that benefit doesn't result in one fighter outshining the other.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't want Dragon turned into the monthly crunch book. That's what it essentially turned into during 4e (and yes, I'm still a DDI subscriber, mostly for the tools). If Dragon is resurrected make into a magazine that's worth reading. If I never see a new feat in Dragon it will be too soon.

Did you read Dragon in 2E?!

Every issue had tons of crunch. Most of the rest was either fluff to accompany that, or to detail crunch that was fluff-weak, or was stuff that in this internet age, should not be in a "magazine" format, because that's not how people seek it out.

However, I do agree that we don't need a thousand ultra-specialized late-3.5E-style Feats, which is what Dragon added to the game in the first year or so of 4E. Those can DIAF.

I would prefer that the complex/tactical builds enable you to make the party as a whole stronger. In other words, playing your tactical fighter optimally won't increase your personal damage output beyond that of the simple fighter; but it will give a slight advantage to the other PCs over having a simple fighter in the group.

That way, there is still a benefit to skillful play, but that benefit doesn't result in one fighter outshining the other.

If you can work out a way to do this that is true for ALL complex/tactical builds of ALL classes, particularly Wizards, you will deserve a medal.

Also, I think if one player puts a lot more effort into playing their PC, they probably should be rewarded, to at least some degree. My experience is that seeing that encourages other players to play up, get more involved and so on.

What's not so cool is when you have a complex-to-set-up but simple-at-the-table PC, requiring zero effort, who just wins by dint of pre-game optimization. Ironically the "simple" Fighter is much more likely to be the beneficiary of such shenanigans.

 

[Li Shenron]

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? I'd be fine if he said the two were mostly commensurate, but when he says, "They come out even," what I hear is, "One guy has to expend a lot more effort than the other to end up in the same place."

Being tactically clever should not be considered a reward in itself. You should actually be able to come out slightly ahead if (and only if) you are up to the challenge of playing the build to its full potential.

I think you're worrying too much.

First, just because Mearls says their overall damage is even, it doesn't mean it is exactly, so we'll have to see.

Second, the choices made by the DM and the adventure designers have an impact on how much you can exploit your tactical fighter's flexibility. Thus being flexible and rules-savvy enough to exploit that, can result in a sometimes significant and sometimes insignificant advantage anyway.

Third, the relation between a Battlemaster and a Champion is not that different from the relation between a Wizard who uses 10 different spells per battle vs a Wizard who casts magic missile or other damaging spells all the time. It's mostly about the playstyle: the simple wizard's and simple fighter's players feel rewarded by playing it simple (few choices to make: which foe to target this round, what weapon to use in this battle) while the complex wizard's and complex fighter's players feel rewarded by being able to try out lots of variations.

Generally speaking, being flexible is better because there are always situations when choice X doesn't work. Maybe the monster has DR or a shield spell blocking magic missiles. The flexible character has many more alternatives than the simple character, and that already is an advantage, without specifically doing a larger damage (although, it might mean effectively a larger damage on the large scale, if you count the higher possibility of "outage" affecting the simple character).

But without getting too much into the details of statistics or corner cases, WotC's idea is sound when they designed both the complex and the simple fighter to be on par on most situations. If anything, IMHO they could have spent some time to create a similar low-complexity version of the Wizard, Cleric and Rogue, instead of stopping at Fighter.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But without getting too much into the details of statistics or corner cases, WotC's idea is sound when they designed both the complex and the simple fighter to be on par on most situations. If anything, IMHO they could have spent some time to create a similar low-complexity version of the Wizard, Cleric and Rogue, instead of stopping at Fighter.

There's one big problem with the Battle Master Fighter, which Mearls actually alludes to here.

To get their tactical abilities back they need to take a Short Rest.

A Short Rest is default 1hr in 5E. As Mearls says, that can be difficult to get, and players are reluctant to use their abilities because of this (he seems to think this is awesome?! I'd understand with LONG rests...).

A Battle Master not using his abilities is directly inferior to a Champion.

So you are right when you say the DM/adventure factors in. Any adventure which is stingy with Short Rests will be extremely hostile to the Battle Master.

 

[Pickles JG]

I would prefer that the complex/tactical builds enable you to make the party as a whole stronger. In other words, playing your tactical fighter optimally won't increase your personal damage output beyond that of the simple fighter; but it will give a slight advantage to the other PCs over having a simple fighter in the group.

That way, there is still a benefit to skillful play, but that benefit doesn't result in one fighter outshining the other.

To my mind the only balance that really matters in intra party balance. DMs can easily compensate for anything else.
I do not mind though if good play gives a player 10-15% more effectiveness. After all the non-optimisers do not care if their concept requires them to be 10-15% weaker than it possibly could be by some criteria.

I usually play overly elaborate characters that eg an Inquisitor that plays like a fighter but has to jump through hoops to achieve that level of effectiveness & cannot do it all the time. This character is most fun when using tongues & disguise self though.
My most optimised characters are usually support ones who cannot overshadow other players.

Pickles

 

[I'm A Banana]

A Short Rest is default 1hr in 5E. As Mearls says, that can be difficult to get, and players are reluctant to use their abilities because of this (he seems to think this is awesome?! I'd understand with LONG rests...).

I'd have to agree with Mearls, because I like the idea of a rest being something with a cost (I personally think 1 hr is still too mild a cost, but I'm rutheless ).

A Battle Master not using his abilities is directly inferior to a Champion.

You understand this problem basically fixes itself?

If someone is too afraid to use limited resources, they'll be attracted to versions of the class that have unlimited resources -- like the Champion. Then they won't have to worry about limited-use abilities.

If someone thinks they can use their limited resources smartly, at exactly the right moment, they won't be worried about the limited resources. And the fact that they ARE limited makes the choice to use them interesting and significant, adding a time-bounded tactical element (Do I want to use them now, or do I think that I might have a fight where it would be better used down the line? What's my intel on the future here?).

 

[Li Shenron]

There's one big problem with the Battle Master Fighter, which Mearls actually alludes to here.

To get their tactical abilities back they need to take a Short Rest.

A Short Rest is default 1hr in 5E. As Mearls says, that can be difficult to get, and players are reluctant to use their abilities because of this (he seems to think this is awesome?! I'd understand with LONG rests...).

A Battle Master not using his abilities is directly inferior to a Champion.

So you are right when you say the DM/adventure factors in. Any adventure which is stingy with Short Rests will be extremely hostile to the Battle Master.

I don't how the PHB final version will be, but IIRC the playtest version was "bugged", because it said you can spend an action to regain one die, or regain them all with a short rest. Which is very stupid, because it doesn't take into account the time between the end of the combat and the short rest... you need just one action (i.e. waste one turn doing nothing but move) to get one die back, technically you can only take actions during a fight, why the hell can't you get more dice back when you are in an intermediate situation?

That's what I seem to remember from the playtest, but maybe I remember it wrong.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't how the PHB final version will be, but IIRC the playtest version was "bugged", because it said you can spend an action to regain one die, or regain them all with a short rest. Which is very stupid, because it doesn't take into account the time between the end of the combat and the short rest... you need just one action (i.e. waste one turn doing nothing but move) to get one die back, technically you can only take actions during a fight, why the hell can't you get more dice back when you are in an intermediate situation?

That's what I seem to remember from the playtest, but maybe I remember it wrong.

In the Playtest, yeah, but in the Alpha PHB it's short-rest only. Hope it doesn't stay that way, because that is very weak.

[MAP][/MAP]

You understand this problem basically fixes itself?

If someone is too afraid to use limited resources, they'll be attracted to versions of the class that have unlimited resources -- like the Champion. Then they won't have to worry about limited-use abilities.

If someone thinks they can use their limited resources smartly, at exactly the right moment, they won't be worried about the limited resources. And the fact that they ARE limited makes the choice to use them interesting and significant, adding a time-bounded tactical element (Do I want to use them now, or do I think that I might have a fight where it would be better used down the line? What's my intel on the future here?).

I understand that you don't understand why this is a problem, actually. Which is sad.

It absolutely does NOT fix itself. You play a BM because you want to use BM abilities, and enjoy making tactical choices. You chose BM because of that, not Champion, which is for the mindless roller. If you can't use your abilities regularly, however, your performance will be markedly inferior to the Champion.

Whether you can use them regularly is entirely in the hands of the DM in the Alpha Playtest (it was not in any previous playtest, where you could regain dice more easily). No other class that I'm aware of is this dependent on getting Short Rests just to use their DEFINING abilities.

So you really seem to have completely missed the boat on that one. What's particularly stupid is that if you run a day, where, say, the PCs get one short rest before the long rest at the end of the day (which seems pretty likely with a 1hour Short Rest), then a mid-level Fighter is going to get 8 uses of his dice AT MOST over the entire day, whereas a Wizard or other caster could cast a dozen or more spells (maybe a lot more!), not including Cantrips. Given how low-powered and relatively unreliable most of the uses of Battle Master are, that's a pretty big problem.

If you want to play a Fighter and be tactical, Battle Master is your only option (it sure isn't Eldritch Knight!), but unlike all the other classes, it's Short Rest dependent. It's a bad design, frankly, with the default 1hr Short Rest. They'd have been better off making the dice a Daily resource with a much large value so that it was a lot more reliable, and just limit the usage rate. If they had, say, 3x or 4x as many dice, but could only use 3/4/5 (depending on level) per combat, and they only came back on a Long Rest, Battle Master would be a far more reliable class, and not "in the hands of fate" as it were.

(Plus this leads directly to a stupid "Fighter needs another lunch break!" SoD-breaking scenario, where the poor ol' Battle Master is begging to get out the picnic basket after every serious fight, where the other classes have very little to gain from it)

(Also, declaring yourself "ruthless" because you like longer rests is perhaps the most hilarious "INTERNET TOUGH GUY!" thing I've read all day. It's almost endearing! )