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

[I'm A Banana]

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.

If you enjoy making tactical choices, why would you not enjoy the tactical consideration of when to use those abilities? A limited-use ability is more tactical than an unlimited-use ability because using them or not is an actual tactical choice and not just an automatic thing. If what you're looking for is tactical gameplay, wouldn't the idea of controlling the timing of your spikes and valleys appeal to you? And if that idea doesn't appeal to you, you're removing an element of tactical choice, so in what way are you pursuing tactical play?

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.

According to Basic, all rests are still something that the party chooses to do, not something the DM chooses to do (though they are all things the DM can choose to negate), so they still seem in the hands of the players to me. And most characters are dependent on LONG rests, which, if short rests are so onerous, must truly be a hassle to get.

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.

You're putting a LOT of weight on Alpha material that it was not designed to bear.

(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! )

...and you don't quite see how that being a ridiculous statement also implies that your claim that short rests being difficult to get is somehow harmful to short-rest-recharging class abilities is itself kind of ridiculous?

Guess the intent of the facetious exaggeration was missed. I can be more explicit: Maybe you are working up a good head of steam over empty theorycraft here, is all.

 

[Kinak]

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.

But then you run into the problem with 3e bards: one player's class decision means everyone else has to do extra work.

If the simple characters in the group need to keep track of what the tactical characters are doing, we've negated the point of separating complexity on a character-by-character basis in the first place.

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

This part is pretty neat, I just think it doesn't fit in the overall goals for differentiating complexity by subclass.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Umbran]

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.

You already have Inspiration that can handle this smoothly, and do so for any form of effort or engagement. I can reward the tactical person for being especially tactical, and the method actor for great acting, using the same system. I can also then reward the method actor for the occasional time when he's being tactical, even if the character build isn't rewarded for it directly. It is more flexible.

The issue at hand is that not everybody is good at, or likes, engaging with and putting much effort into rules. Enabling that engagement for those who like it is great. Making it an outright preferable option, so that those who aren't good at it or who don't like it are penalized, may be problematic at many tables.

 

[Lalato]

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 didn't read a lot of Dragon during 2e. I spent most of the 2e era playing other games and getting into different kinds of fun. I came back to D&D for 3e.

 

[TwoSix]

The issue at hand is that not everybody is good at, or likes, engaging with and putting much effort into rules. Enabling that engagement for those who like it is great. Making it an outright preferable option, so that those who aren't good at it or who don't like it are penalized, may be problematic at many tables.

I can see where it can cause problems for some groups, or if the design is implemented poorly. But doesn't any game where there's some amount of tactical and strategic complexity have to reward skilled play within those elements?

Let's look at the Battlemaster in a vacuum, and not worry about the other subclasses for a minute. If there's no increase in results between skilled play and unskilled play, then the tactical complexity is meaningless to add to the Battlemaster. I think that's an obvious point. The expected contribution (EC) of a skilled battlemaster must be greater than the expected contribution of a unskilled battlemaster, or EC(Sk. BM) > EC (Unsk. BM).

So the question, where do we want to peg the EC of a skilled battlemaster compared to the EC of a champion, for whom tactical skill doesn't have much of an impact on the overall contribution. (And by pegging the champion as the choice for the neophyte player, that is our expectation, correct?)

I think it's also obvious the two cases where
1) EC(Sk. BM) > EC(Unsk. BM) > EC(Champion) and
2) EC(Champion) > EC(Sk. BM) > EC(Unsk. BM)
are both things we want to avoid. So the question is, where do we want to see EC(Champion) at in relation to the battlemaster?

My personal preference would be EC(Sk. BM) > EC(Champion) > EC(Unsk. BM). Battlemaster has a lower floor, but a higher ceiling, with Champion nestled in between. A skilled Battlemaster can pull ahead (and his overall contribution might be masked by the fact he's assisting others, much like a bard), but the champion stays the better choice for the novice. I think the concept that EC(Sk. BM) = EC(Champion) > EC(Unsk. BM) would be unsatisfying for the player who chooses battlemaster, as it requires him to play well merely to keep up with his fighter partner. A player skilled enough to play a battlemaster well is also going to be the player who realizes he can achieve the same result by picking a simpler class.

 

[Dausuul]

But then you run into the problem with 3e bards: one player's class decision means everyone else has to do extra work.

If the simple characters in the group need to keep track of what the tactical characters are doing, we've negated the point of separating complexity on a character-by-character basis in the first place.

That's a question of implementation. A well-designed support ability doesn't require anyone else to keep track of anything. For example, let's say you have an ability that lets you give advantage to an ally as a reaction. The other players don't have to remember this; it's on you to say, "Hey, Bob, I'm giving you advantage on this attack." Then Bob takes his attack with advantage and is happy.

The key is to design support abilities to be activated on a per-use basis, rather than duration-based or always on. That puts the onus on the support player to keep track of them. It also just so happens to encourage more tactical thinking from that player.

 

[SkidAce]

You already have Inspiration that can handle this smoothly, and do so for any form of effort or engagement. I can reward the tactical person for being especially tactical, and the method actor for great acting, using the same system. I can also then reward the method actor for the occasional time when he's being tactical, even if the character build isn't rewarded for it directly. It is more flexible.

The issue at hand is that not everybody is good at, or likes, engaging with and putting much effort into rules. Enabling that engagement for those who like it is great. Making it an outright preferable option, so that those who aren't good at it or who don't like it are penalized, may be problematic at many tables.

TAHHHDAAHHH!

ding ding ding...

 

[Krafus]

I share the worries about the tactical fighter vs. simple fighter. Going by Mearls' words, it seems the tactical fighter is a high-risk, no-reward concept compared to the simple fighter. The tactical fighter runs the risk of making poor tactical choices with his powers/abilities and thus being less effective than the simple fighter, but even if the tactical fighter makes great choices and uses his abilities optimally, the best he can achieve is to match the damage output of the simple fighter. Why bother? Or, if the player really wants to play tactically, why shouldn't he choose a simple fighter with a steady, reliable damage output and reserve his tactical thinking for movement and positioning on the battlefield?

 

[Umbran]

But doesn't any game where there's some amount of tactical and strategic complexity have to reward skilled play within those elements?

The game/GM has to specifically reward those forms of play that they want to specifically encourage. If you want to encourage tactical play, you need to reward tactical play. If you want to put emphasis on the longer game, you need to reward strategic play. If you want folks to laugh a lot at the table, you need to reward humorous play. From what we've been told, D&D at this time isn't specifically encouraging either tactically simple or complex play. The design goal seems to have been to allow for both - everyone's welcome in D&D!

The expected contribution (EC)...

Now we get the problem of measuring "Expected Contribution", which is not well defined here. "Contribution" is a slippery concept, especially when you start getting into characters who are designed not to do damage themselves, but to enable others to do damage.

I'm working under the assumption that the system isn't designed to reward one of these kinds of play over the other. So, the tactically complex character is there, for players who find tactical play rewarding, in and of itself. Again, like for me doing a sudoku puzzle is sometimes amusing, in and of itself, without comparing my performance on the puzzle against anyone else's.

I think the concept that EC(Sk. BM) = EC(Champion) > EC(Unsk. BM) would be unsatisfying for the player who chooses battlemaster, as it requires him to play well merely to keep up with his fighter partner. A player skilled enough to play a battlemaster well is also going to be the player who realizes he can achieve the same result by picking a simpler class.

As if a tactically minded player wasn't intending to play well all the time anyway, regardless? If the fighter wasn't there to compare to, was the tactically-minded player expecting to slack off, and not think much about tactics? Of course not! This person enjoys playing the rules, regardless of what other players are doing, and should be expected to do so. Rewarding a player for doing better than another that they're *always* better than isn't so much kudos to the one as it is a bias against the other.

We commonly say that D&D is a cooperative game. This means isn't a competition between the players. If I am to reward a player, it shouldn't be for outdoing another player, but for outdoing *themselves*.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If you enjoy making tactical choices, why would you not enjoy the tactical consideration of when to use those abilities? A limited-use ability is more tactical than an unlimited-use ability because using them or not is an actual tactical choice and not just an automatic thing. If what you're looking for is tactical gameplay, wouldn't the idea of controlling the timing of your spikes and valleys appeal to you? And if that idea doesn't appeal to you, you're removing an element of tactical choice, so in what way are you pursuing tactical play?

Where has "Unlimited" come from? Nothing here is unlimited, nor is anyone suggesting it should be. Can you explain?

According to Basic, all rests are still something that the party chooses to do, not something the DM chooses to do (though they are all things the DM can choose to negate), so they still seem in the hands of the players to me. And most characters are dependent on LONG rests, which, if short rests are so onerous, must truly be a hassle to get.

The DM designs the adventure and circumstances, and is the main person responsible for whether Short Rest occur.

Your "Long Rests must be truly a hassle" doesn't make sense. They're an "end of day" thing and can be achieved by leaving the area of danger, which is unlikely to be practical in the same way for Short Rests.

You're putting a LOT of weight on Alpha material that it was not designed to bear.

I hope it has changed. If it hasn't, it's Alpha status is irrelevant.