D&D 5E Mearls Interviews: Hints at the new model

[TerraDave]

There is the one on the front page and the one here:

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/118403

(interview starts at about 42 min)

Some background on the development of 5E and looking forward...fewer releases, story focus, fewer releases, story focus....

Of course with all that, they will anounce the first splat tomorrow.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Most of the optional systems will show up in the Dungeon Master’s Guide. They focus on options that people can use to more closely mimic a specific edition or optional rules that people like having available. For instance, stuff like detailed rules for combat, gestalt characters, lingering wounds, and so forth. It feels kind of like a mash up of Unearthed Arcana for 3e and a traditional DMG.

Yeah! Hopefully we are talking about multiclassing that balances with standard characters and captures that AD&D style, rather than the actual 3e UA "Here is a weird variant you'll never use in any sort of normal campaign."

 

[Lalato]

Technically speaking... isn't the DMG the first splat book?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah! Hopefully we are talking about multiclassing that balances with standard characters and captures that AD&D style, rather than the actual 3e UA "Here is a weird variant you'll never use in any sort of normal campaign."

Ooooh yeah, that'd be good. Even 4E's Hybrid MC'ing was kinda Gestalt-y, but actually felt like, y'know, multiclassing, not this bizarre 3E-style plate-stacking exercise that 5E inexplicably went with, and it was vastly more balanced than the UA Gestalt rules. That said is Mearls is calling Gestalt not Hybrid that doesn't bode well. Where did you get the quote from, btw? Is there a transcript somewhere?

 

[SigmaOne]

Yeah! Hopefully we are talking about multiclassing that balances with standard characters and captures that AD&D style, rather than the actual 3e UA "Here is a weird variant you'll never use in any sort of normal campaign."

Can you (or someone) tell me what is meant by "gestalt" in this context, if it has a clear meaning? I'm not familiar with it beyond the dictionary definition.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Can you (or someone) tell me what is meant by "gestalt" in this context, if it has a clear meaning? I'm not familiar with it beyond the dictionary definition.

3e had optional rules where you could advance as two classes simultaneously, getting close to full benefits from both.

Obviously, it wasn't something that just some characters in a group could take. It was basically a different campaign style.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Can you (or someone) tell me what is meant by "gestalt" in this context, if it has a clear meaning? I'm not familiar with it beyond the dictionary definition.

In UA for 3E it was a type of character which was akin to 2E multi-classing, in that you took abilities from both classes at once, rather than merely advancing as one class - but as with 2E MC, some stuff didn't stack and there were restrictions. The rules are here:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm

It was overpowered in 3E, intentionally so. This made it incompatible with PCs not using it, which was an issue - basically all the party had to be Gestalt or none (or everyone who wasn't a full-caster could be Gestalt, that also worked pretty well).

In 4E, they had the Hybrid system, which was conceptually somewhat similar, but because of the way 4E worked, it was actually possible to make it balanced, and not overpowered, and it generally worked very well. So I'm hoping the system they describe is like that -a non-overpowered, compatible-with-normal-pcs kind of deal. Given that he chose the word Gestalt, not Hybrid, I worry that it's more UA-style, though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Technically speaking... isn't the DMG the first splat book?

If you want to get technical, isn't the PHB the first splat book?

I mean, it's basically a big book of extra race and class and character building options + a physical reference for the rules.

In 4E, they had the Hybrid system, which was conceptually somewhat similar, but because of the way 4E worked, it was actually possible to make it balanced, and not overpowered, and it generally worked very well.

Well, most of them were more likely to be UNDER-powered, so for certain values of "balance" I guess.

My main gripes with the hybrid system was (a) every class in 4e had to have some special snowflake artisinal hybrid version you could take, or else you it would not blend, and (b) there was weird silo-ing, so that, for isntance, if you had a striker bonus die, it would only apply on your striker-class attacks, so that it was more like you were either one class OR the other, and could swap back and forth, than like you were a true hybrid of both, greater than the sum of your parts.

Gestalt doesn't have a history of worrying about wrapping our games in bubble-wrap to protect their precious little maths. In 3e, it was just straight up awesome (and was "balanced" by just raising the encounter level!), and the old 1e/2e multiclassing it was meant to emulate had a kind of long-term balance.

I'd take the 3e system with some more concrete guidelines on encounter balance with a side of fries and be happy, honestly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 4E, they had the Hybrid system, which was conceptually somewhat similar, but because of the way 4E worked, it was actually possible to make it balanced, and not overpowered, and it generally worked very well.

Mostly not overpowered - they could be a little underwhelming.

So I'm hoping the system they describe is like that -a non-overpowered, compatible-with-normal-pcs kind of deal. Given that he chose the word Gestalt, not Hybrid, I worry that it's more UA-style, though.

Maybe I'm seeing a pattern that isn't there, but it seems like he's having fun using names from one ed and mechanics from another (or novel mechanics with recycled names).

 

[Wrathamon]

It really sounds like 3e Unearthed Arcana with 3e and 4e combat options and grid rules.


I also think he means gestalt in the 3e sense and not a balanced system of making a new class out of two existing classes but how you would balance advancing in two classes at once.

It would be interesting to see a 1st edition take on Dual Classing and Multiclassing from back then