D&D 5E UA: "Greyhawk" Initiative

[lkj]

I remember listening to the video and he was talking about "Eldritch Tactics" where instead of a cantrip as a bonus action an Eldritch Knight would have this ability that said "Cast a cantrip and make an attack". Immediately I saw a problem that if he devoted more time to his answer I'm sure he would have seen. By 11th level, as currently designed, you would be changing three attacks and a cantrip for one attack and a cantrip, which is a massive reduction. This would be fixed... unless part of the point is to weaken the Eldritch Knights offense. Unlikely, but I spotted the problem as soon as he said it, and I'm not a Lead Game Designer with a massively successful game. Clearly just from playing the game I couldn't, you know, understand some of the ways it works and the systems involved.

I think perhaps the problem here is taking an example that is simply intended to give you an idea of the sort of mechanic he's talking about and then extrapolating it out of context. Yes, that would be an obvious issue. So, yes, the full implementation would be designed in such a way that this wouldn't actually be a problem. He's not suggesting you could just drop 'Eldritch Tactics' into the current 5e ruleset.

I think the entire problem with trying to discuss this is that the change is substantial enough that it would require a full reworking of the whole system. It can't be done as a quick patch or a quick UA as an alternate set of rules. It's why Mearls said that it's the kind of thing they would only do in the context of a new edition. Which he has said is very far away.

In other words, there's no point in trying to extrapolate his 'Eldritch Tactics' across levels or to the system as a whole. Because Eldritch Tactics would only work in context of a new ruleset. Which we don't have. And hasn't been designed. He's just giving an example of the type of thing you might see in that hypothetical ruleset. I suspect he's thought about it comprehensively enough that-- in a one on one conversation-- you'd be able to ask how he'd handle such things. But you won't get that in an interview where he's limited to giving a fairly quick response. That's a full dinner conversation (which would bore the heck out of most of the audience I suspect)/

As I noted in another thread, however, I can see where he's coming from. Just DM'd a game this past weekend where bonus actions and spellcasting caused a bit of confusion. Not a big deal. Not game breaking. But it happens often enough for me to think it'd be nice if they ironed it out some day.

Cheers,
AD

 

[ad_hoc]

I think perhaps the problem here is taking an example that is simply intended to give you an idea of the sort of mechanic he's talking about and then extrapolating it out of context. Yes, that would be an obvious issue. So, yes, the full implementation would be designed in such a way that this wouldn't actually be a problem. He's not suggesting you could just drop 'Eldritch Tactics' into the current 5e ruleset.

The funny thing is that it isn't even a problem.

Under the current rules at level 11 an Eldritch Knight gets 1 cantrip and 1 attack with War Magic which is the same as what they would get with "Eldritch Tactics".

Everyone is in agreement that is too late to change it. I agree with Mearls that Bonus Actions are a little clunky and unintuitive. More elegant design was possible but what we have is good enough.

 

[Tony Vargas]

How about Gygax and Arneson were they both professional Game Designers before they started work on Chainmail and DnD?

I vaguely remember something suggesting to me that Arneson might've been. If not, they were both enthusiastic amateurs in a field mostly made of enthusiastic amateurs.

Then why doing a new initiative rule which basically is broken for specs with Bonus Actions? Or was it never proofread or such?

Mike has been with us a long while now. The kind of supposed gaffe you're referring to is not exactly unusual for his style of design, especially when it's just going into a Dragon article or a UA (a blog post, really). He just kinda throws stuff out there. It's not like it's playtested, heck, may not even be edited that carefully.

 

[MagicSN]

I'm not bothered that a designer keep on designing. That would be silly.


I am perplexed by his view of bonus actions however, as I think the implementation is currently fantastic.

Which makes me wonder what he sees that I dont.

OR what I see that he has overlooked.

I also agree. I like specs with Bonus Actions as they give much more Options of what you can do.

As to the new initiative suggestions - it Looks to me like something "hurried out" which has not been completely thought through.

Bonus Action issues are not the "Big one", the "big ones" in my opinion are

a) You might end up that an Action would be "Logical" for your character (on the "in-world-Basis") but you cannot do this due to a gamemechanical reason. That goes direction 4e again...
b) It goes towards instead of individual Players playing the Group is playing, and in such "cooperative games" of this style in the end often just SOME Players tell the others what they should do for optimal Play

Bonus Action issue is also big. But those two are the really big one (for myselves especially a) ).

Best regards,
MagicSN

 

[MagicSN]

Mike has been with us a long while now. The kind of supposed gaffe you're referring to is not exactly unusual for his style of design, especially when it's just going into a Dragon article or a UA (a blog post, really). He just kinda throws stuff out there. It's not like it's playtested, heck, may not even be edited that carefully.

You are probably right. In our Group this is the biggest critics on UA. In our Group we also did a lot of houseruling before 5e arrived. Some game Systems we changed for bottom up. But before a new rule was implemented it was ALWAYS looked upon from all angles and deeply discussed. I think this should be done with UA as well despite not being playtested. Often also some maths calculation can help a lot (with new specs and such). "It's just an UA" - I do not think this is a good attitude. And yeah, I remember stuff like the "let's let the Players roll the DC's for spells against Monsters, not the GM" rules. At that time we had such a rule implemented Long. Only our rule had the maths correct, the one in the UA back then had it wrong ;-)

I enjoy what Mearls has been doing, truely, and I really like 5e, but I think the "UA-handling" could be much improved. Even without playtesting.

Sorry if this post sounds a bit negative. I *do* appreciate what WotC is doing and I especially enjoy UA, but I think the handling could be much improved.

MagicSN

 

[DEFCON 1]

And this answer bugs the living crap out of me.

Sorry [Not sorry]!

Does Mike Mearls have a Master's Degree in Board Game Design? How about Gygax and Arneson were they both professional Game Designers before they started work on Chainmail and DnD?


Yes, he gets paid to make games and has made a successful game, that's why when he says this stuff about Bonus Actions and we can't see the grand solution he has worked up we don't just dismiss it out of hand. He's got to have something, right? So what the heck is it?

He doesn't have a full "solution". Not yet anyway. Not for every bonus action across the board.

Why? Because there's no reason to make one. Because again... the game isn't changing and removing Bonus actions. So he has no reason to actually fully work the rules out! Instead, he just TALKS about it.

But, he now knows that HAD they the opportunity to remove Bonus actions from the game, how he would go about it. What would be involved. Would it involve a whole crap-ton of playtesting? Of course. But as that all would have been done during the three years of D&D Next playtesting, I'm fairly certain they would have come up with a system as effective and useful as what they currently have involving bonus actions.

But again... since they aren't changing anything, why do you CARE? Is your gaming identity so tied up into the 5E rules that the mere mention of a rule being perhaps better in a different form a slap in your face? Well, I got news for you... there are PLENTY of rules in 5E that could be made better. By you. By me. By other folks here on EN World. And yes, by Mike Mearls himself.

And seeing as how it was the vision of Mike Mearls and the rest of the design staff who GAVE US the 5E rules that you seem to love in the first place... to suggest that he is NOW incapable of coming up with something better is utterly ridiculous in my opinion. And quite frankly, I'd trust him with his concepts for new 5E rules much more often than just a random player like the folks on this board. But hey, that's just me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Then why doing a new initiative rule which basically is broken for specs with Bonus Actions? Or was it never proofread or such?

Why? WHY NOT?!?

Are you honestly asking why a game designer would design new game rules? Really? Does that REALLY confound you? Especially considering they are new rules to be TESTED... seeing as how they were published in D&D's playtest column?

Boy. A game designer designing new game rules, and people questioning WHY he's doing it. Gotta admit, I've never seen that one before.

 

[ad_hoc]

You are probably right. In our Group this is the biggest critics on UA. In our Group we also did a lot of houseruling before 5e arrived. Some game Systems we changed for bottom up. But before a new rule was implemented it was ALWAYS looked upon from all angles and deeply discussed. I think this should be done with UA as well despite not being playtested. Often also some maths calculation can help a lot (with new specs and such). "It's just an UA" - I do not think this is a good attitude. And yeah, I remember stuff like the "let's let the Players roll the DC's for spells against Monsters, not the GM" rules. At that time we had such a rule implemented Long. Only our rule had the maths correct, the one in the UA back then had it wrong ;-)

I enjoy what Mearls has been doing, truely, and I really like 5e, but I think the "UA-handling" could be much improved. Even without playtesting.

Sorry if this post sounds a bit negative. I *do* appreciate what WotC is doing and I especially enjoy UA, but I think the handling could be much improved.

MagicSN

What do you think the budget of UA is?

What would you like it to be?

 

[BookBarbarian]

Why? WHY NOT?!?

Are you honestly asking why a game designer would design new game rules? Really? Does that REALLY confound you? Especially considering they are new rules to be TESTED... seeing as how they were published in D&D's playtest column?

Boy. A game designer designing new game rules, and people questioning WHY he's doing it. Gotta admit, I've never seen that one before.

I think this is a good point. While I might dislike something in UA, or even if I like it criticize it, I'm glad that they are continuing to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

I think i've seen some UA stuff that is either stuck or very close to sticking. I hope to see those in a published book sometime soon.

I mean even if something is bad, and I let WotC know it in the surveys then UA has fulfilled it's purpose.

 

[Lord Twig]

I'm not questioning why a game designer makes new game rules. I totally understand it. What I don't understand is coming to a conclusion (Bonus Actions are bad) before even analyzing what the real problem is.

As has been said, this conversation has been going on for a long time and I still have not heard a single problem with Bonus Actions that didn't turn out to be a problem with different rule that just happened to use Bonus Actions. Two Weapon Fighting being the main culprit, but follow right after is that they are confusing with the immediate example of Spells with a Bonus Action casting cost.

But the confusion was never that they didn't understand that you can cast a spell as a Bonus Action and then still have a standard Action left to use. It was that standard Action was now limited to a Cantrip. Remove that limitation and 90% of the confusion goes away.

So how about it? What problem is there with Bonus Actions that is not TWF or a rider to other actions when using a Bonus Action? Please tell me, because I really want to understand.