D&D 5E Dungeoncraft Interview with Mike Mearls

[Sacrosanct]

I stopped watching him after he really went all in with the clickbait and hyperbole, but it sounds like I should probably give this a watch. Largely because it seems Mearls and I are aligned on somethings, based on how I designed Bugbears&Borderlands:

• level 10 cap
• no bonus actions

Interesting anecdote for level caps. Years ago I asked Frank Mentzer if he could change one thing about BECMI, what would it be. His answer? Cap levels at level 20. Obviously level 20 is higher than level 10, but the core reasons are the same: it gets messy at higher levels and fewer people play the game at higher levels so you have a diminishing return on time+effort+money spent creating that content vs. players who play that.

But to the person who mentioned this upthread, even though most players don't play past level 10, seeing there is nice. Personally I would have capped core at level 15 and done a high level campaign supplement later. Cook and Marsh did it right with the Expert set level limit, IMO.

 

[mamba]

And although I'm not really following it closely, it sounds like MCDM or whatever it calls itself these days is going to be pretty heavily 4e influenced itself.

apart from wanting heroic adventurers with tactical grid play, I am not sure how influenced it actually is. The mechanics certainly are pretty different. Not following closely either, but it feels like a connection in some of the goals more than a close mechanical relation to me

 

[Reynard]

apart from wanting heroic adventurers with tactical grid play, I am not sure how influenced it actually is. The mechanics certainly are pretty different. Not following closely either, but it feels like a connection in some of the goals more than a close mechanical relation to me

Inspiration does not require things actually look alike in the end. it means that creatures of thing B considered thing A as they designed/wrote/drew/whatever.

 

[Minigiant]

have no statistics on this, do you, or is that just your impression?

No statistics.

But there would not be so much talk about it if it were just 5%.

I wish they would finally pull the plug on monsters using spells. Have them as abilities in the stat block. If this gets them there, that is one more reason to rid ourselves of the higher levels

Space saving.

Unless you go full MINIs, Keywords, or 4e layouts, writing out the full abilities of interesting high level monster will take a lot of page space

AKA fewer monsters.

Will the community okay the sacrifice?

The only level 9 spell is a powered-up Cone of Cold, which is a level 5 spell. Mind Blank is level 8, Teleport is level 7, the rest is 5 or lower. I am sure we can keep basically everything we need without referring to high level spells, esp. since not having spells in the stat block is an improvement in and of itself

Well the Archmage is calculated around having time stop.

Without 9th level spells, you are looking at a whole reorganizing of spell choice or like I said before ..bigger stats blocks and fewer monsters

 

[Zardnaar]

No statistics.

But there would not be so much talk about it if it were just 5%.



Space saving.

Unless you go full MINIs, Keywords, or 4e layouts, writing out the full abilities of interesting high level monster will take a lot of page space

AKA fewer monsters.

Will the community okay the sacrifice?


Well the Archmage is calculated around having time stop.

Without 9th level spells, you are looking at a whole reorganizing of spell choice or like I said before ..bigger stats blocks and fewer monsters

It's probably bias about higher level play. We"re not representative of anything. Most of us here have probably played high level which puts us in that 1%. 10% being generous if level 10 counts.

Few enjoy it. I can do it but it's not worth the effort B/X might be an exception and that's capped at 14 with lower power curve.

 

[Desdichado]

It's probably bias about higher level play. We"re not representative of anything. Most of us here have probably played high level which puts us in that 1%. 10% being generous if level 10 counts.

Few enjoy it. I can do it but it's not worth the effort B/X might be an exception and that's capped at 14 with lower power curve.

Indeed, I played ONE campaign that went from 1st level to 23rd level or so, Age of Worms, during the 3.5 era. Didn't enjoy it, wouldn't do it again. The campaign was fine. The higher level combat was tedious.

 

[Reynard]

It's probably bias about higher level play. We"re not representative of anything. Most of us here have probably played high level which puts us in that 1%. 10% being generous if level 10 counts.

Few enjoy it. I can do it but it's not worth the effort B/X might be an exception and that's capped at 14 with lower power curve.

I always find it weird when folks go out of their way to talk about how "we" (ENWorld, I presume) are not representative, then immediately go on to talk about how they, individually, are.

 

[darjr]

Love high level play. I can just put my foot to the floor as a GM.

One time I almost TPKd a table of seven. The wizard with 2 HP left cast wish to bring everyone back and lost access to casting it ever again!

I had a group flickering in and out of several different planes at the same time, then the fighter, who had black razor, got took over by a lowly intellect devourer that they were ignoring! I asked that player to run him, he looked at his friends and uncorked “special” dice and smiled saying “payback time”!

I had a group of players falling through the plane of air towards the boarder of the plane of fire, The City of Brass on the horizon, Winged Azers and Fire Giants flying off the sea of fire to meet them in mid air combat! The fighter sounded his Horn of Valhalla and decided to die fighting!

 

[Minigiant]

It's probably bias about higher level play. We"re not representative of anything. Most of us here have probably played high level which puts us in that 1%. 10% being generous if level 10 counts.

Few enjoy it. I can do it but it's not worth the effort B/X might be an exception and that's capped at 14 with lower power curve.

The issue is how many want to play high level D&D if it worked .

Epic fantasy, mythic fantasy, and high power fantasy are all very popular genres of fantasy. D&D's mechanics just doesn't work well to support them because we can't agree on how again is played after level 10 or so.

But it's not like those genres aren't popular.

It's the opposite of MMOs. Low levels in MMOs were notoriously unfun for a decade or more. But you can't say no one wanted to play low level. Most players have to and many of the quests were interesting. But your character was often to limited in ability to enjoy the gameplay nor fully function in any party role.

 

[overgeeked]

Love high level play. I can just put my foot to the floor as a GM.

One time I almost TPKd a table of seven. The wizard with 2 HP left cast wish to bring everyone back and lost access to casting it ever again!

I had a group flickering in and out of several different planes at the same time, then the fighter, who had black razor, got took over by a lowly intellect devourer that they were ignoring! I asked that player to run him, he looked at his friends and uncorked “special” dice and smiled saying “payback time”!

I had a group of players falling through the plane of air towards the boarder of the plane of fire, The City of Brass on the horizon, Winged Azers and Fire Giants flying off the sea of fire to meet them in mid air combat! The fighter sounded his Horn of Valhalla and decided to die fighting!

There can absolutely be some fun moments, but for me I'd rather play something lighter and easier all around if we're going for that epic fantasy superhero demigods kind of action. It's not high-level D&D as the idea I take issue with, it's the kludgy mechanics of high-level D&D I have a problem with.