D&D 5E Dungeoncraft Interview with Mike Mearls

[Minigiant]

I really wish I could disagree with this, but...

Now I wonder what subset of fans 5.5 is designed for?

15-45 year olds who like narrative or tactical games but bought 3PP for 5e and have too much sunken cost to swap over.

 

[Maxperson]

I wasn't even talking about magic items... my whole belief in the capabilities of the encounter building rules / challenge rating system is based on the number of PCs that can heal. As soon as you add a second healing-capable PC (and goodness forbid a 3rd or 4th in a standard party)... you basically should halve the challenge ratings of all the monsters.

Magic items absolutely affect encounter difficulty to a large degree. Rings of resistance can halve monster damage output. Magic weapons double PC damage output in many encounters. Wonderous items give PCs abilities that affect the tactical portion of combat by quite a bit.

For some reason the 5E14 encounter building rules will double the XP challenge value of the monsters as soon as they outnumber the PCs (so that a Medium fight jumps to like Deadly with the addition of like a single other monster to the fight even if that monster is like a basic goblin)... but yet does not take into account having two healers, and thus the party almost never seeing any healing downtime. PC goes down to 0, one or two other PCs right there to get them back up... rather than a 4 PC party with a single healer that has no way to mitigate things if that single healer is the one going unconscious.

No encounter building rules can account for party makeup. It can be any combination classes, with any subclass for those classes. How do you make rules that treat 3 rangers and 1 fighter equally with 1 fighter, 1 wizard, 1 cleric, and 1 rogue, or 2 clerics,1 sorcerer, and 1 bard?

You can't. And then player ability alters things drastically as well.

 

[tetrasodium]

No encounter building rules can account for party makeup. It can be any combination classes, with any subclass for those classes. How do you make rules that treat 3 rangers and 1 fighter equally with 1 fighter, 1 wizard, 1 cleric, and 1 rogue, or 2 clerics,1 sorcerer, and 1 bard?

You can't. And then player ability alters things drastically as well.

It's actually fairly easy to accomplish by properly arming the GM with aa well stocked toolbox and aiming those guidelines at something like 3ish somewhat optimized somewhat decorated Christmas trees that choose between having shallow but broad or narrow but deep niche of expertise. From there the gm can use magic items to add breadth or depth to fill the needs of lacking power and unfilled gaps of their particular group's makeup as appropriate.

 

[Alzrius]

ACKS II is my preferred system. More complex B/X with more options and a strong emphasis on sim.

How would you compare the new edition to the original ACKS? I'm on the fence about switching over, and I'm curious.

 

[Micah Sweet]

ACKS II integrates material and rules updates from many supplements and articles released over the years since the original game. The three books aren't all-inclusive, but they're darn close, and many adjustments have been made to (to my mind) improve play. Format is also improved, which helps readability for such a wordy text, so I would say it's an improvement all around while still being 90-95% compatible.

 

[Sacrosanct]

ACKS II integrates material and rules updates from many supplements and articles released over the years since the original game. The three books aren't all-inclusive,

Considering who wrote it, this phrase is pretty funny and unintentionally on point.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No encounter building rules can account for party makeup. It can be any combination classes, with any subclass for those classes. How do you make rules that treat 3 rangers and 1 fighter equally with 1 fighter, 1 wizard, 1 cleric, and 1 rogue, or 2 clerics,1 sorcerer, and 1 bard?

You can't. And then player ability alters things drastically as well.

I agree 100%. Which is why I always question why people keep wanting encounter building rules so badly while simultaneously complaining that the 5E14 rules didn't work.

And yet when someone says "You're better off just learning how your own table plays the game and then create encounters and monsters to challenge them using your own instincts as a Dungeon Master"... people get mad that your "instructions" are to just "Get good". As though recommending a DM just be confident in themselves and their skills-- rather than waiting around for WotC to hold their hand and help them along-- is somehow bad advice.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree 100%. Which is why I always question why people keep wanting encounter building rules so badly while simultaneously complaining that the 5E14 rules didn't work.

I want them because they allow DMs to better ballpark created monsters. It can't pinpoint what you need and give you a homerun, but it can get you to third base and then you can find your way to home plate yourself. Without it DMs, especially new DMs, will stumble around the bases one at a time, sometimes striking out and TPKing the party.

 

[Belen]

Exactly! The main thing that we tried to take away from WoW was a larger focus on tactical combat that offered a puzzle. We felt that would make it easier to DM, plus give players a clearer sense of what they were supposed to do.

I think if we had been allowed to take the D&D Minis game and build a coop version, the game would've been far more successful and much better equipped to bring in new players.

I feel like this statement will be controversial to several folks who love 4e.

 

[Zardnaar]

I really wish I could disagree with this, but...

Now I wonder what subset of fans 5.5 is designed for?

Existing players of 5E is my guess.