D&D 5E 11/1/13 google hangout with

[Blackwarder]

So the google hangout interview just ended, what do you guys think?

[video=youtube;ViU5xr0dBMQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViU5xr0dBMQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]

I liked a lot of the things Mike said about how they are approaching the next edition, I feel like they want to have somthing akin to BD&D -> AD&D -> ED&D (E stands for expert) all rolled into one and that you can easily move between the three. I like it, it reminds me of when I started playing BD&D and then seamlessly moved to AD&D and felt like it was the same game only with more bits to fiddle with.

I also liked Mike idea about rolling the Expertise dice into the damage dice of the weapon.

I was a bit disappointed that they haven't expanded on exploration rules.

Warder

 

[CAFRedblade]

Can a mod merge my thread with this one, please, thanks!!

 

[DEFCON 1]

I love that they are so confident in the game they have created and the way they are going about designing it and presenting it that even the infamous "Level 14 Rogue Against Red Dragon" thread here on ENWorld was basically tossed off as "shouldn't happen like that, but easily fixable".

I know some folks will complain that "that kind of problem shouldn't be in the playtest in the first place!"... but come on. The fact that they feel as though it's a simple math tweak (which is why they aren't getting hung up on these kind of outliers) is pleasing to know. They have bigger and more interesting fish to fry than worrying about making sure the math is completely balanced every single time they make additions or subtractions to the system.

It's like raking the yard. You don't waste your time trying to get every last leaf off the ground every single time you go out there... considering that in 24 hours the wind's going to blow a whole heap of leaves down into your yard all over again.

So long as the yard is clean enough to be manageable... wait until all the leaves have fallen from the trees before doing that "immaculate" cleaning job.

 

[Blackwarder]

I like the part about skills, Especialy the part that skills are not a task resolution system and to reflect that they think about changing the name of skills.Also the part that in BD&D if your a fighter your skill die add to all your strength checks, a thief add its SD for dexterity checks, a cleric add his to charisma checks and wizards add theirs to inteligent checks and in advanced D&D you get more and more grangular skills is out right genius. I really like it, I can easily see myself teaching the BD&D game to new players and if the group wants we can move to AD&D or stay playing BD&D.

Also the part about the rogue skill tricks, Especialy taunt, this segment made me look at taunt in a completely different way, I think that the years of playing MMORPG made we see taunt as somthing the tank use and while reading the playtest packet I thought that taunt is the worst trick for a rouge and that it make it again a fighter lite. Taunt should be renamed to lure, just to avoid all the preconceptions about the trick.

Warder

 

[n00bdragon]

It's like raking the yard. You don't waste your time trying to get every last leaf off the ground every single time you go out there... considering that in 24 hours the wind's going to blow a whole heap of leaves down into your yard all over again.

So long as the yard is clean enough to be manageable... wait until all the leaves have fallen from the trees before doing that "immaculate" cleaning job.

It helps to have a raking methodology that doesn't actively promote "leaves everywhere". The reason the math has problems is because there are no formulas. There are no baselines. And if there are there is no concern about sticking to them. D&DN is writing off its biggest problems as "little matters to fix in the editing room".

 

[Gorgoroth]

I'm 3/4 of the way through and had to hit pause just to come back here and post:

YESSSssss

Hearing so many good + positive things. Especially that expertise dice will be the damage die of the weapon, I'm glad they read the forums and our feedback here as well. There are so many neat-o things in the skills and class systems, and just the overall design iteration process that I'm hearing that make me feel VERY positive about where Next is headed.

Let's all keep a level head about stuff (myself included). I'm glad my greataxe won't be ignored when deciding just how pulpy the ogre becomes when faced with my high level dwarf. And the good stuff about Dragons getting advantage on all saves, and can't be stunned until he's bloodied. And even the charm tag working in mundane ways simply meaning they will not attack you. So much goodness here.

IMO, this will be a game that is fit for a 21st century gamer, with certain expectations about what makes the game fun and what you can accomplish in it. I.e. strike a good balance between DM adjucation with player control over their character's special abilities and reliability of their schtick to not have to always play mother-may-I or rely on DM fiat, but at the same time make quick n dirty rulings too. In a sense, it might capture the essence of what D&D should have been doing all along but didn't quite get right because of this or that rule that stymies the intent and spirit of the game.

I think tweaking system math mechanics is definitely more complex and has far-reaching implications than merely changing particular damage or AC/DC values and more akin to changing the laws of physics than moving furniture around your house, but this is definitely the stage of the design where "laws of physics" (e.g. dice resolution mechanics) are mutable/malleable and we should try living in various dimensions before settling on one particular set of gravitational equations to live by. Some of Mearl's ideas sound very good to me, I look forward to trying them out or at least seeing what comes out of all this.

 

[Markn]

I thought the event covered a large portion of the concerns of the community and the answers were thorough enough and conveyed positively enough for me to look forward to the next packet.

 

[Argyle King]

I like what he said about tactics in the encounter with the Bugbears. That's pretty much exactly what I have been trying to say in previous threads as to why I prefer less metagame parts to how the "physics" (for a lack of better words) works in the game. I prefer to make decisions from the point of view of what makes sense given the situation; not what makes sense according to what the mechanics say. In the current edition, there have been many times when performing what would be good tactics given the situation and narrative actually turn out to be stupid things to do because of the ways the rules work and vice versa.

I see some potential problems with the idea of being able to split damage dice into multiple attacks. The problem I see at higher levels (which is when you'd have a lot of multiple dice to split) is that many powerful effects don't require damage to kill or shut down the enemy. In those cases, hitting is more important than doing damage. For example, let's say I have an ability or magic item or whatever which allows me to stun foes that I hit, and I have 4d8 damage available to me. In a fight with multiple foes, I'm fine with doing far less damage because I can stun all of them and then allow the rest of the party to mop them up. Alternatively, I might just do the same move over and over again; stun locking the enemy and killing them over time with no danger posed to myself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the conversation about non-magical forced action is good.

What I would like to see is less dictation of actions, and more things like the 4e mark: something that introduces an incentive to perform a particular action.

So, like Taunt. Currently it just makes someone move toward you. And then they forget you, or ignore you, or whatever.

I'd like to see it maybe give them a damage bonus against you. If you plunk that damage bonus on some hefty ogre 20 squares away, it is going to want to move toward you. If you plunk that damage bonus on a creature in melee with you already...well, you know what they say about not being able to back up yer stuff.

Of course, it would have to do more than just grant a damage bonus. Perhaps something like, "If the creature moves into melee with you, you deal damage to it equal to your spent skill die." Some advantage for taunting them.

That's the kind of trickery that gives a real sense of the reality of the world that is being evoked at the table. It feels more like you make that creature mad at you (for some alternative purpose). It introduces more tactical uses (ie: use it when you get your AC buffed, or use it when the enemy is blinded). It provides the DM with an option, without dictating what happens.

Yeah, there are manipulative people in the world, but they don't remove your free will -- they don't MAKE you do something. You end up CHOOSING to do something. That's an important element that I don't think should be missed.

Forcing actions is more the domain of powerful magic. I really don't have a problem with low-level magic ALSO not being able to dictate the enemy's choices. Removing free will is all sorts of evil mind-magic abuse in the world, no? And I like non-magical abilities able to apply conditions like charm.

Dictating actions is kind of kludgy and kind of weird and kind of just not a lot of fun, when compared with incentivizing certain actions, and encouraging the DM to act in-character. Is the big ogre going to take advantage of that damage bonus? Oh, probably. Is that clever necromancer? Well, probably not.

I dunno, maybe I'm out in left field on this one.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree with what you all are saying. In addition, I like how they don't want to use the label "Solo" with monsters to apply blanket abiliites, defenses, or immunities. The way they spoke about monsters and math in general made me feel much more comfortable.

I like Mike's idea about the weapon damage becoming the way to increase MDD for martial PCs, and I like the idea that manevuers will be more like feats that are granted by class, or by feat choice, or through multi-classing. If they can spread this into Cleric and Wizard feats that give applicable maneuvers or tricks to them too, I'll be a happy camper.