D&D 5E D&D Next playtest post mortem by Mike Mearls and Rodney Thompson. From seven years ago.


log in or register to remove this ad

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
It's so bizarre how we don't have a truly simple caster. Something along the lines of the 3.5 warlock.
I am surprised they did not move sorcerers into this as it lacks a true niche.
One consistent comment I've seen from players over the years is that they like casters, but, after a time, start wanting to have a LOT fewer options. I know as a DM, I refuse to use caster monsters. I just won't do it. They're too complicated and nowhere near worth the effort to use them for me. Now, as soon as I see a monster with a spell list, I just turn the page. 3-5 at wills or once a day powers? Ok, I can live with that. Anything more? Hard nope.

So, yeah, I hope that we can get a far, far simpler caster class for the next edition. Three spells - one for attacking targets, one for doing something to lots of targets and one for doing stuff out of combat. The effects of those three spells are expanded by level. Done.
they would have to be very varied spells for them to be able to keep up.
 

Staffan

Legend
As for complex characters, I know from player recruitment that wizard is as not nearly popular as some ENWorld posters might lead you to believe. Many players like options, but they don't want to work too hard to use them. Something they should keep in mind for this round of playtests.
This is something I've seen in some of the post-core Pathfinder 2 classes: lots of moving parts that you need to use just right and in the end, you end up with capabilities at about the same level as a simpler core class.

I don't mind characters having lots of abilities, but I do think it's a problem when they need to interact in non-obvious ways in order to keep up.
 

Hussar

Legend
I am surprised they did not move sorcerers into this as it lacks a true niche.

they would have to be very varied spells for them to be able to keep up.
They'd keep up with the non-casters just fine, since the non-casters are even more limited than having 3 spells.

Which would make me happy. If they did that, I'd probably have a group where no one played a caster because no one actually wants to, but, they want something more complicated than a fighter. There really isn't much of a happy medium.
 

Mind of tempest

(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
They'd keep up with the non-casters just fine, since the non-casters are even more limited than having 3 spells.

Which would make me happy. If they did that, I'd probably have a group where no one played a caster because no one actually wants to, but, they want something more complicated than a fighter. There really isn't much of a happy medium.
far but they still have to feel like entry-level casters, not pointlessly nerfed casters they should be in essence the training option but still be fun regardless which is difficult to make.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Just watching that first video that @darjr posted (2 of 7) there were two things that Mike and Rodney talked about that made me realize just how out of touch most of us here on EN World really are when we talk about the D&D game and what we think the game should be.

1) Our own personal biases of what we individually think D&D is when it is the best colors our reactions to anything else that might be proposed. Is something really bad when it is presented, or is it just that what we personally think is A+ D&D makes it seem like what was proposed is bad... even though what we think is A+ D&D is not something most other players agree with.

2) D&D is not as difficult to learn as we make it out to be. As Mike says in the video... we experienced players bring all of our institutional knowledge of how things can go wrong with us when looking at the game, so we constantly believe things are more difficult to pick up or that there are more roadblocks in the way to being successful. Whereas for actual new players, because they don't know what they don't know those roadblocks functionally do not exist. And we knowledgeable players do them a disservice by continually throwing all these "Make sure you watch out for--" warnings... thinking we are doing them a favor but in point of fact are just inundating them with so much detail they probably won't ever experience until they become as knowledgeable as we are. And their eyes just glaze over and it stops them from just playing.

And this is why every time I see a "Think of the newbs!" post detailing why something in the game or being proposed for the game is bad is something I just am incapable of taking at face value... because the poster has layered their own knowledge and biases upon the thing they are decrying and I have no faith they have actually looked at it from the point of view of someone who is in fact completely new to the game.
 


They'd keep up with the non-casters just fine, since the non-casters are even more limited than having 3 spells.
I feel the non-casters would be pretty miffed without someone to cast Detect Magic/Identify/Comprehend Languages/Goodberry/Healing Word etc for them. They depend on casters to provide those things. If you drastically cut down what an individual caster can provide in the way of utility then you are really forcing the party to all play casters and carefully co-ordinate what each can do. They like to have someone along who can do everything, so they don't have to.

No one wants to play a wizard, but no one wants to not have a wizard in the party.
 

payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
Just watching that first video that @darjr posted (2 of 7) there were two things that Mike and Rodney talked about that made me realize just how out of touch most of us here on EN World really are when we talk about the D&D game and what we think the game should be.

1) Our own personal biases of what we individually think D&D is when it is the best colors our reactions to anything else that might be proposed. Is something really bad when it is presented, or is it just that what we personally think is A+ D&D makes it seem like what was proposed is bad... even though what we think is A+ D&D is not something most other players agree with.

2) D&D is not as difficult to learn as we make it out to be. As Mike says in the video... we experienced players bring all of our institutional knowledge of how things can go wrong with us when looking at the game, so we constantly believe things are more difficult to pick up or that there are more roadblocks in the way to being successful. Whereas for actual new players, because they don't know what they don't know those roadblocks functionally do not exist. And we knowledgeable players do them a disservice by continually throwing all these "Make sure you watch out for--" warnings... thinking we are doing them a favor but in point of fact are just inundating them with so much detail they probably won't ever experience until they become as knowledgeable as we are. And their eyes just glaze over and it stops them from just playing.

And this is why every time I see a "Think of the newbs!" post detailing why something in the game or being proposed for the game is bad is something I just am incapable of taking at face value... because the poster has layered their own knowledge and biases upon the thing they are decrying and I have no faith they have actually looked at it from the point of view of someone who is in fact completely new to the game.
Oh yeah, think of the newbs has been around for decades now.
 

I feel the non-casters would be pretty miffed without someone to cast Detect Magic/Identify/Comprehend Languages/Goodberry/Healing Word etc for them. They depend on casters to provide those things.
Of course, those things are artifacts of the underlying assumptions of the game system. The decision that healing must be magical in nature leads to the need to Healing Word, e.g.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top