D&D 5E Interesting talk with Mike Mearls (a few secrets slip too!)

[Evenglare]

Here you go.
http://suvudu.com/2014/07/interview...-5e-to-be-fast-flexible-and-easy-to-play.html

One awesome thing I noticed:

Mike : I really liked this mechanic, because it cut down on the math you need to do before play and made it much easier to add your proficiency to a roll if you forgot it, or to ignore it if you accidentally used it.

The feedback, though, was very clear that people didn’t like adding more randomness to situations that involved their character’s skill. They felt like training should be a reliable benefit, rather than one that had a random effect on a task.

I will totally admit that I love the feel of rolling more dice. It was definitely a case of acquiescing to the playtesters’ observations and experiences, rather than trying to force something on everyone. Still, I did slip the dice version into the Dungeon Master’s Guide as a variant rule.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is going to be the biggest irritation this autumn... knowing that there are going to be rules modules in the DMG that I most likely will want to use for my 5E campaign, but not being able to see them until November. So do I just hold off on the campaign altogether until that book is released... or start the campaign without them (or perhaps even worse, jerry-rigged versions I create for myself that I *think* will kinda be what the DMG will include) and then have to re-educate my players once the official rules come out?

At least the Proficiency Die Mike talks about can be guessed at somewhat-- and someone (I don't remember who) made this point a couple weeks(?) ago: the proficiency bonus is about the average damage of each of the first five dice. So if you wanted more randomness from proficiency... when your prof bonus is a +2 you can instead swap that out for a d4, the +3 is d6, +4 is d8, +5 is d10, and +6 is d12. You'll get much more of a swing in terms of highs and lows, but that perhaps might be more fun for you? It'd take a bit longer-- rolling and adding a d20 + d4 + ability modifier (+ a second d20 if you had Ad/Disad)... but if that doesn't bother you, the extra randomness would be intriguing.

I think I'll have to read the PH and Hoard of the Dragon Queen first and try to determine whether I'd be happy running the game the normal way starting in September, when I still don't have the various modules to look through for alternate healing/death, skill system, tactical combat etc.

 

[wedgeski]

So much worth quoting in that interview! I hope WotC's plans come to fruition, especially in the area of diversification rather than flooding the game with new rule-books, and the idea that a new expansion or mega-adventure should be an event, not just a date in the calendar.

Mearls and the gang are making it very easy to get behind this edition. Kudos to the lot of them.

 

[wedgeski]

This is going to be the biggest irritation this autumn... knowing that there are going to be rules modules in the DMG that I most likely will want to use for my 5E campaign, but not being able to see them until November. So do I just hold off on the campaign altogether until that book is released... or start the campaign without them (or perhaps even worse, jerry-rigged versions I create for myself that I *think* will kinda be what the DMG will include) and then have to re-educate my players once the official rules come out?

I definitely think you should consider the PHB to *be* the game of D&D 5E and make your decision accordingly. If it's not deep enough for you, then wait until the game of D&D becomes something you might like, later in the year.

 

[Gundark]

Yeah it's rare that I buy books after the main 3. I would buy more adventures and such though. So I am looking forward to that. The mega adventures especially.

Really looking forward to hearing more about those secrets he wants to tell us but can't yet. I suspect one of those is about their OGLish plans.

I liked the dice rather than hard bonuses so glad to see that in the DMG

 

[TwoSix]

I love the idea of the proficiency bonus being a die instead. The nice thing about the rule is that it can even vary player-to-player, with no real impact on the game as a whole.

And releasing less books, but making them more impactful is a great idea. Paizo does this well with Pathfinder, at least in terms of their big game-affecting tomes like Ultimate Combat or Advanced Class Guide. WotC had done that with early 4e, as well, by releasing new classes just once a year in a bundled new PHB. It makes for more anticipation, and anticipation is arguably more fun than actually getting stuff.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I definitely think you should consider the PHB to *be* the game of D&D 5E and make your decision accordingly. If it's not deep enough for you, then wait until the game of D&D becomes something you might like, later in the year.

And therein lies the conundrum.

The thing is... if I didn't already know a DMG with a whole bunch of fully playtested modules was going to be released in two months, I most likely would just use the PH as "the game" and then add in a couple house rules for things that really bothered me. But those house rules would be ideas I just guesstimated would be balanced and effective. So to know that perhaps better written, better tested, and better designed house rules that do the exact same thing could be appearing in the DMG in November is really gonna gnaw at me if I end up starting the game in September. Teaching my players some perhaps bad rules before getting them the better ones a couple months in.

Yeah, it's only two months and it'll be over before I know it... but still. I just conceptually prefer the idea of only needing to change the rules in the PH once and getting it over with for my players. But what can I do, ya know? C'est la vie!

 

[Dungeoneer]

I'm definitely glad that they've realized that the "D&D Book-Of-The-Month-Club" was a bad idea. I hope their efforts to use other products to monetize the game pan out.

 

[BryonD]

I love the idea of the proficiency bonus being a die instead. The nice thing about the rule is that it can even vary player-to-player, with no real impact on the game as a whole.

Agreed.

And my mind immediately went to further customization within a single character. For example an archery based fighter with a d10 prof die could trade using a d8 for melee attacks, but gain a d4 for stealth. I'm shooting from the hip here, but it seems massive customization would materialize. (And there is no reason this works any less with flat values, but dice just made it pop out in my mind for whatever reason)

 

[Thaumaturge]

I like skill dice, and I've been planning for a while now to let players pick whether they use them or not. I think certain character concepts and play styles work better and worse with the added randomness. A Wild Sorcerer seems like a good fit. A rogue who is a meticulous planner, maybe not so much.

Thaumaturge.