D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out

[dd.stevenson]

Mike Mearls? I just went through all of his tweets from the past week or so and I can't find anything that resembles this statement.

He says it here.

EDIT: sweet mother of all ninjas!

 

[Argyle King]

I still feel as though there are a lot of conflicting messages about the game. Over and over again, one of the "core ideas" behind the design is to reign in bonus inflation. However; with each new round of playtest, we're shown more ways to add more numbers onto the system. Those two things don't seem to compliment each other well. It seems to me that the bonus inflation is simply being shifted to other areas of the game design.

I also see a lot of problems coming from lumping everything together under feats. That's exactly what one of the main problems was with 3rd and 4th Edition. "Hmm, do I choose Linguist or do I choose a feat which gives me a mechanical bonus?"

 

[zoroaster100]

I have to try to remember that this is a playtest. It's hard not to get attached to ideas and mechanics they propose which I like, but which might be taken away or changed in the next version of the playtest packet, then put back but differently, then removed again, etc. My players and I tried the current playtest and we all enjoyed it a lot in our first session. I'll try not to get too flustered at hearing things I don't like on these blogs and will try to keep an open mind until I see and try the next playtest packet. Having said that I do prefer the idea of players choosing skills at which they are better, though I'd like for characters to be able to attempt most tasks untrained except for tasks only a trained expert could expect to ever achieve at all. So hopefully either the basic rules will provide that in one form or another, or there will be an add on for such a system that does not involve work for the DM in changing the basic assumptions in the game. I certainly don't want to spend the entire time I play with this edition adjusting DCs of monster abilities that interact with skill checks, or adjusting all the DCs in adventures, just because my players prefer to use an optional skill system.

 

[gyor]

I'm curious if Barbarians and Monks count as non casters?

Also what about casters whose spells only go to level 5 like Paladins and Rangers? Do they split the difference? Say 9 feats instead of 6 or 12?

 

[pemerton]

I don't see what's so important about uniform feat progression. 3E did not have uniform feat progression (some classes got bonus feats).

4e did have uniform feat progression (plus some bonus feats for some 1st level PCs), plus uniform power progression, but this is one of the more highly criticised features of 4e.

Once you've decided to move away from 4e-style uniformity, which D&Dnext is definitely doing, there doesn't seem any particular reason to retain it in respect of feats.

 

[variant]

I think +10 to Intelligence checks seem too high. It's equivalent to someone having a 30 intelligence in regards to that topic. I think +5 would be better as it means someone that has a 20 Intelligence would just as likely no the knowledge regardless if they have had training in that particular area.

 

[Zardnaar]

Looks a bit better. Probably not interested but more likely to provoke a meh. Currently playing Star Wars Saga instead of D&D anyway.

 

[Li Shenron]

You pull a piece of rope right by the mast and when the sail is up, you tie it up. It would probably take you whopping 1 minute to figure out. The rudder on small sailing boats go the opposite way of where you point them, so 1 minute to figure that out as well. You will probably be becalmed a couple of times and have the boom(?) (long stick connected to the mast that the bootom of the sail is fastened to) hit you over the head a couple of times, but otherwise, you would get the hang of it pretty quickly.

Even bigger ships could probably be sailed by noobs, with less sail and at a snails pace and not against the wind.

Remember, sailing was something you got press-ganged into doing!

I wrote that I'm in favor of a general rule similar to weapon prof, i.e. "strong" disadvantage to checks if you are not proficient at the skill or tools, with "strong" meaning that disadvantage cannot be cancelled by advantage (but this bit is arguable).

But we have to understand the situation at hand. Improvising i.e. attempting a check your PC is not good at, is going to be used in emergency situations or situations where the players are running out of ideas, and only if there is no one around trained at that. Therefore it is quite important that the penalty is significant (and I think disadvantage is significant enough). Otherwise it devalues the significance of getting trained in something.

Realism is only a fringe benefit. It matters for some believability, but it is not the most important thing and it's not the main reason for having non-weapon proficiency rules (and in this example, I think you're wrong... I would need you to be there to tell me where to attach that rope and how to tie that knot, I can tie my shoes but I don't know how to tie sailor's knots without instructions from someone who is in fact trained... if I improvise a knot on a thick sailing rope, it'll almost certainly never work! if you know how to do it, it's too easy to think anyone can do it, but it's false). Non-weapon proficiency rules main purpose is to create roles in the game, so that whenever the group needs to sail a ship, they ask the trained PC to take that role, and if no one has they hire someone or improvise. Once again, I am in favor of allowing improvisation, just as long as it clearly is an inferior solution to getting trained.

 

[variant]

I wish they would just add the original skill system they had in previous packets with a bonus to skills that aren't linked to specific ability scores.

 

[adembroski]

Being the guy who started the infamous "D&DN is going the wrong direction" thread, I gotta say, this has given me a reason to be optimistic. I'm not in love with any of it, but I like where it could lead post-playtest. It's definitely a better road than they were on before.