D&D 5E Mearl's Book Design Philosophy

[JeffB]

We played the PFBB for about a year- Then a hybrid of S&W and Moldvay Basic for about another year. These kids are NOT into rules. They , to this day, have had no desire to grab a rulebook and optimize or even n spend more than a couple minutes looking at a new spell, or power or class ability. They are motivated by adventure/story/exploration and don't care for things that make the game run slower, or complicate things (thus now our game of choice is DW). They are the complete opposite of nearly every person on this messageboard They look at the game as alot of families look at Monopoly. Play it here and there, have fun, never give it a second thought until we pull out the board again.


Where I think the kids grokked 4e (Essentials) easier was in the following

1) Power structure basically same for everyone. Every character works in same manner. It was much easier for them to get "I can do this once a day, this every new combat, and this every combat round, and help each other at the table.

2) concise rules laid out on a small card for each power and no needing to reference rulebooks for feats/spell description. Having to find something in the books drives us all apeshit. This was key for them. For them and me this was critical, the powers drove them to more interesting combat. When they had to come up with cool moves themselves, they did not seem confident in knowing how this feat or that pf combat maneuver would work, and so they often just said "I attack....". They didn't want to study rulebooks and with 4e the stuff they needed was right there easy peasy in front of their face.

3) players roll all attacks- no "saves" ala tsr/osr/3e/5e
3.1) They do seem to want to control their own dice destiny. Thus they love DW and when we do run an osr game or 5e I have adopted defense rolls and such. But thats just a side note.

After awhile we went back to OSR variants and then 5e , and I could tell it just didn't float their boat,.especially for the two playing Spellcasters. Nowadays we tend to either play something super simple like White Box (White Star has been super fun) , or Dungeon World.

So I'm not sure why all those things worked out the way they did, but I always addressed their needs and we have had a ton of fun. Nowadays though, they are too interested in girls and sports, getting ready for college so we don't play as often as I would like. I get it, but it makes me sad

I won't get into all the reasons I preferred 4e, but we had alot more fun with it, once I made the needed house rules on my side. (I essentially- npi- 13thAged it before 13A came out- making it far less grid focused- which they don't like)

 

[PMárk]

Arcane Trickster, Warlock, Eldritch Knight. 5e has three effective arcane gish options.

I'm still on the opinion that 5e so far lacks any true dedicated hybrid gish classes. It has nothing like the magus, duskblade (EK is most close to that but only at high levels), spellsword, swordmage, beguiler (IMO arcane trickster is a watered-down version), etc. Most gish builds in 5e are either archetypes that dabbles in magic or combat, but primarily focusing on one, or multiclass characters, which somehow always assume 18+ levels. when playing a magus in PF I feel I'm playing a mage/fighter from level 1 and all the abilities are strengthening that notion. After that, honestly, the 5e gish choices are a letdown. I'm still waiting for a real hybrid gish class, but I feel WotC'd consider the niche covered at this point. I think that is one of the traps of the "no new classes, only archetypes" philosophy, because some concepts are really just too much of a hybrid of two, or more existing classes that an archetype won't do it adequate justice.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm still on the opinion that 5e so far lacks any true dedicated hybrid gish classes. It has nothing like the magus, duskblade (EK is most close to that but only at high levels), spellsword, swordmage, beguiler (IMO arcane trickster is a watered-down version), etc. Most gish builds in 5e are either archetypes that dabbles in magic or combat, but primarily focusing on one, or multiclass characters, which somehow always assume 18+ levels. when playing a magus in PF I feel I'm playing a mage/fighter from level 1 and all the abilities are strengthening that notion. After that, honestly, the 5e gish choices are a letdown. I'm still waiting for a real hybrid gish class, but I feel WotC'd consider the niche covered at this point. I think that is one of the traps of the "no new classes, only archetypes" philosophy, because some concepts are really just too much of a hybrid of two, or more existing classes that an archetype won't do it adequate justice.

Clerics, Paladins. War Clerics are BEASTS in combat, and get 9 whole spell levels. "Arcane" and "Divine" magic are not categories that are separate anymore, refluff as needed. Honestly can't imagine a full gish Class that isn't pretty much a reskinned Paladin or Cleric...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Arcane Trickster, Warlock, Eldritch Knight. 5e has three effective arcane gish options.

Yeah, and that's not even factoring in how you could choose magic initiate for ritual caster even at level 1 if you're a variant human. 5e does offer you ways to be a casting fighter class all the way from level 1 if you really want to.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have a hard time grasping how 4e was the easiest edition to learn to play (unless of course everyone is playing the PHB 1 ranger). Everyone has individual class abilities as well as a number of powers, that are small exception based rules, that they have to understand the general rules of the game and how they interact with them in order to play.

When I played at encounters new players had to continuously reference their power cards (which IMO is no different than having to open the book), had to have the jargon explained to them (what's the difference between a close burst and close blast?), pick from numerous fiddly feats the players had to keep track of and understand, recognize the difference between 7 types of actions in the game... and there were a ton of keywords for their powers that they needed to understand (what are the rules for stances... how about the reliable keyword... or the rules for a conjuration?).

IME on the DM side there was alot of overhead, fiddly tracking in conditions and monster abilities (that I as a DM often forgot to use or overlooked especially when running a variety of monsters in a combat).

Now I do think Essentials cuts down on the complexity of 4e and I could see an argument for it being one of the simpler editions of D&D but even then not sure I would claim it's the easiest D&D to learn or play... for me though 5e, without the optional stuff like feats... multiclassing... etc. would rank at or slightly simpler then essentials to learn. But then I think that's the point of the basic pdf, to give new players a concise and easily graspable set of rules to learn the game which they casn then decide to stick with or move onto the PHB.

My experience is completely the opposite. New players have no issues grasping the powers, keywords, action economy, etc. 5e is noticeably more work in that aspect for every new player I've witnessed. The 4e basic rules are pretty simple, and powers have all the rules you need printed on them.

I can't even fathom how you could say that referencing the powers is the same as having to open the book and look up a rule. It's just miles simpler to read a thing on your character sheet than it is to look up one or more rules in the book, and the power tells you exactly how to use it.

Im not saying 4e doesn't have complexity or any learning curve, but I am saying that nothing in 4e is as needlessly complicated or annoying for new players (as always, IME/IMO), as spellcasting, spell slots, spell levels, etc in 5e or any other edition. Also the 4e action economy, at worst, had players forgetting they could take one of the less upfront actions, like interrupts. 5e action economy confuses every new person I've seen play 5e. Every one. Ok, how does movement work again? I can move in between doing other things? And some stuff doesn't require any action? Wait what is a bonus action? I was surprised at how much these questions come up.
I wasn't surprised at how confusing the spell stuff was.

Also, classes working so differently definately makes a difference. In 4e, anyone at the table can help a confused player remember how something works, because what isn't printed on the character sheet is generally shared across classes. Everyone has the same actions, an encounter power is always an encounter power, etc.

OTOH, like tony said, old players...many just hit a wall. And often it was stuff that just had a different presentation or something, but actually worked pretty much the same. I mean, if you reformat powers to read like either spells or class features, and change "encounter" and "daily" to "must take short/long rest", 4e looks A LOT less different. The biggest actual difference is spellcasting. And it's vastly simpler in 4e.

but no edition of DnD is simple compared to the simple DnD clones, or a lot of other games.

 

[Imaro]

We played the PFBB for about a year- Then a hybrid of S&W and Moldvay Basic for about another year. These kids are NOT into rules. They , to this day, have had no desire to grab a rulebook and optimize or even n spend more than a couple minutes looking at a new spell, or power or class ability. They are motivated by adventure/story/exploration and don't care for things that make the game run slower, or complicate things (thus now our game of choice is DW). They are the complete opposite of nearly every person on this messageboard They look at the game as alot of families look at Monopoly. Play it here and there, have fun, never give it a second thought until we pull out the board again.


Where I think the kids grokked 4e (Essentials) easier was in the following

1) Power structure basically same for everyone. Every character works in same manner. It was much easier for them to get "I can do this once a day, this every new combat, and this every combat round, and help each other at the table.

2) concise rules laid out on a small card for each power and no needing to reference rulebooks for feats/spell description. Having to find something in the books drives us all apeshit. This was key for them. For them and me this was critical, the powers drove them to more interesting combat. When they had to come up with cool moves themselves, they did not seem confident in knowing how this feat or that pf combat maneuver would work, and so they often just said "I attack....". They didn't want to study rulebooks and with 4e the stuff they needed was right there easy peasy in front of their face.

3) players roll all attacks- no "saves" ala tsr/osr/3e/5e
3.1) They do seem to want to control their own dice destiny. Thus they love DW and when we do run an osr game or 5e I have adopted defense rolls and such. But thats just a side note.

After awhile we went back to OSR variants and then 5e , and I could tell it just didn't float their boat,.especially for the two playing Spellcasters. Nowadays we tend to either play something super simple like White Box (White Star has been super fun) , or Dungeon World.

So I'm not sure why all those things worked out the way they did, but I always addressed their needs and we have had a ton of fun. Nowadays though, they are too interested in girls and sports, getting ready for college so we don't play as often as I would like. I get it, but it makes me sad

I won't get into all the reasons I preferred 4e, but we had alot more fun with it, once I made the needed house rules on my side. (I essentially- npi- 13thAged it before 13A came out- making it far less grid focused- which they don't like)

See when someone says 4e essentials I can kind of get it, essentials was alot easier to grok than regular 4e (but then I think that's different from claiming 4e... which I view as including all of original 4e... was the easiest to learn). However I wonder if for 5e you created character cheat sheets (I do this with nearly any game I play) or class ability cards/sheets would that make a difference... it seems from your points above you all are fine looking up rules as long as it's not in the rulebook (i.e. power cards) and is easily accessible.

Also, as far as complexity goes, I don't see a difference between the at-will/encounter/daily divide of 4e and 5e's at-will/short rest/long rest... at least not in so far as complexity... it's 3 categories of power recharge rates in both games.

Now don't get me wrong I can understand preferring 4e (and I actually think Essentials is cool enough that I'd run it once in awhile, though I vastly prefer 13th Age to essentials ro 4e core for that subset of D&D play) but I don't think you're commenting on the actual 4e game being simpler than 5e but moreso the subset of 4e you chose (essentials) and the tools that were provided for it (powercards), as well as your houserules... making it easier for you and your group to use at the table.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm still on the opinion that 5e so far lacks any true dedicated hybrid gish classes. It has nothing like the magus, duskblade (EK is most close to that but only at high levels), spellsword, swordmage, beguiler (IMO arcane trickster is a watered-down version), etc. Most gish builds in 5e are either archetypes that dabbles in magic or combat, but primarily focusing on one, or multiclass characters, which somehow always assume 18+ levels. when playing a magus in PF I feel I'm playing a mage/fighter from level 1 and all the abilities are strengthening that notion. After that, honestly, the 5e gish choices are a letdown. I'm still waiting for a real hybrid gish class, but I feel WotC'd consider the niche covered at this point. I think that is one of the traps of the "no new classes, only archetypes" philosophy, because some concepts are really just too much of a hybrid of two, or more existing classes that an archetype won't do it adequate justice.

Im inclined to agree with the bolded part. things like the artificer could be done as subclasses for a handful of different classes, but it will not be half as good as it would be as a full class. Same with the "warlord", and IMO, assassin.

I do think a solid gish class is still needed. IMO, divine classes don't count, and clerics are my least favorite class in the game. Maybe tied with fighter.

A swordmage class could combine frontliner defenses and proficienies with arcane spellcasting, and the scag cantrips, and from level one, no tinkering or taking human for the feat required, just be a gish. "Out of the box", as it were. Said class could also include an arcane archer, and maybe something more outside the box.

For me, warlock comes closest because you don't need blade pact to be a gish. Make your first two invocations give you at will mage armor, and false life, and use the scag cantrips. Level 2 gish ain't bad. My group starts at lvl 3, though. So for us, the EK and AT are fine gish options. for the most part.

 

[Imaro]

My experience is completely the opposite. New players have no issues grasping the powers, keywords, action economy, etc. 5e is noticeably more work in that aspect for every new player I've witnessed. The 4e basic rules are pretty simple, and powers have all the rules you need printed on them.

I can readily believe that different people had different experiences...

I can't even fathom how you could say that referencing the powers is the same as having to open the book and look up a rule. It's just miles simpler to read a thing on your character sheet than it is to look up one or more rules in the book, and the power tells you exactly how to use it.

But that's not a function of the rules being simpler... it's a function of the tools, effort, etc. of someone or something creating play aids and it can be done for 5e as well.

Im not saying 4e doesn't have complexity or any learning curve, but I am saying that nothing in 4e is as needlessly complicated or annoying for new players (as always, IME/IMO), as spellcasting, spell slots, spell levels, etc in 5e or any other edition. Also the 4e action economy, at worst, had players forgetting they could take one of the less upfront actions, like interrupts. 5e action economy confuses every new person I've seen play 5e. Every one. Ok, how does movement work again? I can move in between doing other things? And some stuff doesn't require any action? Wait what is a bonus action? I was surprised at how much these questions come up.
I wasn't surprised at how confusing the spell stuff was.

See i don't get that... you look in the book it tells you how many spells of each level you know and can cast. I can wonder why it was done a certain way but that doesn't create complexity in usage at the table once i have my spells. or am i missing what exactly the complexity is in referencing my level for spell slots on a table. I just don't get this complaint.

As for actions 4e has 7 action types... standard, move, immediate interrupts, immediate reactions, minor actions, free actions and no actions. in 5e you have an action, move action, reaction & bonus action. You're telling me knowing you can move fluidly while taking actions is harder then understanding, remembering and utilizing 3 more categories of actions? Again I don't see it. hat I did see in 4e was players and DM's forgetting about certain actions because of the complexity of both interactions and the sheer number to take into account. This IMO is much more confusing than you can take an action at any time during your movement. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Also, classes working so differently definately makes a difference. In 4e, anyone at the table can help a confused player remember how something works, because what isn't printed on the character sheet is generally shared across classes. Everyone has the same actions, an encounter power is always an encounter power, etc.

But the powers do different things. I mean it's like saying everyone in 5e uses at-wills, short rests and daily abilities... yes if you say what type of power recharge something has someone can tell you if you can use it again or not but this doesn't help you actually understand what the power (4e) or ability (5e) does. Also in 5e everyone has the same general actions as well... right?

OTOH, like tony said, old players...many just hit a wall. And often it was stuff that just had a different presentation or something, but actually worked pretty much the same. I mean, if you reformat powers to read like either spells or class features, and change "encounter" and "daily" to "must take short/long rest", 4e looks A LOT less different. The biggest actual difference is spellcasting. And it's vastly simpler in 4e.

Again you're ignoring complexity like the action economy cited above, things like weapon properties you have to keep track of, the abilities for class, paragon path and epic destinies and so on...

but no edition of DnD is simple compared to the simple DnD clones, or a lot of other games.

True but I also think sometimes we underestimate, at least in younger players, their ability to process and understand complexity in games from a player perspective. I'm constantly amazed at some of the complexity (again from a player perspective) in the videogames my son and nephew play...

 

[JeffB]

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]

For the two who always play spellcasters- Vancian is a big issue. A essentials Mage or warpriest is easier to play vs. Pf/5e until you get towards the end of heroic tier in 4e and then there is some analysis paralysis, especially with the warpriest. With pf/bb and 5e this occurs sooner with casters.Vancian casting/slots is not fun for them, and having a few pages of spells printed out (of course, I make all kinds of helper tools available no matter system) makes their eyes glaze over (DCC also caused this).

My son almost always plays a greatweapon fighter, and the 4e Slayer is preferred. The 5e Champion is OK to him, but he found it tame/boring compared to the Slayer. He likes those power attacks and beserker charges, big crits with his magic greatsword etc. He never wants to go back to a PF Fighter with too many "you have to give up this, to get that" feats..or "you have to get this feat and that feat and that feat to really do what you want to do this round". 4e again, most straightforward and hits on preferences too..

The final player drifts back and forth between rogue and ranger. He likes stealthy sneaky stuff. He is the most indecisive/inclined to get frustrated with rules. I generally give him something akin to a 4e companion character, no matter what system.

So certainly there is SOME preference in the way 4e handles some things as far as class badassery goes but the way the system works on a fundamental level makes the most sense to them. Other versions are more restrictive, add in a layer or three of compexity (spellcasters, feat trees and feats that are not "on" all the time), and/or just don't seem as straightforward to them. They are pokemon and video game kids and that may play into it too. They can just choose what they want, and have a very effective character, no need for system mastery/optimization/planning.

At this point though, the rigid actions/action economies and various subsystems and whatnot of most ANY D&D seems restrictive and "not much fun" to them. DW has spolied us all and so I tend to run that.

My own preferences however, are not always in line with theirs. These are simply my observations DM'ing them since 2010. Frankly I think if there were not options out there besides "classic" D&D..and I include PF and 5e as "classic", I think they would have lost interest completely 3-4 years ago. 4e,13A, DW are all vastly preferred.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Arcane Trickster, Warlock, Eldritch Knight. 5e has three effective arcane gish options.

Valor Bard, Bladesinger if we want to include SCAG. Then there's the option of allowing MC.

Yeah, and that's not even factoring in how you could choose magic initiate for ritual caster even at level 1 if you're a variant human. 5e does offer you ways to be a casting fighter class all the way from level 1 if you really want to.

Oh, and that, yes, thankyou Sacrosanct. And playing with Backgrounds to slip a little fighter into your magic-user, or vice-versa.

Clerics, Paladins. War Clerics are BEASTS in combat, and get 9 whole spell levels. "Arcane" and "Divine" magic are not categories that are separate anymore, refluff as needed. Honestly can't imagine a full gish Class that isn't pretty much a reskinned Paladin or Cleric...

The spell lists are pretty different. They stereotypical fighter/magic-user didn't go around laying on hands.

My experience is completely the opposite. New players have no issues grasping the powers, keywords, action economy, etc.

Completely new players, yes, more easily than they'd grasp the older versions of the game. Anyone used to the classic game, though, could be given fits by those same things.

Even 5e, classic-referent as it bends over backwards to be, presents a casting system that I've seen briefly perplex long-time/returning players.

Every RPG is complex relative to other gaming options. Even simplistic rules or choosing outright freestyle RP doesn't remove that complexity, it's just a complex activity. Good rules, though, reduce needless complexity. The sticking point then becomes 'need.'
Yes, 5e /needs/ a lot of traditional sources of complexity that would seem 'needless' when analyzed from certain perspectives - like ease of learning, consistency, balance or depth of play - but the expectations that seasoned fans bring to the table absolutely demand them.