Mearls on Balance in D&D

[Greg K]

And, since Hong posted here, I just want to say that I wish his knight had been the official version instead of the one we were given by Mr. Mearls

 

[hong]

And, since Hong posted here, I just want to say that I wish his knight had been the official version instead of the one we were given by Mr. Mearls

That's not my knight, actually. That's James Wyatt's knight, with a few changes to hide the katanae.

Now what you SHOULD do is use my versions of the Iron Heroes classes instead of Mearls'. Yes indeed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

He's basically talking about how twinking out a character (or, in this case, a pet) isn't something that the game should encourage...

And people are STILL bagging on the guy?

What, do people just love to Mearlsbash?

 

[Dog Moon]

So if he's running people through the Giant Modules, does that mean we're gonna see them updated to 3.5?

[Or am I way behind and that was already done? I knew the maps had been put out, but as far as I know, that was it...]

 

[hong]

He's basically talking about how twinking out a character (or, in this case, a pet) isn't something that the game should encourage...

And people are STILL bagging on the guy?

What, do people just love to Mearlsbash?

Rust monster love. I got nothin'.

 

[Dog Moon]

What, do people just love to Mearlsbash?

I think it's virtually impossible to find a subject/person that no one will bash, especially on the internet.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Bravo, sir! You have just summed up the #1 problem with RAW D&D, the reliance upon and proliferation of magic items. This is why magic items are extremely rare whenever I run D&D.

Azgulor

Your solution to the over-powering influence of magic in the game is to punish the fighter?

 

[hong]

Your solution to the over-powering influence of magic in the game is to punish the fighter?

Well, I don't know about them, but MY solution was this:

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/imbued_magic.htm

But that wasn't entirely satisfactory, so instead I tried this:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?iron-lore

But most recently, I've been using this:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=187954

 

[T. Foster]

I understand and appreciate that Mearls' job at WotC is to be a "rules-cruncher" more or less, and that it's therefore natural that he seemingly approaches everything (at least in his columns) from that perspective, and is always seemingly trying to tweak and enhance the rules to make D&D into a better skirmish-combat game, each adventure into a series of effective and playable combat set-pieces, but I must say I really hate the direction the game seems to be moving under his influence (not that it's his fault -- the game was clearly already heading that way before he was hired, which is presumably why he was hired -- Mearls is a symptom, not the cause), into a slick, high-powered, skirmish-level tactical wargame (DDM with a lot more options).

I appreciate that for people who like that kind of game that they're probably making the game better -- smoother-running, better balanced, etc. -- but the fundamental disconnect, at least for me, is that I don't like that kind of game. Combat, to me, is probably the least interesting part of the game, to be avoided whenever possible, and when it does become necessary or inevitable to be gotten thtough as quickly as possible. My favorite D&D sessions have the constant threat of combat but, if played well, no actual combat at all -- the players use their wits to sneak past the monsters, or to negotiate with them, or to run away from them, or to use trickery to defeat them without actual combat (or at least melee) ever becoming necessary.

Is this approach to play, where combat is always a looming threat but effective play has more to do with avoiding it than being good at it, that, in playing The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, you actually want to spend as little time fighting hill giants as possible, just hopelessly outdated and obsolete in the Mearls-D&D era?

 

[hong]

I understand and appreciate that Mearls' job at WotC is to be a "rules-cruncher" more or less, and that it's therefore natural that he seemingly approaches everything (at least in his columns) from that perspective, and is always seemingly trying to tweak and enhance the rules to make D&D into a better skirmish-combat game, each adventure into a series of effective and playable combat set-pieces, but I must say I really hate the direction the game seems to be moving under his influence (not that it's his fault -- the game was clearly already heading that way before he was hired, which is presumably why he was hired -- Mearls is a symptom, not the cause), into a slick, high-powered, skirmish-level tactical wargame (DDM with a lot more options).

I appreciate that for people who like that kind of game that they're probably making the game better -- smoother-running, better balanced, etc. -- but the fundamental disconnect, at least for me, is that I don't like that kind of game. Combat, to me, is probably the least interesting part of the game, to be avoided whenever possible, and when it does become necessary or inevitable to be gotten thtough as quickly as possible. My favorite D&D sessions have the constant threat of combat but, if played well, no actual combat at all -- the players use their wits to sneak past the monsters, or to negotiate with them, or to run away from them, or to use trickery to defeat them without actual combat (or at least melee) ever becoming necessary.

Is this approach to play, where combat is always a looming threat but effective play has more to do with avoiding it than being good at it, that, in playing The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, you actually want to spend as little time fighting hill giants as possible, just hopelessly outdated and obsolete in the Mearls-D&D era?

Mang, you ain't lived until you've had 3 wizards drop simultaneous chain lightnings on everything in the Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl.


And I was playing a dual-wielding ranger