Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

First of all, thanks Morrus for collecting this. I generally avoid Twitter because, frankly, it's full of a$$holes. That aside: this is an interesting way of looking at it, and underscores the difference in design philosophies between the WotC team and the Paizo team. There is a lot of room for both philosophies of design, and I don't think there is any reason for fans of one to be hostile to...

First of all, thanks [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] for collecting this. I generally avoid Twitter because, frankly, it's full of a$$holes.

That aside: this is an interesting way of looking at it, and underscores the difference in design philosophies between the WotC team and the Paizo team. There is a lot of room for both philosophies of design, and I don't think there is any reason for fans of one to be hostile to fans of the other, but those differences do matter. There are ways in which I like the prescriptive elements of 3.x era games (I like set skill difficulty lists, for example) but I tend to run by the seat of my pants and the effects of my beer, so a fast and loose and forgiving version like 5E really enables me running a game the way I like to.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Actually, as a minor aside, I would use attune limits at con modifier
So anyone with Con 11 or less could never attune anything? Seems a bit harsh...

*or* maybe tier or some othe element related to a character aspect or choice. I prefer for significant in world recognizable constants pr constraints to have an established in world basis. The system can balance based on the chosen values constants.
Tying this to a stat is by extension going to greatly favour some classes over others, probably too much. Perhaps instead randomize it a bit - everyone gets 2 but for each item you try to attune after that (as in, the 3rd, 4th, 5th... at once) you need to make an increasingly-difficult Int (or Cha?) based saving throw; and when you fail one you've just permanently set your attuneable limit.

So in practice this might look like:

Items 1 and 2 - automatic attunement if tried.
Item 3 - an easy save to attune; say DC 7, or DC 10 with advantage
Item 4 - a standard save to attune; maybe DC 12
Item 5 - a bit more difficult, this one's at DC 15
Item 6 and beyond - each of these are DC 15 with disadvantage.

You only do this once for each progression, at the time you first try to attune an item beyond your current limit. Succeed and your limit permanently goes up by one. Fail and your limit gets forever locked in where it is.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


5ekyu

Hero
So anyone with Con 11 or less could never attune anything? Seems a bit harsh...

Tying this to a stat is by extension going to greatly favour some classes over others, probably too much. Perhaps instead randomize it a bit - everyone gets 2 but for each item you try to attune after that (as in, the 3rd, 4th, 5th... at once) you need to make an increasingly-difficult Int (or Cha?) based saving throw; and when you fail one you've just permanently set your attuneable limit.

So in practice this might look like:

Items 1 and 2 - automatic attunement if tried.
Item 3 - an easy save to attune; say DC 7, or DC 10 with advantage
Item 4 - a standard save to attune; maybe DC 12
Item 5 - a bit more difficult, this one's at DC 15
Item 6 and beyond - each of these are DC 15 with disadvantage.

You only do this once for each progression, at the time you first try to attune an item beyond your current limit. Succeed and your limit permanently goes up by one. Fail and your limit gets forever locked in where it is.
Well, on Con 11-. you know if i ever see a pc with no bonus to con, i would worry about it.

But yes it does shift con up a bit in value but since i have yet to see con used as any 5e character's primary stat, i dont see a problem there.

I don't want to tie it to any favored stats but i can see some gms wanting it to not be a trade off choice but more of an auto-gain.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Are you seriously taking issue with my use of the word combat for a situation in which at least one side is attacking the other? I don't know how you think combat could happen without creatures attacking each other.

Because it's the rules. Initiative is a part of combat, but it happens before anyone can possibly attack anyone else. It simply isn't possible for it to happen after someone attacks, because the very instant someone so much as thinks about attacking, initiative is rolled and that person could be going last, having never attacked. Again, it's simply not possible to roll initiative AFTER someone attacks. Even in a surprise round, initiative is rolled before a single person attacks.

What are they surprised by if not surprise attacks? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I'm imagining what you're describing is two parties are sneaking along, each undetected by the other, until they come upon each other at an intersection. At that point in time, they both notice each other, so by the surprise rules, no one is surprised if combat breaks out. Am I missing something here?

They are surprised by the appearance of the other side. I have walked around a corner and been surprised by a squirrel that I didn't know was there and run up a nearby tree. I have rounded a corner and been surprised by a TV sitting on the sidewalk that I wasn't expecting to be in my path. Are you really going to argue that the TV was attacking me?

And no, if both are sneaking, then both can be surprised by RAW as neither side noticed the threat before it was upon them. Initiative is rolled and they do nothing in surprise, then attacks begin in round 2.

I don’t think the word typical explains how participants “in a battle” “engage in combat” by standing around dumbfounded that they’ve managed to bump into someone else in a dungeon. Has it occurred to you that combat is typically a clash between two sides because sometimes it’s a clash between three or more sides? Or would you rather maintain your assertion that sometimes combat isn't a clash between any sides, at which point I think we've departed significantly from the meaning of the word combat?

The word typical simply means how combats typically work. The atypical portion is not defined, so is as likely to include what I described as it is to include more than two sides.

Well, they give two examples of directly opposed efforts in the contest section, another two in the section on melee attacks in the form of grapple and shove attacks, and of course the most common example is in the hiding rules, but there aren't any examples or mention in the book of efforts that are considered indirectly opposed. I honestly don't think it's worth distinguishing them as a separate category.

Whether or not you think it's worth distinguishing as a separate category, it is in fact a separate category. You cannot determine what direct opposition is, without knowing what indirect opposition is. Opposition is always one or the other, and only one uses the contest rules.

Contests are also defined in the "Contests in Combat" sidebar as representing challenges that pit one participants prowess against that of another. In initiative, each participant's Dexterity, which represents prowess in reacting quickly among other things, is pitted against the Dexterity of his/her opponents.

You're stretching things here, but regardless, initiative is not direct opposition and never will be.

Both of your statements are false. Initiative is how we find out whether I'm successful in swinging my sword before you cast your spell, so it most certainly is initiative, and initiative most certainly is an ability check.

No, initiative isn't finding out whether you are successful in swinging your sword before I cast the spell. Do you know why? Because after you roll initiative, you might change your mind and push me, or grapple me, or run away, or a number of other things. Winning initiative doesn't lock you into an action, while you are locked into your action as soon as a contest begins.

There's no indication from his tweet that his motive has anything to do with combat sometimes involving more than two participants or the degree of directness of the opposition represented by initiative.
Going by his tweet, all we know is that initiative is not a contest. Period. Nothing of his motives are given.
 

S'mon

Legend
Well, on Con 11-. you know if i ever see a pc with no bonus to con, i would worry about it.

Had a drop-in player play a level 5 elf wizard with CON 10. Got hit by a CR 5 Wraith, took 22 damage and went straight from full to zero! Then rolled double 1s on an Inspired CON save and was dead in 2 rounds, arising as a Spectre.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Well, on Con 11-. you know if i ever see a pc with no bonus to con, i would worry about it.
Then I guess I should be mighty worried, as about half of my own PCs have Con 11 or less...in a few cases significantly less!

Humour aside, what this would also mean is that a simple commoner (whose stats by RAW are all either 10 or 11) could never attune to anything, which means bang goes the fairy-tale trope of a commoner stumbling onto a magic item and doing great things with it e.g. Jack and the beans or Aladdin and the lamp.

But yes it does shift con up a bit in value but since i have yet to see con used as any 5e character's primary stat, i dont see a problem there.
You won't see Con used as a primary stat until there's a class that wants Con as its primary stat - there's just too much mechanical "value" in aligning your best stat with what your class wants it to be, and then jumping it up to max ASAP as you advance.

Now if you're rolling for stats and get two or three equally high then tossing one of those onto Con is never a bad idea. But rolling is also where you'll get the 11-and-lower Con characters; I know I've rolled characters in the past that had one really good stat (which went into their primary) and the other five were all 11 or lower. I'm still playing at least one of them. (not talking about 5e here but the general idea is the same)
 


Hussar

Legend
Had a drop-in player play a level 5 elf wizard with CON 10. Got hit by a CR 5 Wraith, took 22 damage and went straight from full to zero! Then rolled double 1s on an Inspired CON save and was dead in 2 rounds, arising as a Spectre.

Heh, my ranger in a 5e Ravenloft game dump statted Con. 8 Con FTW baby. :D
 

5ekyu

Hero
Then I guess I should be mighty worried, as about half of my own PCs have Con 11 or less...in a few cases significantly less!

Humour aside, what this would also mean is that a simple commoner (whose stats by RAW are all either 10 or 11) could never attune to anything, which means bang goes the fairy-tale trope of a commoner stumbling onto a magic item and doing great things with it e.g. Jack and the beans or Aladdin and the lamp.

You won't see Con used as a primary stat until there's a class that wants Con as its primary stat - there's just too much mechanical "value" in aligning your best stat with what your class wants it to be, and then jumping it up to max ASAP as you advance.

Now if you're rolling for stats and get two or three equally high then tossing one of those onto Con is never a bad idea. But rolling is also where you'll get the 11-and-lower Con characters; I know I've rolled characters in the past that had one really good stat (which went into their primary) and the other five were all 11 or lower. I'm still playing at least one of them. (not talking about 5e here but the general idea is the same)

If you want the fairy tale for your game - use an item that doesn't require attunement. Not all magic items require attunement. it would seem even a partially sentient Gm could conjure up some faerie trifle that does ABC and then vanishes to serve as their plot device (pun intended), right?

Sure we are talking homebrew but then we are talking house rules.

For the rolling stats and non-5e games etc... i was suggesting for 5e homebrew and the PCs based on those - not other systems. i have no idea how attunement should work for HERo, CYBERPUNK2020, Space opera and all the other game systems running around. perhaps non-5e homebrew should have its own forum?

and - yes - the fact that no class in 5e has CON is probably linked to the reason its not seen much as a characters primary stat. that then leads to why i liked using it for attunement.
 

5ekyu

Hero
General 5e design when assigning uses to a stat modifier is to also set a minimum value of 1.

yup and a formal write up of the house rule beyond casual discussion and brainstorming would likely include that, especially if the field is so rife with zero and negative con PCs by the bucket fulls.

After all, heaven forbid a player chooses a penalty stat and that applies to his magic item tally.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top