Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

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.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

No worries, more for Lanefan's edification than your own.

Personally, I like three. But considering the magic item system as a whole doesn't have any mechanical balance, only DM fiat, it's pretty trivial to houserule.

 

[R_Chance]

I'm not sure what you mean by "always". In 4e all classes are on the same resource recovery schedule. It makes a huge difference to how 4e plays, because intraparty balance is not hostage to any notion of the "adventuring day".

Probably just another reason I never played 4E Honestly it's the only edition I bought, read, and gave away. It looked like an OK game btw, just not one I was interested in playing (or more likely DMing since that's pretty much my full time gaming role). I stuck with 3.5 / PF (and some 2E and Traveller) until 5E came out.

 

[Hriston]

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.

You're mixing up fictional events with actual events at the table. Players at the table in the real world roll initiative to resolve who goes in what order each round in a fictional combat that has already been established to be taking place in the fiction. The way this is established is usually that one of the players or the DM declares an action for a character that s/he controls that requires resolution in combat rounds. Part of the resolution of that and subsequent actions declared for the participants is to roll initiative to determine the order of resolution. So first it's established at the table that combat is happening in the fiction, and only then are the combat resolution mechanics engaged, including the rolling of initiative.

I don't think it's a good call for a DM to call for initiative because a player or a character is thinking about attacking (it's unclear which you mean, but I don't think it matters), because I can imagine plenty of situations in which someone is contemplating making an attack but decides not to, and rolling initiative in that case would have been a pointless exercise. That's because it hasn't been established yet that combat is taking place.

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.

Look at the examples under "Surprise". Adventurers surprise bandits by "springing from the trees to attack them." A gelatinous cube surprises adventurers by engulfing one of them before they notice it. In each case, the unnoticed party surprises the other by attacking before being noticed. The fact that the resolution of those attacks at the table awaits the engagement of the combat resolution mechanics in no way means that offensive action hasn't been committed to in the fiction. If not, then why engage the mechanics?

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.

No, "atypical" combat that isn't "a clash between two sides" is still defined by other statements about combat. It's a set of rules for "characters and monsters to engage in combat," not, as you have described, for them to have chance meetings in dimly lit hallways after which they decide how they feel about each other. The participants in combat are described as taking part "in a battle", not as deciding whether they want to be a part of a battle after initiative has been rolled. Combat, both typical and atypical, is just that.

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.

My point is the distinction you're making has no meaningful difference in actual play. I'm speculating, but I don't think the designers intended for the word direct to hold as much weight as you're giving it. Compare this with the language used in the "Contests in Combat" sidebar where there's no mention of "direct opposition". All that's required for a contest under that description is that prowess is pitted against prowess. Dexterity is a form of prowess.

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

Yes, it is. It represents the directly opposed efforts of you and your opponents to do whatever it is you're doing on your turns before they do, and vice versa.

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.

The "action" you are locked into by rolling initiative is trying to do whatever it is you do on each of your turns in combat before your opponent does whatever it is they do on each of their turns. The sword swinging and spell casting were just examples.

Going by his tweet, all we know is that initiative is not a contest. Period. Nothing of his motives are given.

Right, so my speculations as to his motives are just as valid as yours.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Am I misreading, or are you trying to suggest that rolling for stats in 5e counts as homebrew?

Last I checked, rolling for stats as a method of char-gen is right there in the 5e PH...

 

[5ekyu]

Am I misreading, or are you trying to suggest that rolling for stats in 5e counts as homebrew?

Last I checked, rolling for stats as a method of char-gen is right there in the 5e PH...

You are misreading.

 

[Maxperson]

You're mixing up fictional events with actual events at the table. Players at the table in the real world roll initiative to resolve who goes in what order each round in a fictional combat that has already been established to be taking place in the fiction. The way this is established is usually that one of the players or the DM declares an action for a character that s/he controls that requires resolution in combat rounds. Part of the resolution of that and subsequent actions declared for the participants is to roll initiative to determine the order of resolution. So first it's established at the table that combat is happening in the fiction, and only then are the combat resolution mechanics engaged, including the rolling of initiative.

I'm not mixing up anything. Initiative in the game is rolled before any attack happens. That's the order of things. It's very literally impossible for an attack to happen prior to initiative being rolled, so no side is attacking the other. They may want to attack the other. They may look like they are going to attack the other. But no attack or combat has happened yet.

Look at the examples under

Yes. Let's look at them.

"Surprise". Adventurers surprise bandits by "springing from the trees to attack them."

TO attack them. Meaning, no attack has happened. You can see the intent, but no attack or combat has happened prior to initiative.

A gelatinous cube surprises adventurers by engulfing one of them before they notice it.

This is literally impossible until AFTER initiative is rolled. Prior to that, no combat or attack has happened, even though initiative is a part of combat

In each case, the unnoticed party surprises the other by attacking before being noticed. The fact that the resolution of those attacks at the table awaits the engagement of the combat resolution mechanics in no way means that offensive action hasn't been committed to in the fiction. If not, then why engage the mechanics?

In the first example it's irrelevant whether the action in the fiction has happened, since it is only the intent to attack and not an attack. In the second example while the cube engulfs someone before being noticed, it does not engulf anyone before initiative. In fact, that the cube can engulf someone before it is noticed, and yet that person still rolls initiative, is proof positive that no opposition has occurred with initiative. You can't oppose something either directly or indirectly, if you are unaware of it.

My point is the distinction you're making has no meaningful difference in actual play. I'm speculating, but I don't think the designers intended for the word direct to hold as much weight as you're giving it. Compare this with the language used in the "Contests in Combat" sidebar where there's no mention of "direct opposition". All that's required for a contest under that description is that prowess is pitted against prowess. Dexterity is a form of prowess.

You seriously don't think that whether something is a contest or not is a meaningful difference in game play?

The "action" you are locked into by rolling initiative is trying to do whatever it is you do on each of your turns in combat before your opponent does whatever it is they do on each of their turns. The sword swinging and spell casting were just examples.

I can opt to do nothing, which isn't an action or something that I would be trying to go first at, yet I still roll initiative.

Right, so my speculations as to his motives are just as valid as yours.

Is this some sort of "I'm rubber, you're glue." moment? I said that already when you assumed what the designer meant without a single iota of evidence to back you up. If I assume that aliens made him rule that way, it's just as valid a speculation about his motives as yours. That validity is 0. Or, you can just accept what he said at face value and not ascribe a motive pulled out of your backside to him.

 

[Hriston]

I'm not mixing up anything. Initiative in the game is rolled before any attack happens. That's the order of things. It's very literally impossible for an attack to happen prior to initiative being rolled, so no side is attacking the other. They may want to attack the other. They may look like they are going to attack the other. But no attack or combat has happened yet.

You’re still mixing things up. Initiative is rolled at the table. Attacks happen in the fiction. You’re using the order of mechanical resolution to make an argument about the chronology of events in the fiction, which is like comparing apples to oranges. Initiative doesn’t relate to a discrete fictional event the way an attack roll does. What it represents in the fiction is a continuous effort to move and act quickly that lasts throughout the entire combat encounter. It’s part of the mechanical resolution of action declarations made at the table, including the one that initiated combat. I'm not here to tell you how to run your game, so do what you want, but I have to ask, what do you think the point is of the DM signaling the beginning of combat and asking for initiative rolls when neither s/he nor any of the other players has declared a combat-initiating action?

Yes. Let's look at them.



TO attack them. Meaning, no attack has happened. You can see the intent, but no attack or combat has happened prior to initiative.

It's pretty clear to me because of the context of this example being in the combat section and the way movement and action happen in turns in combat that the fiction being described here is the outcome of a combat-initiating action declaration on the part of the players to close to melee or attack range from a hidden position and initiate attacks all in a single round. The resolution of that declaration and subsequent actions requires the determination of surprise, rolling of initiative, and resolution of attacks in initiative order. All of that follows the players' declaration for their PCs to initiate combat against the bandits. Without that action declaration, there's no reason to begin combat by engaging the rules for combat resolution.

This is literally impossible until AFTER initiative is rolled. Prior to that, no combat or attack has happened, even though initiative is a part of combat

Initiative is the 3rd step of combat. The 1st is to determine surprise, so as soon as it has been determined that the cube has surprised the adventurers, combat has begun.

In the first example it's irrelevant whether the action in the fiction has happened, since it is only the intent to attack and not an attack.

Without a declared action to attack on the part of the players there's no reason for the fictional outcome to be that the adventurers spring from the trees to attack. If the players had said they wanted to spring from the trees to say hello there'd be no reason to begin combat and no surprise determined. The context here is we're reading about combat and surprise in combat.

In the second example while the cube engulfs someone before being noticed, it does not engulf anyone before initiative. In fact, that the cube can engulf someone before it is noticed, and yet that person still rolls initiative, is proof positive that no opposition has occurred with initiative. You can't oppose something either directly or indirectly, if you are unaware of it.

You're still mixing up rolling initiative, which happens in the real world, with a gelatinous cube engulfing an adventurer, which happens in the fiction. Initiative can certainly play a role in the opposed efforts of the cube and the adventurer in danger of being engulfed if, for example, the adventurer has the opportunity to use a reaction that affects his/her saving throw against becoming engulfed.

You seriously don't think that whether something is a contest or not is a meaningful difference in game play?

Listen to what I'm saying. This distinction between direct and indirect opposition you're insisting is important to whether an ability check counts as a contest isn't supported by the "Contests in Combat" sidebar. All that's required for a contest under that description is for one ability check to be compared to another. An initiative roll certainly fits that description.

I can opt to do nothing, which isn't an action or something that I would be trying to go first at, yet I still roll initiative.

Rolling a higher initiative would give you the opportunity to do nothing first, but it's obviously not the intent of the rules that you do nothing with your turn. The assumption is that your character is a participant in a battle. In fact, if you told me at the beginning of combat that your character was going to do nothing during the battle, there wouldn't be any need for you to roll initiative or have a turn. Also, attacks against you might auto-hit. The rules assume a certain level of active participation on the part of the characters.

Is this some sort of "I'm rubber, you're glue." moment? I said that already when you assumed what the designer meant without a single iota of evidence to back you up. If I assume that aliens made him rule that way, it's just as valid a speculation about his motives as yours. That validity is 0. Or, you can just accept what he said at face value and not ascribe a motive pulled out of your backside to him.

Likewise your assumption that his ruling is based on more than two opponents in initiative and notions of it not being direct opposition.

 

[Maxperson]

You’re still mixing things up. Initiative is rolled at the table. Attacks happen in the fiction. You’re using the order of mechanical resolution to make an argument about the chronology of events in the fiction, which is like comparing apples to oranges. Initiative doesn’t relate to a discrete fictional event the way an attack roll does. What it represents in the fiction is a continuous effort to move and act quickly that lasts throughout the entire combat encounter. It’s part of the mechanical resolution of action declarations made at the table, including the one that initiated combat. I'm not here to tell you how to run your game, so do what you want, but I have to ask, what do you think the point is of the DM signaling the beginning of combat and asking for initiative rolls when neither s/he nor any of the other players has declared a combat-initiating action?

I'm not mixing anything up. Initiative is rolled at the table, but initiative is an in game event that happens prior to attacks happening. In game you have two sides and where everyone is going to be reacting at different times. That happens before any in game attack can possibly happen. You can't know if the first person is going to attack or do something else until after the initiative roll.

It's pretty clear to me because of the context of this example being in the combat section and the way movement and action happen in turns in combat that the fiction being described here is the outcome of a combat-initiating action declaration on the part of the players to close to melee or attack range from a hidden position and initiate attacks all in a single round. The resolution of that declaration and subsequent actions requires the determination of surprise, rolling of initiative, and resolution of attacks in initiative order. All of that follows the players' declaration for their PCs to initiate combat against the bandits. Without that action declaration, there's no reason to begin combat by engaging the rules for combat resolution.

If that's what is clear to you, you are misreading things badly. No movement can happen and no attack can happen until AFTER initiative is rolled. This is true with or without surprise.

Initiative is the 3rd step of combat. The 1st is to determine surprise, so as soon as it has been determined that the cube has surprised the adventurers, combat has begun.

And yet not one single attack has happened prior to initiative being rolled. "Combat" may have begun, but actual combat(the fighting part) doesn't happen until AFTER initiative.

Without a declared action to attack on the part of the players there's no reason for the fictional outcome to be that the adventurers spring from the trees to attack. If the players had said they wanted to spring from the trees to say hello there'd be no reason to begin combat and no surprise determined. The context here is we're reading about combat and surprise in combat.

I get that. The problem you are facing is that a declared attack isn't an attack. No attack can happen until AFTER initiative happens both in and out of the game world.

You're still mixing up rolling initiative, which happens in the real world, with a gelatinous cube engulfing an adventurer, which happens in the fiction. Initiative can certainly play a role in the opposed efforts of the cube and the adventurer in danger of being engulfed if, for example, the adventurer has the opportunity to use a reaction that affects his/her saving throw against becoming engulfed.

No. No I'm not. I understand that the cube wanted to engulf the adventurer, but may never actually be able to accomplish that if it misses the initiative roll. The guy next to the adventurer might use win initiative and use a reaction to alter things.

Listen to what I'm saying. This distinction between direct and indirect opposition you're insisting is important to whether an ability check counts as a contest isn't supported by the "Contests in Combat" sidebar. All that's required for a contest under that description is for one ability check to be compared to another. An initiative roll certainly fits that description.

I hear what you are saying, and you are still wrong. The contest section specifying that to be a contest the opposition must be direct not only defines indirect opposition as all opposition that is not direct, but also makes it very important. The contests in combat sidebar isn't relevant as those are still contests, which must involve direct opposition. At no point does the sidebar specifically override that requirement. In fact, all of the examples and wording in the sidebar is about direct opposition.

Rolling a higher initiative would give you the opportunity to do nothing first, but it's obviously not the intent of the rules that you do nothing with your turn.

This is just rubbish. hundreds, if not a thousand times or more over the years I have declared that I am doing nothing on my turn, including round 1. There are many reasons why such a declaration would be made and it doesn't go against the intent of the rules in any way, shape or form.

In fact, if you told me at the beginning of combat that your character was going to do nothing during the battle, there wouldn't be any need for you to roll initiative or have a turn. Also, attacks against you might auto-hit. The rules assume a certain level of active participation on the part of the characters.

Nice Strawman. I didn't say battle. Winning initiative and doing nothing involves but a single round.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The next person I see that says natural language is better then jargon is gonna get pointed to this thread.

 

[ad_hoc]

The next person I see that says natural language is better then jargon is gonna get pointed to this thread.

A few people arguing on the internet doesn't mean it isn't better.

They would still be arguing about something.

The vast majority of groups are going to prefer the natural language so they don't need to learn a new language just to play a game.