Mearls: The core of D&D

[Charles Dunwoody]

While not strictly mechanical, I think the four races (dwarf, elf, halfling, and human) and four core classes (cleric, fighter, thief, and wizard) are missing from the list.

 

[TerraDave]

Is it just me, or does alignment seem out of place in that list, in a "one of these things is not like the others" way?

I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.

Well, it was mechanical, and its slightly higher level of detail, but not as detailed as you could get. That more detailed list will have: dwarves, elves, red dragons, magic missiles and maybe even githyanki, beholders, flaming spheres, glaives..

 

[Barastrondo]

Is it just me, or does alignment seem out of place in that list, in a "one of these things is not like the others" way?

I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.

It doesn't pass my personal "if it's missing, it doesn't feel like you're playing D&D" test. But on the other hand, it's definitely "mechanics that make you think of D&D when you see them in other games."

 

[Shemeska]

The mechanics don't make the game.

There's a lot of flavor, atmosphere, and basic flavor elements that link together a lot of what makes (or made) D&D, well, D&D. Mearls is losing sight of that a bit by only focusing on what game mechanics might or might not be central to the D&D experience. But that's much of the reason I haven't much liked the 4.x evolution of the game into something that shed a large amount of the core flavor I appreciated.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, it was mechanical, and its slightly higher level of detail, but not as detailed as you could get. That more detailed list will have: dwarves, elves, red dragons, magic missiles and maybe even githyanki, beholders, flaming spheres, glaives..

Well, that's the core of my "out of place" reaction. A list that includes mechanical alignment I would expect to include a lot of other things. But maybe Barastrondo has why it makes the cut and other such highly D&D-ish mechanics in the next level of detail don't.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

The List, just in case you don't want to click the link

• The six ability scores—Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma—as the categories for measuring a character’s abilities.
• Armor Class as the basic representation of a character’s defense.
• Alignment (Law v. Chaos, Good v. Evil) as a personal ethos and a force in the universe.
• Attack rolls made using a d20, with higher rolls better than lower ones.
• Classes as the basic framework for what a character can do.
• Damage rolls to determine how badly a spell or attack hurts you.
• Gold pieces as the standard currency for treasure.
• Hit dice or level as the basic measure of a monster’s power.
• Hit points as a measure of your ability to absorb punishment, with more powerful characters and creatures gaining more of them.
• Levels and experience points as a measure of power and a mechanic that lets characters become more powerful over time.
• Magic items such as +1 swords as a desirable form of treasure.
• Rolling initiative at the start of a battle to determine who acts first.
• Saving throws as a mechanic for evading danger.
• “Fire-and-forget” magic, with spellcasters expending a spell when casting it.

I have a hard time arguing with these items. I will point out that 4E set out to change some of these.

1. Magic Items: The +X magic item stopped being treasure and started being part of the system's math. Is it really treasure if the math demands you have it?

2. Levels as a measure of power: The math of the system tries really hard to remove this in favor of a "sweet spot" for d20 outcomes. Also, there is a unwritten social rule that characters will be the same level. The goal was that everything scaled so you stay within that "sweet spot" no matter what your level is. This ties heavily into the +X magic item issue above.

3. Alignment: Saying the alignment axis system defines DnD is interesting. Is Mearls suggesting that the 4E changes to the alignment system were a mistake?

4. Fire and Forget: Boy, I don't know where to start on this. Vancian magic was suppose to be dead in 4E. Yet, every class in PHB I and II used daily powers. In fact, they simply expanded Fire and Forget by adding a new catagory to it, Encounter.

Yes, I do think Vancian Magic is a core item that makes DnD DnD. But I do question the idea that every class needs Vancian magic. Personally, I find the Essentials Fighter and Rogue much closer to what I see as the classic DnD fighter and rogue. By mostly ditching the Vancian elements of those two classes, they moved them in-line with my view of what a fighter or rogue should do (again, just a personal opinion and not a statement on the overall power of the Slayer, Knight, and Theif versus their old 4E counterparts).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can see it on a list of elements of D&D, but on a specifically mechanical list, I don't get it.

Partly because so many FRPGs have truncated or non-existent alignment systems.

 

[Bluenose]

Gods be good! Mike Mearls, please help make 5th edition as much like AD&D as you possibly can. Please give us a game with simple, basic, easy to run and play mechanics that highlight the early edition of the game and then offer more complex rules as optional books that aren't required for core, basic play. Please, oh please, oh please, oh please, etc....

Yes, simple, easiy to run mechanics like the surprise rules, psionics, selecting what saving throw to use against a staff user sending hold person you way, etc.

I mean, that's sarcasm, but there's no question that there were a lot of complicated mechanical elements in the core parts of AD&D.

BECM, now that was Perfect. Base 5e on that.

Partly because so many FRPGs have truncated or non-existent alignment systems.

The nine alignments is an (A)D&D thing that no other game I can think of uses.

 

[TerraDave]

The List, just in case you don't want to click the link


I have a hard time arguing with these items. I will point out that 4E set out to change some of these.

1. Magic Items: The +X magic item stopped being treasure and started being part of the system's math. Is it really treasure if the math demands you have it?

4E reduced general dependence on items but made the remaining specific dependence more transparent. A 1E 10th level fighter needs his magic items more then the 4E one does...but the 4E one is still hurt not to have them.

2. Levels as a measure of power: The math of the system tries really hard to remove this in favor of a "sweet spot" for d20 outcomes. Also, there is a unwritten social rule that characters will be the same level. The goal was that everything scaled so you stay within that "sweet spot" no matter what your level is. This ties heavily into the +X magic item issue above.

They have overcorrected. It is probably easier to have charecters of different levels...low level 4E charecters are certainly more survivable and have more stuff they can do. And of course you can mix up challenges...in many ways 4Es initial "metagame" actually diminished some of the underlying strengths of the system.

3. Alignment: Saying the alignment axis system defines DnD is interesting. Is Mearls suggesting that the 4E changes to the alignment system were a mistake?

My thoughts exactly

4. Fire and Forget: Boy, I don't know where to start on this. Vancian magic was suppose to be dead in 4E. Yet, every class in PHB I and II used daily powers. In fact, they simply expanded Fire and Forget by adding a new catagory to it, Encounter.

Yes, I do think Vancian Magic is a core item that makes DnD DnD. But I do question the idea that every class needs Vancian magic. Personally, I find the Essentials Fighter and Rogue much closer to what I see as the classic DnD fighter and rogue. By mostly ditching the Vancian elements of those two classes, they moved them in-line with my view of what a fighter or rogue should do (again, just a personal opinion and not a statement on the overall power of the Slayer, Knight, and Theif versus their old 4E counterparts).

Shh, you aren't supposed to tell anyone. 4E is a tribute to vancian magic...and I like it. Certainly like fighter and rogue dailies in play, setting aside all the theory.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

The mechanics don't make the game.

There's a lot of flavor, atmosphere, and basic flavor elements that link together a lot of what makes (or made) D&D, well, D&D. Mearls is losing sight of that a bit by only focusing on what game mechanics might or might not be central to the D&D experience. But that's much of the reason I haven't much liked the 4.x evolution of the game into something that shed a large amount of the core flavor I appreciated.

He's more crunch then fluff now. His mind twisted and evil.

Actually, this is one of the things I'm liking about DCC. Goodman is attempting to harness the flavor of classic DnD sources and merge them with a modern d20 system (though modified). It's an interesting process and has me very interested in it's outcome. Plus, to me, it oozes flavor.