robus
Lowcountry Low Roller
How hard would it have been to content that didn't make it the hardcover PDF bonus content? Not very...
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Mike Mearls' AMA Summary
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
How hard would it have been to content that didn't make it the hardcover PDF bonus content? Not very...
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
IMO, the only thing he isn't wrong about is initiative, of what you bolded.
jamesjhaeck
Explorer
Gah, you got me excited to know what his favorite liquor was, not just a soft drink!
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Really really really glad to see his comments regarding cyclic initiative, which has been a major bug since 3e.
Not so glad to see his ideas re Druids, who I'd prefer to see go more toward full-on Nature Cleric (and even be re-named as such).
In fact, thinking about that along with his comments re Rangers makes me wonder: if Rangers get moved away from the beastmaster/drizz't idea and back toward the Aragorn fighter-type model, and Druids get moved toward Nature Cleric, that might open up enough room for another wilderness class to fit between them. That could be this low-to-no-spells beastmaster type.
Lan-"did I ever mention that I don't like cyclic initiative?"-efan
Not so glad to see his ideas re Druids, who I'd prefer to see go more toward full-on Nature Cleric (and even be re-named as such).
In fact, thinking about that along with his comments re Rangers makes me wonder: if Rangers get moved away from the beastmaster/drizz't idea and back toward the Aragorn fighter-type model, and Druids get moved toward Nature Cleric, that might open up enough room for another wilderness class to fit between them. That could be this low-to-no-spells beastmaster type.
Lan-"did I ever mention that I don't like cyclic initiative?"-efan
Me, too! I think the DMG spent too many pages on the planes and not enough time on helping new (and old) DM's run great games. Solid starter adventures are worth their weight in gold.
Thoughts:
Surprised that mearls doesn’t like designing feats/spells, I figured they would be higher on the list.
Druid comment seems reflective of the poll earlier, a nature themed paladin-type with shapeshifting instead of smites. I’d be down for that. Further comments seems to indicate that there is certainly some focus on shape-shifting in general, including scalability of forms. I hope they expand on this later or in the next edition, to avoid stuff like the moon druid early-game power spike.
Saddening to see the commentary on the fighter. I know I bang on that drum all the damn time but I feel like it’s one of the bigger and more important problems I have with an overall good system, and having the lead dev more or less echo those sentiments is aggravating. Maybe there was just a ridiculous amount of feedback pushing it in the direction of its current iteration during the playtest, but I hope that this is addressed down the line in some way.
Surprised that mearls doesn’t like designing feats/spells, I figured they would be higher on the list.
Druid comment seems reflective of the poll earlier, a nature themed paladin-type with shapeshifting instead of smites. I’d be down for that. Further comments seems to indicate that there is certainly some focus on shape-shifting in general, including scalability of forms. I hope they expand on this later or in the next edition, to avoid stuff like the moon druid early-game power spike.
Saddening to see the commentary on the fighter. I know I bang on that drum all the damn time but I feel like it’s one of the bigger and more important problems I have with an overall good system, and having the lead dev more or less echo those sentiments is aggravating. Maybe there was just a ridiculous amount of feedback pushing it in the direction of its current iteration during the playtest, but I hope that this is addressed down the line in some way.
Some stuff people get bent out of shape over seems to be too speculative to even offer a reaction for in my opinion. Still, interesting to see where a designer's head is at.
Of these things the thing that I am most curious about is Bonus Actions, simply becuase the current action economy in 5e feels very "clean" to me and that is hardest for me to see what he hates about it.
Initiative is static and kinda boring, but my players never complain. I'd be curious to see if there was a variant he prefers or if that is an egg he hasn't fully cracked yet.
The Druid stuff just feels like people bringing baggage into something so abstract that it can't really be discussed solely from a design standpoint. Personally a Nature Cleric and a shamanistic Druid is a nice dichotomy to me, but I know some people really have strong opinions about the labels we attach to these things...
Of these things the thing that I am most curious about is Bonus Actions, simply becuase the current action economy in 5e feels very "clean" to me and that is hardest for me to see what he hates about it.
Initiative is static and kinda boring, but my players never complain. I'd be curious to see if there was a variant he prefers or if that is an egg he hasn't fully cracked yet.
The Druid stuff just feels like people bringing baggage into something so abstract that it can't really be discussed solely from a design standpoint. Personally a Nature Cleric and a shamanistic Druid is a nice dichotomy to me, but I know some people really have strong opinions about the labels we attach to these things...
Hussar
Legend
As far as cyclic initiative goes, well, it's been a LONG time since we bothered changing that, so, it's gotten pretty ingrained into the game. I can't remember, did you reroll initiative in 1e? I know you did in 2e, but, IIRC, you didn't in 1e. But, it's been a very long time, so I could be off base there.
But, we've been what, just shy of 20 years of D&D with cyclic initiative? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Of all the things to complain about in the edition, I'm thinking that that's one that's WAY down on the list.
It's nice to see that my frustration with fighters is getting echoed here. I want to like fighters in 5e, but, they're just so bland and boring. Hopefully we see some movement in that direction soonish.
The fact that he completely rejects the encounter building mechanics does bother me a bit. I mean, sure, eyeballing it works too and with experience in the system, that eyeballing gets easier. But, hey, if the system were better and clearer, maybe it wouldn't need so much eyeballing.
This comment:
really does kinda make forums sound like echo chambers. Small numbers of commenters making things seem like larger issues than they are. :/
But, we've been what, just shy of 20 years of D&D with cyclic initiative? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Of all the things to complain about in the edition, I'm thinking that that's one that's WAY down on the list.
It's nice to see that my frustration with fighters is getting echoed here. I want to like fighters in 5e, but, they're just so bland and boring. Hopefully we see some movement in that direction soonish.
The fact that he completely rejects the encounter building mechanics does bother me a bit. I mean, sure, eyeballing it works too and with experience in the system, that eyeballing gets easier. But, hey, if the system were better and clearer, maybe it wouldn't need so much eyeballing.
This comment:
really does kinda make forums sound like echo chambers. Small numbers of commenters making things seem like larger issues than they are. :/
Similar Threads
