D&D 5E Mike Mearls' AMA Summary

[Ath'kethin]

It's interesting to hear a designer talk about a dislike of cyclic initiative. I've never used it (I started playing and DMing in the 2e era, and didn't even realize 3e was supposed to have cyclic initiative until I'd been running it for years).

The comment about forums vs. surveys was also of interest. It's clear that a few of us here make a lot of noise about some "issues" in the game, and they tend to drown out any who disagree. I've seen similar phenomena in the GitP forums (the only 5e forum I visit even semi-regularly).

It's nice to see that maybe the forum-conventional wisdom isn't always as widespread as some would like to believe. I know my experiences with off-griped-about issues are often markedly different form the gripers', and I guess there may be more of me than there are of them.

 

[JeffB]

Im with him on cyclic Initiative. Hated it since 3.0's pre-release.

Also agree with Fighter subclasses, proficiency die, and fiddly actions.

I'd like to hear some more detail about 4e and why they felt it closed off new and old players.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm incredibly troubled by his thoughts on the druid, and I am deathly worried that he won't listen to critics of his ideas but only to those who echo his sentiments (or even those who remain silent on the matter). The sort of changes he wants to make to the druid strike me as far too radical and detrimental to the history, aesthetic, and appeal of the class. In so doing what Mearls proposes, I fear that while he may attract some to the class, it also runs the serious risk of alienating others, myself included, from a class that I have long loved playing. And the result of such an endeavor may simply result in a repeat of 4E's problems with spreading the druid archetype across classes too thinly.

 

[Waterbizkit]

really does kinda make forums sound like echo chambers. Small numbers of commenters making things seem like larger issues than they are. :/

It sounds that way because it is that way. I'm still relatively new to these boards, but I've already been here long enough to see the same subjects tread and retread by the same people with the same stances on whatever the subject might be. And I don't say that to malign the board or the posters, simply what I've already come to observe.

Additionally, folks like myself aren't likely to step in to some of the faster moving and heated debates because we'll get drowned out by folks both more capable and motivated to post more often. It's easier for me to read those threads and keep to myself than to participate and far better to respond to surveys and polls that WotC offer up to get my feedback.

Again, this isn't to dump on ENWorld or other message boards, but it's often the nature of the beast.

Anyway, this AMA has certainly got me interested is what we might see down the road, both in UA articles as well as actual published material.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I dont get why people are affraid of his positions on druid/warlock/ranger. I mean, at worst we'll have Variant: Druid, Variant: Warlock and Variant: Ranger, I dont see them overwriting the classes already there, they are just a varia of the same theme, use it or dont, much like Variant Human. I guess that I could create difficulties with AL tables?

I like the idea of a 1/2 spellcaster druid with thematic shapeshifting as archetypes, it reminds me of the 4e Warden.
I like the design idea of having a variant warlock patrons with built in Blade pact (Hexblade), Chain (Raven Queen) and Tome (maybe we'll get a Witch?)

 

[TwoSix]

Thoughts:

Surprised that mearls doesn’t like designing feats/spells, I figured they would be higher on the list.

He mentioned that unexpected combinations are the biggest balance worry when it comes to designing new elements, that has to be a bigger concern for feats and spells than it is for new classes or subclasses, and might lower the enjoyment level.

 

[AriochQ]

I would echo that MM conception of a druid doesn't seem to match the historical (real life and D&D) conceptualization of that class. I would almost rather see a shapeshifter develop into a new class if he goes the direction he is leaning toward.

Good sign that he is a fan of Greyhawk. Keeping my fingers crossed that they open it up for DM's Guild at some point. I don't really want a new supplement, there is already enough stuff out there to run a deep campaign.

Hopefully the Fighter class will get some needed love. Most of the fighters I have seen are feat dependent (GWM, Polearm Master/Sentinal, etc). That isn't a bad thing per se, but probably means the class itself is very meh when you think about it.

Things he didn't mention as problems in 5th Ed:
Hiding/vision - The rules are clunky and very hard for many players/DM's to interpret
Lack of any real economy - Not much for characters to spend money on once they get to tier 2.
Magic item availability - No values provided as they are supposed to be rare, but following treasure/item creation/spellcasting guidelines they aren't really all that rare. Basically, the whole 'rare' concept is contradicted by every other aspect of the magic item economy.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Thanks for collating this! It's a fun read. I definitely got the sense of a designer who was really happy with the game, and liked the way that it plays, but who admits to a desire to change some stuff around the margins. I don't think that we should see anything here as indicative of a future change. Mike Mearls just doesn't like classes A, B, and C all that much; that doesn't mean that he is raring to rewrite them tomorrow. I can sympathise with that view; I kind of dislike some classes as well, but I wouldn't bother house ruling or banning them, I just wouldn't play them.

I did really like his thoughts on future things he'd like to do - I would absolutely love an underwater adventure! I keep thinking that it's a really fascinating and crazily gonzo direction to go, but one that is tough to do without either having too many custom rules, or making it feel like a normal adventure with a colour filter...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mecheon]

I would echo that MM conception of a druid doesn't seem to match the historical (real life and D&D) conceptualization of that class. I would almost rather see a shapeshifter develop into a new class if he goes the direction he is leaning toward.

It matches the pop-culture idea of it though. The historical one just isn't one people care about all that much, and, well, the 3E druid was a shapeshifter and I think even the 2E had some shapeshifting. But even without those, the pop culture druid shapeshifts, that's just how its been for years. More people think of a shapeshifter druid than they do the nature cleric role and, well, the nature clerics fulfill that role to a T

I mean, say what you will about Warcraft, it goes back beyond that. The Everquest druid shapeshifted. The Diablo 2 druid shapeshifted.

The idea of a druid not being a shapeshifter is going to be a dead thing in RPGs in a few years to come. The idea of druids being shapeshifters has stuck hard