Mike Mearls comments on design

[I'm A Banana]

As for the Golden Wyvern thing, why is it so hard to just gloss over it? When it comes down to it, using the golden wyvern adept feat is no different than using power attack, cleave, or spring attack. It can be as behind the scenes as hit points and levels if you want it, or you can build something around the fluff the name implies; it's up to you, and it's not difficult to ignore the name and keep the feat if you find it so bothersome.

My basic question is this: does it add anything for the minor annoyances it causes?

Right now, in the preview stage, it doesn't. As I illustrated above, no one WANTS a Golden Wyvern thing.

But that's mostly because no one knows what it is in context yet. That might change.

Basically, they have to prove to me that it's worth it. They haven't. Ergo, at the moment, I'm kind of critical of it, because from where I'm standing, it's a hassle without a hook, just a problem, not a benefit.

When I see everything in context, it's entirely likely that, given new insight, I will change this tune. I hope I will.

To say that right now all we have to do is "gloss over it" is ignoring the fact that, as far as we know, there's no REASON for it to be there in the first place.

So it basically boils down to faith. If you have faith in WotC to make it worthwhile, you're cool with it. You'll gloss over it for the promise that it might provide something. If you lack that faith, if you're more agnostic about the whole affair, you probably don't see the value in it yet.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The part that seems obviously incorrect, imo, is this: "We are never going to make D&D more complicated than it needs to be." 3e made its money selling supplements for every PrC, feat, and new cool power for the game. 4e says it will be adding these for every level and every class. How is this not needless complication? ...or is it a complication which makes the game profitable?

Adding spells, feats, classes and so on doesn't have to make a game complicated. The only complicated thing canl be deciding what to pick (and that's a good complication in my eyes)

If the game is overly complicated, it doesn't help the game at all. People will not buy supplements because things got more complicated.
Supplements that make things more complicated are like the 3rd edition Shadowrun expanded cyberware rules in "Man & Machine". Previously (Core rulebook only), you implanted your cyberware and subtracted the essence cost. If you replaced the cyberware, you didn't get essence back, but you could spend the lost essence for something else. With the cyberware rules in a supplement, the doctor had to make multiple skill checks (planning operation, performing operation, providing after-operation health care), and the essence loss couldn't just be filled up with something else, you first had to "re-enable" the lost points, so to speak. That's complicating rules with supplements. It was certainly not a mandatory rule, but, well, it was there...

But adding a new type of cyberware didn't make the system more complicated (at least not per se). Nor did adding a new spell.

But you're certainly right on one point: Feats, Talents, Spells, and Classes can make the game more profitable.
But that's not only reason to do it. All these rules exist to provide players a possibility to express their character in mechanical terms. It depends a lot on personal play style how important (and thus how needed) this is, but I think often enough people want the possibility to do exactly this. Roleplaying Games are not just playing a role, they are also playing a game, and it's nice if the game enforces the role we want to play instead of glossing over it.

 

[Remathilis]

The core should preferably keep the number of D&Disms in it to a minimum, because too many D&Disms alienate D&D from the generic fantasy worldbuilding which is it's core strength.

Bigby (famous for his hand spells)
Pelor
Red Wizard's of Thay
The Hand and Eye of Vecna
The Nine Hells of Baator

NONE of those things are in my current campaign setting. Yet all are in the core books. My setting? Eberron! (seem's even WotC has learned to ignore the core fluff when necessary, even with the "If its in D&D, its in Eberron" sales point)

I've been ignoring core-prescribed fluff in my games for years. I've changed names, adapted concepts, tweaked origins, and outright banned things. None of my players have ever complained, and I've gamed with well over 30 different people throughout my time. I will take Warlord, Emerald Frost, Golden Wyvern, Icefire Griffon, Plaguespew Zombie, Dragonborn, and all the other new WotC names tossed at me the same way I took Monk, Tenser, Heironious, Inevitables, Arrowhawk, Half-Orc, and all the other fluffed stuff 3.5 dumped on me, and 3e before that, and 2e before that...

Lighten up. D&D without "D&Disms" is like picking the chocolate chips out of Chocolate Chip Ice Cream and saying its "Vanilla".

 

[rounser]

Bigby (famous for his hand spells)
Pelor
Red Wizard's of Thay
The Hand and Eye of Vecna
The Nine Hells of Baator

It's a matter of scope. Single spells? Artifacts? Very little screentime. Easy to ignore. Negligible impact on worldbuilding. Easy to exclude or rename.

Core races, core classes? Massive amount of screentime. In your face. Everywhere. Hard to rename, because referenced so much. World-defining.

 

[Simon Marks]

How about "Magic User" (possibly the worst name in D&D history)?

I survived that, I'll survive almost anything.

 

[Fifth Element]

How about "Magic User" (possibly the worst name in D&D history)?

I survived that, I'll survive almost anything.

Oh, to be back in the days of Fighting Men and Magic-Users, when halflings were hobbits and treants were ents...

 

[Hussar]

It's a matter of scope. Single spells? Artifacts? Very little screentime. Easy to ignore. Negligible impact on worldbuilding. Easy to exclude or rename.

Core races, core classes? Massive amount of screentime. In your face. Everywhere. Hard to rename, because referenced so much. World-defining.

Yes and no though. How often, in game, do you ever refer to your character's class? Even out of game, you don't repeatedly state that you are class X or Y. You say it once and that's it. Same goes for feats. Except for a few like Power Attack, how often do you actually reference a feat by name. You simply roll your dice, add the modifier and away you go.

No one actually specifically calls out Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization on each and every attack, even though it has an effect each time. GWA only comes into play when you modify the area of a spell. How much screen time it sees is very variable, and, even when it's used, will likely not be referenced by name. You simply shape the area of your attack and move on.

Heck, I'd actually like it if race DID get referenced more often. I've played with far too many gamers who pick Race X and then never reference it again. When you get one player turning to another and saying, "You're an elf? I didn't know that." after six months of gaming. Maybe by making the races a little more overt they'll actually spur people into playing more than bumpy headed humans or humans with pointy ears, or short humans.

 

[rounser]

Yes and no though. How often, in game, do you ever refer to your character's class? Even out of game, you don't repeatedly state that you are class X or Y. You say it once and that's it. Same goes for feats. Except for a few like Power Attack, how often do you actually reference a feat by name. You simply roll your dice, add the modifier and away you go.

It turns up in NPC stats, it's part of the shorthand of thinking about characters, it affects world development etc. etc. I could write an essay about the importance, but I can't really be bothered...and it's so easy to get right, that it seems such a shame to do it wrong in the core. I'm not sure why WOTC are settling for less, except that they have their priorities in the crunch (i.e. "we need a leader class, and hey these abilities are cool, let's stack them on in there"), and are just railroading the flavour to suit those needs.

 

[Hussar]

It turns up in NPC stats, it's part of the shorthand of thinking about characters, it affects world development etc. etc. I could write an essay about the importance, but I can't really be bothered...and it's so easy to get right, that it seems such a shame to do it wrong in the core. I'm not sure why WOTC are settling for less, except that they have their priorities in the crunch (i.e. "we need a leader class, and hey these abilities are cool, let's stack them on in there"), and are just railroading the flavour to suit those needs.

I think you're going to have to write that essay, because I just don't see it. Who cares if it appears on the NPC statblock? Again, it's never referenced in game and, well, if monsters or artifacts don't count, then NPC's shouldn't either. After all, they aren't getting any more screen time either.

As far as world building goes, again, who cares? If planar cosmologies, dieties, etc didn't slow people down, I don't know why this would. After all, the cosmology of D&D affects every core spellcaster to a fair degree.

I think people are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is.

 

[rounser]

I think people are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is.

Maybe. But if you downplay the importance of something as fundamental as core classes and races, then what flavour's important to the game at all? Nothing? Is it only the crunch which is important? How many dice you roll for task resolution? The number of "steps" in combat? Yes, that must be it...