Mike Mearls "Invented The Baked Potato" in Xanathar's Guide With The Cleric Forge Domain

Making a change from all those lovely pictures of Jeremy Crawford on EN World's front page, this time it's Mike Mearls who speaks to D&D Beyond about the Cleric Forge Domain in Xanathar's Guide, along with some interesting observations about baked potatoes.

Making a change from all those lovely pictures of Jeremy Crawford on EN World's front page, this time it's Mike Mearls who speaks to D&D Beyond about the Cleric Forge Domain in Xanathar's Guide, along with some interesting observations about baked potatoes.


[video=youtube;nZznOH4-njM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZznOH4-njM[/video]​


"... one of those ones where it's like "Why wasn't this in the Player's Handbook?", right like it's the dwarf clerics have become so iconic to the game and it's funny because they weren't technically really like 2nd Edition let you play a dwarf cleric, but I think that people just naturally always, I don't know what it is about dwarves? Dwarves and clerics just goes together and I think part of it is because you have the story of Moradin forging the dwarves, he literally makes them, right, and I think that's mythically very interesting, this idea that you have a craftsman who's a God who basically challenges himself -- "Can I make a folk, , the dwarves, my children. I'm gonna [something] amount of iron and metal and ingots whatever it is , and that to me is really interesting and I think that would have such profound implications of that society where like your God physically made you out of iron, out of metal and breathed life into you, and so then you have that association of dwarves, of crafting things. Of course creation would be hopefully sacred to dwarves because that's what their deity does, that's what their deity did to create them.

And again this is what I think is interesting in D&D when you have the divine, the divine is knowable. Like Moradin's day to day desires might be unknowable or cryptic but Morden is a person that is like what happened, like people know, there's there's not a question of faith, it's a question of which team do you pick? And so the idea of the dwarf cleric is essentially to my mind when we were working on it, what I was thinking 100% was the dwarf cleric who decides "I am going to emulate Moradin, I want to be a great Smith, that the deity who created me was a great smith and I will follow those footsteps because creation is sacred to our folk".

And then since it's a cleric you have to ask yourself how do you use creation to beat down orcs and goblins? And then it's just like - make magic weapons. That's it, you get to imbue a weapon and make it magical and that just felt very sensible, very obvious; and the great thing is in there our system it's not game breaking; it's powerful but it's not over-the-top.

This is one of the subclasses I think really encapsulates when we're doing things really right the initial playtest feedback was through the roof positive. I think we had to tweak a few things here and there but it hit that note I think of ... I was joking when I said this should have been the Players Handbook but really it should've been in the Players Handbook because it's so iconic. As soon as we showed it to people they were just like "Yes this makes sense. This fits, the mechanics make sense, the mechanics are easy, there's nothing in those mechanics that's tricky or strange or clever. It's just obvious. I make things magical, I make my armor better and make my weapons better. I make things, that's it."

But it just hits such a resonant tone and that's always what we're shooting for we do these new subclasses - we want to hit that resonant tone. You can go for the thing that's very experimental that people haven't seen before, and that's part of the approach, you need to do some of that. But when you're doing things where people just look out and go "Oh yeah that's D&D", yes do you feel really you feeling good about yourself as a designer because I fill the gap that everyone wanted to play but they couldn't play. Maybe they didn't know the gap was empty until you gave them this, and then suddenly everyones playing it.

And I think that's how we are really truly growing the game when we do that, when you could imagine "Oh if you could go back in time and give Xanathar's to the Players Handbook team, this is one of the domains, one of the options, they would just be "Oh, yes, of course let's put this right in the Players Handbook."

That always feels good as a designer when you do that. To me it's it's not the exotic new wacky thing it's the thing that's just like, "You've invented baked potatoes. Now that you've invented it everyone will have these with their steak forever", I just feel like, "Wow, that's kind of cool!"

Because it fits, and that's when we know as designers, as creators, we're connecting with the audience, we're hitting on things that people want, we're hitting on things that just make sense to people, and I love that feeling as a designer on a game like Dungeons & Dragons, that has a history, that has a big active user base, it means we as designers are in touch with players, that work on the same page. I love that feeling."



Screen Shot 2017-10-02 at 20.33.34.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad

see

Pedantic Grognard
Serioulsy, though, in 1e, there was a cryptic notation in the Dwarf class/level table that NPC dwarves could be clerics up to a not terribly high level. Elves, IIRC, got a similar notation, and halflings (maybe it was Druid). I guess it was because well, these other races had to have religion, but EGG didn't want them being PC clerics... OK.
In the 1e PHB table, dwarves, elves, and gnomes had cleric level limits of (8), (7), (7), the parentheses indicating "NPC only"; halflings had (6) for druid. Only humans and half-humans could play PC clerics. It was, of course, quite easy to houserule that they weren't NPC-only, in which case dwarves were second only to humans in the level they could achieve as clerics (half-eleves having a level limit of 5, and half-orcs a level limit of 4), unless you house-ruled the level limits at the same time.

In 1e Unearthed Arcana, dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings were all allowed to be PC clerics, and the dwarves had the second-best level limits for clerics for any given Wisdom score, behind only humans and female drow with unlimited advancement.

Come 2nd edition, however, the dwarves were screwed over, with elves given higher level limits as clerics than dwarves.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Chaosmancer

Legend
My complaint about the video is how vague it is, which sure, it's a 4 minute ad for a product we've already seen, but... come on man, talk about something other than potatoes and dwarves. People who (for some reason) didn't read the UA and discuss them in-depth nearly a year ago have no idea what you are talking about anyways and some of us are curious what got changed.


And, there were some little bits of the Forge Cleric that could have used some extra love, the channel divinity was discussed a lot and I'm curious how they ended up on that.

It's a pet peeve of mine, that these videos are so vague that it's doing little to even remind me what the class abilities were in some cases.
 

Dualazi

First Post
My complaint about the video is how vague it is, which sure, it's a 4 minute ad for a product we've already seen, but... come on man, talk about something other than potatoes and dwarves. People who (for some reason) didn't read the UA and discuss them in-depth nearly a year ago have no idea what you are talking about anyways and some of us are curious what got changed.


And, there were some little bits of the Forge Cleric that could have used some extra love, the channel divinity was discussed a lot and I'm curious how they ended up on that.

It's a pet peeve of mine, that these videos are so vague that it's doing little to even remind me what the class abilities were in some cases.

Seconded. It's always nice to see creators excited for their craft, but we're creeping closer to the release date and I think it would be nice to have a little more concrete information in there somewhere.
 


dalisprime

Explorer
I think they are saving the crunch previews for the extra life event. These videos are telling us what sub classes to expect in the book which in itself is valuable info and the creative process behind them.
 

Valetudo

Adventurer
UA material is an extended playtest. If you don't like optional rules ideas, don't bother with it.

If you don't like new content, don't get the book.
The fact is that 5e is the first edition that I havent bothered with buying anything are the 3 core books. SCA is ok I guess but I have only dmed so far. Im ok with players getting and using but none have so far. I make my own settings so Im not interested in the campaigns. Its not that Im against options. I own most books from all four previous editions, even going so far as to replace a bunch I lost in a flood years back. I just dont think their UAs are good. I see too many bad choices in their new stuff. The kensei is a perfect example, its really bad. Now I know the UAs are playtest material. I dont allow it in my games, but the forge cleric is not, and I just think that wizards has its priorities misplaced. Your right I dont have to purchase the new book and I probaably wont, but is losing my mony good for wizards? No, these coming years are the true test to see if this edition lasts or gets cut short like 4th.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Honestly that we didn't have far far more domains in the PHB is mindboggling.
I concur. When I first read the class I was confused as to why there were so few.

Now in some cases one domain is a perfectly acceptable replacement for another. The light domain is *almost* the fire domain for example. But other *big* concepts like say chaos... nope.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Your right I dont have to purchase the new book and I probaably wont, but is losing my mony good for wizards? No, these coming years are the true test to see if this edition lasts or gets cut short like 4th.

Yep. It absolutely is. Because their way of doing things has brought in much more money than they possibly could have expected... whereas doing it your way where they would have gotten your money does not by any means guarantee they would have gotten everyone else's. So it turns out they forsook your $30 and got hundreds of thousands of dollars from other people instead.

I'd say they are ahead of the game and your $30 wasn't an issue for them.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top