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

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
30 dollars? I spent hudreds to thousands of dollars on dnd. You need to stop blindly defending 5e. I have already acknowledged 5e has a great core product. 4e didnt feel like its core was complete until the phb2 came out with it missing half the cha pally and so many of what I consider core races. Im not dissing 5es foundation. Im discussing its future. And you should to with your eyes open. Most of theUAs have been poorly designed and not what alot of people are looking for. Was a forge cleric anywhere close to your top ten list of what 5e needs? Maybe they should be focusing more on psionics and planescape(although they did show us an early gith race). Honestly do we need more elf subraces? Arent they supposed to be along living but rare race? If you just blindly defend wizards, they will not put their best efforts inmaking new products.

I dont have any problems with their releasschedule. I have problems with what i have seen in their playtests and UAs.

Man the UAs only "suck" because they come out at the breakneck pace of once a month. In fact they kinda stopped to highlight some of the stuff coming out on DM's Guild, but apparently not everyone was down with that. The fact that so many people keep playing 5e despite not having a new release once every few months should be a testament to how good it is, not how easily people are going to drop it. Not to mention that this probably is the most popular edition of the game to date, mostly from all the new players coming in. Heck, I mean BECMI kinda had the same business model come to think of it. I'd rather have a solid set of core rules I can keep playing with than a flood of new material I can never keep up with in any case.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
30 dollars? I spent hudreds to thousands of dollars on dnd. You need to stop blindly defending 5e. I have already acknowledged 5e has a great core product. 4e didnt feel like its core was complete until the phb2 came out with it missing half the cha pally and so many of what I consider core races. Im not dissing 5es foundation. Im discussing its future. And you should to with your eyes open. Most of theUAs have been poorly designed and not what alot of people are looking for. Was a forge cleric anywhere close to your top ten list of what 5e needs? Maybe they should be focusing more on psionics and planescape(although they did show us an early gith race). Honestly do we need more elf subraces? Arent they supposed to be along living but rare race? If you just blindly defend wizards, they will not put their best efforts inmaking new products.

The point I was making is that they don't care about the $30 you aren't going to spend on Xanathar's Guide To Everything (or the $30 you didn't spend on SCAG, or Curse of Strahd, or Volo's Guide To Monsters etc. etc.). They have forsaken those $30 of yours to other products that apparently other people have been more than happy to buy. In other words... they don't care about your money. Your money is no good to them.

If you have only a small subset of things you're willing to spend your $30 on for 5E... like psionics or Planescape... they willingly give that money up to instead produce things that give them $300,000 from ten thousand other people. Sorry to break it to you, Valetudo, but you just aren't worth it to them.

And as far as what my "Top 10" is for items I want... I don't HAVE a Top 10. Because I have more than enough D&D product already... most of which I've never used and most likely never will... and thus I don't need or want for anything. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what appears in Xanathar's. I mean, I'm going to buy it anyway when it's released because I'm sure some of my players might find things of use in them at some point in the future... but I've already downloaded so many classes, subclasses, feats, spells, magic items etc. etc. etc. from WotC's UA articles, the DM's Guild, and the Unearthed Arcana subreddit, plus have DESIGNED plenty of things myself for my game... that I can easily ignore every single WotC-produced book and not have it affect me one iota.

Because I don't care. I don't have the hard-on that some players have that "Ooh! It HAS to be published in a WotC hardcover book or it's not a REAL D&D product!" or somesuch BS. I also don't get my undies twisted up into such a bunch that anything I introduce into my game has to have been balanced and playtested seventeen ways to Sunday to make sure there's absolutely no problems or issues that will ever crop up in my game due to the mechanics not 110% foolproof and equal for every single PC regardless of number of players, which optional rules I use, the skill-level of the players etc. etc. etc. Some people think that having one class's DPR be a half-point higher than another one renders the game unplayable for them... and I think those people are insane.

So I don't "defend" WotC per se. I merely point out that what each individual poster here on the boards get up in arms about that allows them to rant and rave for 50 pages on a thread is basically just... silly. :) And it's not worth WotC's time to worry about you and your silly little issues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
And you need to listen to your own advice. I have defended wizards and 5e plenty of times when they deserve it. But they are definitely not perfect, and can use the critique.

Yes, they can. But your assumption that the thing you are currently critiquing is the one true "correct" position to have on that topic is false. That you think they don't deserve defending on this particularly topic is not in fact objective truth. Some people see this topic different than you, and it's a matter of subjective opinion for this one.

You claim the UAs have sucked while lots and lots of people have liked them.

You claim the forge cleric was nowhere near the top of the list of what people want in the same thread where you have seen people say they really wanted this.

You claim we don't need more elf subraces when we have a ton of people around here (some in this thread) who in fact have been saying they want more elf subraces since the game came out.

Bottom line, you're being myopic. You think your tastes and preferences are universal and rather than seeing in black and white all the comments that demonstrate people have different tastes than you, you're just declaring it objective truth that your perspective is the one true perspective.

So rather than insult your peers for being "blind" how about YOU be the one to look around and consider maybe it was you not seeing on this one. Some people like things you do not like. That's OK, you probably like some things they don't like as well. Deal with that better.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tony Vargas

Legend
You need to stop assuming that people who defend something are doing it blindly...
It's not an assumption, it shows in the nature of the defenses that get mounted. There are some genuine uncritical apologists out there. Always have been, for each edition.

There's also been equally-blind attacks on each edition (though, obviously, more on 4e than ever before or since).

Often they're the same folks always defending/attacking the current ed and shifting arguments/opinions/values with the wind, sometimes they swap.

But they're always annoying.

Yes, they can. But your assumption that the thing you are currently critiquing is the one true "correct" position to have on that topic is false. That you think they don't deserve defending on this particularly topic is not in fact objective truth. Some people see this topic different than you, and it's a matter of subjective opinion for this one.
I don't assume such an assumption - it'll be evident, one way or the other, on the quality of the arguments, if one can master one's own confirmation bias, anyway....

You claim the UAs have sucked while lots and lots of people have liked them.
Lots of people like things that suck. Often specifically because they suck. Suck, in ways they can leverage. ;P

Also, to be fair, if we're going to admit appeals to popularity, D&D must be just effing terrible, because basically no one plays it. I mean, the total number of D&Ders compared to the total number of people would be lost in the round-off.
Approximately 7.4 billion people on earth, about 7.4 billion of them don't play D&D.

And you need to listen to your own advice. I have defended wizards and 5e plenty of times when they deserve it. But they are definitely not perfect, and can use the critique.
There's plenty to praise & to criticize (both legitimately) in each edition....
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
It's not an assumption, it shows in the nature of the defenses that get mounted. There are some genuine uncritical apologists out there. Always have been, for each edition.

There's also been equally-blind attacks on each edition (though, obviously, more on 4e than ever before or since).

Often they're the same folks always defending/attacking the current ed and shifting arguments/opinions/values with the wind, sometimes they swap.

But they're always annoying.

All true, but also not applicable to this issue. He's using a legit argument (some people are apologists for an edition) in a not legit way (nobody wants forge clerics or more elvish sub-races or any of these UAs). He's hoping people will focus on the legit argument without focusing on how he's using it, which is him substituting his personal tastes for universal truth about a long series of topics.

We have people who are not apologists for this edition who want all the things he listed that supposedly nobody wants. And they're not the same people....some people want more elvish sub-races, others want a forge cleric, etc.. There is no pattern there of standard apologists just blindly defending WOTC on everything. He knows, with certainty, that a lot of the people who disagree with his points are also not apologists for the edition. He's just lashing out claiming he's right because he's right and everyone who has different tastes is just blind. It was a very weak argument he made.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
All true, but also not applicable to this issue. He's using a legit argument (some people are apologists for an edition) in a not legit way (nobody wants forge clerics or more elvish sub-races or any of these UAs).
Not how I read it. There's been some gauges of interest in the community, a lot of them are impressions or compromise bias or un-scientific polls, but 'forge clerics' and eladrin haven't exactly been bubbling to the top, have they?

I haven't heard people clamoring for forge clerics or yet another elvish sub-race the way we've heard them clamoring for psionics, the warlord, a spell-less ranger (or just any ranger that makes some kind of coherent sense), a better sorcerer, or a more 3e-style magic-item creation system, etc, etc...


Of course, if you say "nobody _______ s" on an internet forum, you'll get at least one "I totally _____!" in response. Maybe 10.
That doesn't even require apologists.
 


Valetudo

Adventurer
All true, but also not applicable to this issue. He's using a legit argument (some people are apologists for an edition) in a not legit way (nobody wants forge clerics or more elvish sub-races or any of these UAs). He's hoping people will focus on the legit argument without focusing on how he's using it, which is him substituting his personal tastes for universal truth about a long series of topics.

We have people who are not apologists for this edition who want all the things he listed that supposedly nobody wants. And they're not the same people....some people want more elvish sub-races, others want a forge cleric, etc.. There is no pattern there of standard apologists just blindly defending WOTC on everything. He knows, with certainty, that a lot of the people who disagree with his points are also not apologists for the edition. He's just lashing out claiming he's right because he's right and everyone who has different tastes is just blind. It was a very weak argument he made.
This whole site is about opinions. If this is just my opinion, I must own a bunch of the other profiles, because if you go to the threads about the UA articles, they are getting lukewarm responses at best. The funny thing is you are claiming Im speaking for everyone and then you comeback with a retort as if you are speaking for everyone. Defcon is making a claim,not on his behalf, but wizards. I dont deny that Im coming from my point of view. But defcon doesnt speak for wizards and you dont rep everybody either. On these forums, there is plenty of people calling for psionics. So far hussar is the only one that spoke out for forge clerics, which is fine because I asked the question. You on the other hand just attack my opinion, which I repeat I never denied is my opinion. The funny thing is if I went that route people always run to the mods claiming I was mean. Defcon is blindly defending wizards because guess what 5e is not perfect. Do I personally think its the best edition to date, yes I do even though I havent bought anything other than the core books. But is there room for improvement? Hell yeah. There is plenty of proof on these forums alone that the UAs got alot of flak. Guess what thats what they where for. I heard just as much if not more negative feedback for the samurai than positive on these threads. Reddit was even more negative. Do I speek out for what I want or think, hell yeah. Has mearls himself said that the third and fourth yeais where dnd usually has its hardest times. Yes.
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
And as far as what my "Top 10" is for items I want... I don't HAVE a Top 10. Because I have more than enough D&D product already... most of which I've never used and most likely never will... and thus I don't need or want for anything. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass what appears in Xanathar's. I mean, I'm going to buy it anyway when it's released because I'm sure some of my players might find things of use in them at some point in the future... but I've already downloaded so many classes, subclasses, feats, spells, magic items etc. etc. etc. from WotC's UA articles, the DM's Guild, and the Unearthed Arcana subreddit, plus have DESIGNED plenty of things myself for my game... that I can easily ignore every single WotC-produced book and not have it affect me one iota.
+1, fully agree, would quote again.

Of course, if you say "nobody _______ s" on an internet forum, you'll get at least one "I totally _____!" in response. Maybe 10.
That doesn't even require apologists.
I never apologize for ________. I mean, seriously, sometimes you just need a good _________.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top