D&D 5E (2014) Mike Mearls on 5e design he regrets. Bonus Actuons.

[BrokenTwin]

I can, because I was. I played a PHB1-only Paladin in the best campaign of D&D I've ever played, hands down. I can even get you the AP threads for it, because I posted them on RPG.net. It was glorious, and unfortunately had to end because the GM needed to take care of family.

So...yes, I can in fact tell you that with a straight face that I would be happy with that. Because I literally have been.

Just wanted to chime in on this bit... I played and GM'd 4E for years, and while we were always happy for new splats with fun new options (except Essentials, which thanks to TERRIBLE marketing we didn't realize wasn't an incompatible "4.5" until way too late), we played with just the PH1 for a long time and were perfectly happy with it.
Did we miss certain classes and ancestries? Yeah, but I'm also STILL missing the Warlord in 5.X, so that's not exactly a point in that edition's favour.

Also, irrelevant, but (as I'm sure you know), we DID get a magical ranger in 4E eventually: the Seeker (primal controller).

 

[CreamCloud0]

Its a lot cheaper.

I don’t care about cost, it’s so much less interesting.

5.5 twinned is a glorified upcast on multi-target spells replicating something which i could already do.

5.0 twinned lets me target two creatures each with a single target spell, doing something unique that’s not possible otherwise.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don’t care about cost, it’s so much less interesting.

5.5 twinned is a glorified upcast on multi-target spells replicating something which i could already do.

5.0 twinned lets me target two creatures each with a single target spell, doing something unique that’s not possible otherwise.

Sure I understand the sentiment.

Upcasting your highest level spells two levels early isn't possible either.

Twinned haste was great. I've also seen it go very pear shaped.

Its a frequency vs power comparison. Ive seen lvl 10 5.0 enchanters in action and Sorcerer Twins is a better version of that ability.

Wizards absolute advantages.

High level
Rituals
Summons.

Technically spell list concentration mechanic and very few unique spells lower level mitigate that along with feats.

This opinion is mostly phb ones. Bladesinger and AU are a lot better.

 

[dave2008]

I apologize in advance for being blunt, but...does this mean you think D&D cannot be successfully played with anyone except people you already know and trust a lot, and can rely on extensive personal backstory?

Because if so, the game is DOA. It cannot survive long-term if the only way to successfully play it is to play with people you trust scads and scads. Joining a new gaming group? Fuggeddaboudit.

No, I am not saying that. I am just admitting I don't have any experience outside my silo. Within that silo is the only way I care to play. However, I am hoping to change that soon.

Would you not say it is a concerning issue that a player could have consistent, repeated problems across multiple groups with something that is supposed to be so central and important?

Seems to me that that indicates the game is bad actually producing the experiences it was designed to produce.

Hard to answer. I am not sure what you think is so central and important, nor what experiences you think it was designed to produce. Can you clarify?

However, if the only data point is your experience (not saying it is), then no. It would not concern me, beyond my general empathy and desire for you to enjoy the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, I am not saying that. I am just admitting I don't have any experience outside my silo. Within that silo is the only way I care to play. However, I am hoping to change that soon.

Then I wish you the best of luck. In my experience, you'll need it.

Hard to answer. I am not sure what you think is so central and important, nor what experiences you think it was designed to produce. Can you clarify?

Playing an all-martial party.

However, if the only data point is your experience (not saying it is), then no. It would not concern me, beyond my general empathy and desire for you to enjoy the game.

More my point was, even if I'm only representing (say) 10% of players....would you not think that 10% of players having THIS bad of an experience indicates a serious problem is occurring or has occurred?

If you give an amazingly great experience to (say) 20% of players, a decent experience to 70%, and a garbage experience to 10%, it seems to me that your goal should not be to increase that amazingly-great 20% to 25% no matter what. It should be to eliminate as much as possible of that garbage 10%, even if it means dropping the 20% down to 18 or even 15. You'll never be able to eliminate all of the bad experiences, so pursuing that to the exclusion of all other goals is just as bad as pursuing maximization of the amazingly-great portion because you'll never give all players that kind of experience either.

But at least as far as I'm concerned, the goal should always be that everyone has at least a decent experience, even if it isn't superlatively awesome. Permitting conditions where even 10% of your customer base gets a garbage-tier experience is extraordinarily unwise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Divine soul gets bless and command.

Tashas, bless, command are available via fae touched.

Magic adept feats exist.

I'm seeing them being used.

I gave you a list of common twinned spells.

So...

You're now doing even more than what I just said.

You're now choosing feats for it. You're picking specific subclasses. You're predicating your spell list decisions based on whether or not they're compatible with Twinned.

In other words, you are building around it. Which is exactly what I said before, that you argued against, and told me I was wrong, you don't have to build around it.

So yes, you do in fact have to build around Twinned in order for Twinned to be particularly useful or beneficial. You yourself have just shown that you have to do so in order to get much benefit. I mean, for God's sake, you gave a list of, my GOD, SEVEN WHOLE SPELLS! God in Heaven, how will we deal with this absolute cornucopia of spells to choose from!? We won't. Because even with the seven whole spells you could muster, more than half aren't even on the Sorcerer list, so you have to carefully choose your subclass or pre-build with various feats.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Hah! I wasn't trying to throw you, I thought you were instigating it! The meta-joke of post #332 was that everything was clearly leading to a a 'Man with Three Buttocks sketch' reference, but then you mentioned yachts (implying the Raymond Luxury-Yacht sketch), so I jumped ship and pretended that's clearly what I meant the whole time.

Man, anyone stumbling into our conversations without knowing the references must think we have lost our minds (not that they're wrong).

Well, now I just feel a bit silly.

Or Slightly Silly.

Just call me Kevin Phillips Bong.

 

[dave2008]

Then I wish you the best of luck. In my experience, you'll need it.

Thanks! IDK, I'm more worried about the group I join than me. I haven't played a PC in about 40 years!

Playing an all-martial party.

??? When did that become essential / central to the design philosophy of D&D? I come from the assumption that the base design assumes 1 fighter (damage), 1 Rogue (skill), 1 Wizard (rogue), 1 Cleric (healer). Obviously that is not required, but that is the core to me. However, never have I thought the design goal was to have an all martial party.

More my point was, even if I'm only representing (say) 10% of players....would you not think that 10% of players having THIS bad of an experience indicates a serious problem is occurring or has occurred?

Not really.

If you give an amazingly great experience to (say) 20% of players, a decent experience to 70%, and a garbage experience to 10%, it seems to me that your goal should not be to increase that amazingly-great 20% to 25% no matter what. It should be to eliminate as much as possible of that garbage 10%, even if it means dropping the 20% down to 18 or even 15. You'll never be able to eliminate all of the bad experiences, so pursuing that to the exclusion of all other goals is just as bad as pursuing maximization of the amazingly-great portion because you'll never give all players that kind of experience either.

I disagree. I think there is less value in chasing the bottom 10% than increasing the top 20%.

But at least as far as I'm concerned, the goal should always be that everyone has at least a decent experience, even if it isn't superlatively awesome. Permitting conditions where even 10% of your customer base gets a garbage-tier experience is extraordinarily unwise.

Maybe unwise, but I think it is probably unavoidable - unless you are very bespoke game and that 10% will simply never play your game. In a game like D&D that is trying to be something for everyone, then 10% failure is an acceptable loss IMO.

 

[CreamCloud0]

??? When did that become essential / central to the design philosophy of D&D? I come from the assumption that the base design assumes 1 fighter (damage), 1 Rogue (skill), 1 Wizard (rogue), 1 Cleric (healer). Obviously that is not required, but that is the core to me. However, never have I thought the design goal was to have an all martial party.

i mean, didn't 5e especially try to come in with the approach of 'no class is essential to playing'? except alot of roles or capabilities are functionally restricted to being a spellcaster.

 

[dave2008]

i mean, didn't 5e especially try to come in with the approach of 'no class is essential to playing'? except alot of roles or capabilities are functionally restricted to being a spellcaster.

IDK or perhaps IDR. However, I don't think any one class has ever been essential to playing D&D. Regardless, not requiring any one class is a far cry from being built around the philosophy of an all martial group.