D&D General Mike Mearls says control spells are ruining 5th Edition

Tactical Rules
Cinematic Rules
Monster Role Rules
Well I don't know that those are holes people were asking for or talked about much* during the playtest, but those have absolutely been covered by 3PP. However, how to you know they are "holes," aka areas they designed for but never filled in? I believe that is basically what you described in your post I quoted.

PS - It would be great to hit up @mearls and see if he can confirm those were goals of 5e (tactical rules, cinematic rules, monster roles) and to what degree they were planned to be implemented. I am particular interested in his thoughts on the "modular design" discussion.

*I do recall some discussion on these, but they never seemed like a big deal to me and never featured much as part of the playtest IIRC.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I have an issue with that assumption in itself because we AGAIN do not know if it was their intent, nor what was the mindset and reasoning behind it. You are, once more, making assumptions.
I don't know the reasoning. That's impossible to know without being in the room.

We do know they wanted it We have the quotes.
We do know they didn't do in 10 years of ability to do it. We have the lack of publication.
We do know they allowed 3PPs the opportunity to make it. We read the GSL.

From there...
 

We do know they wanted it We have the quotes.
We only know that some people or person wanted it. We do know a major person who expressed those desires left the company to start his own early on during the design process (before the playtest IIRC). So we do don't know how much the overall design team wanted that or how strong they wanted it.
 

The more I read this the more I'm certain I'm going to adapt Mythras' Sorcery and Theism magic rules for expanding group rituals.

Or even to simulate the idea of magic users taking EXTRA time and resources to make a spell more potent. Summoning a devil on the spot? Sure whatever. Specifically taking a solid week to enact a ritual with 100s of gold worth of rare components, along with permanently sacrificing a hit die or two? Mega Devil summoning.

More for villains than PCs, but to emulate magic in other media (books, movies etc...). After all, it took Merlin years to recover from summoning the Dragon's Breath to help Uther infiltrate a castle and seduce Igraine.
 

We only know that some people or person wanted it. We do know a major person who expressed those desires left the company to start his own early on during the design process (before the playtest IIRC). So we do don't know how much the overall design team wanted that or how strong they wanted it.
exactly.

I don't know the reasoning. That's impossible to know without being in the room.

We do know they wanted it We have the quotes.
We do know they didn't do in 10 years of ability to do it. We have the lack of publication.
We do know they allowed 3PPs the opportunity to make it. We read the GSL.

From there...
...making any conclusions about the intent is a complete guess work based on coincidences. Correlation doesn't equal causation and with no knowledge of how did the design process look, you cannot make declarations like these because you do not know what happenned and lead to specific choices. It's just silly that you took three things and demanded we accept them as part of some big picture, while this is barely holding together.
 

We only know that some people or person wanted it. We do know a major person who expressed those desires left the company to start his own early on during the design process (before the playtest IIRC). So we do don't know how much the overall design team wanted that or how strong they wanted it.
IIRC Both Mearls and Cook stated the desire. I could be wrong.

But that's not the point.

Point is no one did it.
 

Well I don't know that those are holes people were asking for or talked about much* during the playtest, but those have absolutely been covered by 3PP. However, how to you know they are "holes," aka areas they designed for but never filled in? I believe that is basically what you described in your post I quoted.

PS - It would be great to hit up @mearls and see if he can confirm those were goals of 5e (tactical rules, cinematic rules, monster roles) and to what degree they were planned to be implemented. I am particular interested in his thoughts on the "modular design" discussion.

*I do recall some discussion on these, but they never seemed like a big deal to me and never featured much as part of the playtest IIRC.
I'm not sure if those specific rules would've been featured, but my plan (though obviously things changed when I took a job working on Magic) was to use what became Tasha's as the first product to expand what 5e could do.

You might remember two UAs I wrote:
  • Greyhawk initiative, a variant system that used the action you chose for the round to determine the die you rolled for initiative
  • The ranger variant, the proposed retooling of the ranger
If you think back to Tasha's, it had a section of optional class features that you could add or swap into the core classes. My plan was to make that mechanic a lot more robust. Some choices, like the monk's martial arts or the barbarian's rage, would have alternate versions that would give you radically different characters.

For instance, an alternate rage might be Dex-based and make you better at two-weapon fighting. An alternate martial arts feature would be Str-based and let you throw or grapple using ki.

Once that infrastructure was in place and tested, you could do the D&D Tactics book that gave miniatures combat rules and alternate class features that plugged into the core. You wouldn't need to do new classes, just give alternate ways to build the existing ones. You could then do the same thing with a social conflict-based book, a domain game expansion, etc.

This ties back into Greyhawk initiative because you could then give an alternate rule and some class feature patches to support it in the core classes.

(As an aside, you might notice that the 5e system very rarely - ideally never - refers to specific class features in general rules text. That approach means that the classes are like preconstructed Magic decks. You can swap out a lot more than you might think.)
 


IIRC Both Mearls and Cook stated the desire. I could be wrong.

But that's not the point.

Point is no one did it.
And my point is that you draw intent from the fact no one did it and accuse developers if lazily trying to offload finishing the game to 3pp, while we do not know why it happened or what the intent or reasoning was.
 

I'm not sure if those specific rules would've been featured, but my plan (though obviously things changed when I took a job working on Magic) was to use what became Tasha's as the first product to expand what 5e could do.

You might remember two UAs I wrote:
  • Greyhawk initiative, a variant system that used the action you chose for the round to determine the die you rolled for initiative
  • The ranger variant, the proposed retooling of the ranger
If you think back to Tasha's, it had a section of optional class features that you could add or swap into the core classes. My plan was to make that mechanic a lot more robust. Some choices, like the monk's martial arts or the barbarian's rage, would have alternate versions that would give you radically different characters.

For instance, an alternate rage might be Dex-based and make you better at two-weapon fighting. An alternate martial arts feature would be Str-based and let you throw or grapple using ki.

Once that infrastructure was in place and tested, you could do the D&D Tactics book that gave miniatures combat rules and alternate class features that plugged into the core. You wouldn't need to do new classes, just give alternate ways to build the existing ones. You could then do the same thing with a social conflict-based book, a domain game expansion, etc.

This ties back into Greyhawk initiative because you could then give an alternate rule and some class feature patches to support it in the core classes.

(As an aside, you might notice that the 5e system very rarely - ideally never - refers to specific class features in general rules text. That approach means that the classes are like preconstructed Magic decks. You can swap out a lot more than you might think.)
Thank you for response! Any chance you can give us more insight on what the original design team thought about "modular" design and how it was implemented in 5e? You may or may not be aware, but that is an often debated subject on these boards.

Also, I've been following your Odyssey work and it is really interesting. Thank you for digging into the nuts and bolts of 5e an looking at ways to make it better. I've been waiting to update my homebrew 5e game because I like a lot of what you have been developing (not 100%, but a lot :p). Any goals / plans for when you might publish the system?
 

Remove ads

Top