D&D General Mike Mearls sits down with Ben from Questing Beast

[MerricB]

I'm about halfway through the interview. I feel like Mearls is overstating how much more tactical 5.5 is than 5E and how much more people are focusing on builds when in my experience they're about the same. The mention of monsters doing more than one damage type with an attack as a new 5.5 innovation is odd to me as we had creatures dealing multiple damage types from the 2014 Monster Manual itself (such as the vampire's bite). I will give him that tying feats to backgrounds was a bad idea (though thankfully easy to homebrew away), but as someone for whom weapon masteries was the most exciting new innovation in 5.5 I'm very much opposed to the idea that it creates unneeded tactical complexity (my second 5E PC was a battlemaster fighter/hexblade warlock with pushing attack, repelling blast, and grasp of Hadar, so another way to push enemies is very welcome).

Mearls is likely to say it's a flaw of 5E as well. You end up making playing the barbarian more about the player's maths skills than the fantasy of being a barbarian.

(He has certainly been candid about the flaws with the 2014 MM & CR design).

Cheers!

 

[overgeeked]

ACKSII does fighters rather well, probably the best of the three.

Too bad the creator is one of the more glaringly problematic people in the OSR scene.

 

[Zardnaar]

Take a look at Old Swords Reign, and Into the Unknown.

Both are attempts to distill 5e to OSR levels.

Personally I like the way Old Swords Reign does characters, and the procedural stuff from Into the Unknown.




ACKSII does fighters rather well, probably the best of the three.

ACKs 2 sounds good. Except the guy who made it. Ethics and all that.

 

[TiQuinn]

No problem. Pick five or six classes that fit the tropes of the setting best. I assume, this means remove the fullcasters. So: Artificer, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Paladin, and Rogue. That is seven. To decide which one or two to drop, I would go with the TV tropes, the fivesome band.

Maybe for flavor emphasis, something like:

Smart: Artificer
Heart: Paladin
Strong: Barbarian or Fighter
Rebel: Rogue
Jock (wellrounded): Monk or Ranger


Also. It is easy to have a "level 0" in 2024. Just use the background feat and skills, plus add say 8 hit points, simple weapons, and a choice of two: leather armor, shield, mage armor, two martial weapons, or a cantrip. No, class benefits yet. This helps tables that want to start off "fragile".


For each class, the setting designer picks the one subclass that works best. In other words, one choice is no choice. There are no (other) subclasses.


Feats are instead "slots" for magic items.


Slow down the rate of level advancement. In my games I do the following.
To get from level 1 to level 2, requires three standard encounters. Then to get to level 3 requires six standard encounters. And so on.

Levels 1-4: 3, 6, 9,
Levels 5-8: 12, 15, 15, 15
Levels 9-12: 12, 9, 9, 9
Levels 13+: 9 each level

I follow the standard 5e math, making a point to zoom thru low levels.

But tweak to taste. If your table likes low levels, then stretch out the number of encounters it takes to reach the next level. Eventually go "epic" at level 9 or whichever level. Meaning, one gains a feat at each new level instead of any class abilities.


Feats (including the feat that improves abilities) are instead "slots" to attune to a powerful magic item.


It takes almost no effort to do any of this. For a table, the DM needs to decide which options get into the setting, then use session zero to make sure all the players are aboard. The actual setting can be done on the fly. Start local, and fill out the map as players explore. Take notes to remember what was where.

I feel like I’ve said “I would like a steak” and you keep telling me about all the different toppings I can put on a pizza.

 

[TiQuinn]

@TiQuinn
Think of magic items as a kind of multiclassing.

Instead of gaining a level in a class, one can gain a feat at the next level. This feat is a "slot" to attune to a magic item. Then the DM selects or creates magic items while using feats as a measure for how powerful to make each magic item.

This likewise stretches out the class levels, to keep the feel low level, and still stays moreorless on par with the math of a typical 5e game.

That’s fine but feats or slots are not typically a DM facing mechanic, they’re a player mechanic. I don’t really think there needs to be feats and slots. There was already a system for limiting the number of magic items one could use in 2e, and it was fine for that system.

 

[KYRON45]

Did 5e fall apart? Isn't it one of the best selling games ever invented by man?*

*
hy·per·bo·le

1. exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Zardnaar]

Did 5e fall apart? Isn't it one of the best selling games ever invented by man?*

*
hy·per·bo·le

1. exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Biggest selling edition/RPG ever.

Biggest problem is it's 10+ years old thats basically it.

 

[mamba]

Did 5e fall apart?

no, and the video does not claim that it did

 

[overgeeked]

no, and the video does not claim that it did

The video's title and thumbnail says it did.

 

[Scribe]

The video's title and thumbnail says it did.

Without clickbait, how would the internet even function?