D&D 5E Mike Mearls's Tweets

[GX.Sigma]

Nobody seemed to be talking about it, so I thought I'd start a thread.

Mike Mearls has been talking about Expertise Dice on Twitter:

I'm about 80% sure that the fighter and monk will be the only classes that use the dice for combat maneuvers w/o spending feats.

Also, fighters will have a fighter-only list of maneuvers (same for monks, ki-based maneuvers) and a few unique mechanics.

[For other classes] It's a damage bonus [not used for non-combat things]. For non-combat, we have some idea for a change to how skills work.

Get expertise die at 1st level but don't add ability mod to damage OR add your mod but no expertise dice until 5th. Which do you choose?

In this world, stat mods apply only to attacks, not to damage...Ability mod to damage unbalances at low levels, is irrelevant at high levels.

He's also been talking about Skills:

Fascinating how much of the playtest feedback can be expressed as, "This mechanic removed a real chance of failure and is thus boring."

[That] sentiment...matches well with one, last bit of violence I'd like to do to skills before locking in the core system

[another user: "I don't like that the Thief in our group always succeeds on DC20 to 25 skill checks. Please fix this."]

A lot of playtesters agree, so that's going to change.

Both of these sound good.

In this world, only Fighters can spend ED to use maneuvers, just because Fighters are awesome. (Also Monks, because Monks are also awesome.) So for other classes, Expertise is not the mechanical core of the class, it's just a thing that the game does to scale damage. And then it can hook onto other things, like feats or optional rules. I am a fan of this.

It would also be cool to not have ability mods to damage. At 10th level, you're rolling 1d8 + 3d10 + 4. Is the +4 really important at that point? It seems more streamlined to just roll your dice and count them up. And if it leads to smaller numbers overall, great!

The skills comment is interesting as well... if skills end up being something other than "roll 1d20+X to see if you're boned," I'll be pleased.

Thoughts?

 

[Falling Icicle]

Removing ability modifiers to damage would be the final straw for me. A stronger person should do more damage from swinging an axe than a weaker person does. This is such a basic, common sense rule I can't believe they're even considering getting rid of it.

It's like they keep running around in circles, breaking what is already fixed and fixing what isn't broken.

 

[Sunseeker]

Isn't using stat-mods to only alter the attack numbers while giving the actual attack lots of dice basically the 3.X caster?

So, it would seem to me that their solution to finally balancing martial and magic is to make martial identical to magic.

 

[Warbringer]

So, it would seem to me that their solution to finally balancing martial and magic is to make martial identical to magic.

You mean 4e ....

 

[Sunseeker]

You mean 4e ....

Sure, but 4e completely redid both martial AND magic.

DDN is clearly going for a more "traditional", ie: 3.X vancian magic.

 

[Gadget]

Removing ability modifiers to damage would be the final straw for me. A stronger person should do more damage from swinging an axe than a weaker person does. This is such a basic, common sense rule I can't believe they're even considering getting rid of it.

It's like they keep running around in circles, breaking what is already fixed and fixing what isn't broken.

Well this is an abstract system, and strength till adds to your to hit bonus, it is just getting rid of the 'double dipping' problem. This is where excessive simulation-ism can lead to broken results.

 

[Gorgoroth]

...

Even though ability mod to-hit is worth more bonus to damage statistically, since you only get damage period if you hit in the first place

(back to the old 4e mantra +1 to hit is worth more than +1 damage)

I think in the flat math system it makes more sense to add str-mod to damage instead. And definitely not Dex-mod to damage!!! it's annoying. At least give Strength SOMETHING over Dex. I'm fine with Dex to-hit with finesse, even all weapons (actually it even makes more sense to say Dex is only adds to-hit and str only adds to damage), but that would further benefit Dex min-maxers yet again.

Anyway, let us see what Mearls & co come up with. If the recent past is anything to go by...the will of the people will have it's voice heard, one way or another.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I still don't like everyone getting expertise dice at the same rate as a damage bonus, because I'd rather see the option of bigger chunks of damage tied to conditions (like 3e sneak attack) or daily power limits (like 3e rage or smite, or 4e dailies).

 

[Rhenny]

I wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of damage modifiers for weapons if different weapons were rated for use by minimum strength or dexterity.

For example, make most of the 1d4 and 1d6 weapons usable by anyone. Rate most of the 1d8 weapons and finesse weapons as needing a STR or DEX score of 13+ to wield effectively. 1d10 weapons needing STR 16+. 1d12 weapons STR 17+...or something like that. Then, stronger PCs will do more damage. More dexterous ones might be able to use a better rapier doing 1d8 instead of a normal one that does 1d6.

I'd even take it a step further and tool weapon damage so that it isn't as swingy. I'd make light weapons do 2d4. Medium 2d6. Heavy 2d8. Most damaging weapons 3d6. This would make damage more reliable, but still random.

These are just some ideas.

 

[MortalPlague]

I'd even take it a step further and tool weapon damage so that it isn't as swingy. I'd make light weapons do 2d4. Medium 2d6. Heavy 2d8. Most damaging weapons 3d6. This would make damage more reliable, but still random.

Can't xp, yada yada. Neat idea, though.