Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9782612" data-attributes="member: 2067">Commentary as I'm listening to it:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"Blue Magic" design was part of what informed the design of Shield and Counterspell, since Mearls is a big Blue-style M:TG player. This could probably be a whole thread of its own, but the Blue playstyle is a big part of why I am not an M:TG fan. These spells being such annoyances shows that he was successful at this design....but maybe that the design has some issues....</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Modularity is a good idea because it helps isolate problematic design. This theme remains strong in the conversation, and they talk about some areas where some modularity might go a little too far (they mention the ship rules in Ghosts of Saltmarsh than then were not picked up for Spelljammer, where they'd be a logical fit)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Challenge Rating as a "measurement" really helps codify some groups' issues with it. I'd have loved to see a version of D&D that doesn't have a CR. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I love the point made about how DMs can filter through the "mess" pretty well, but D&D doesn't always equip DMs to do that, because D&D often is silent about the design logic behind its decisions. The DMG would logically be the place for this. 2024 makes it worse (ie: removing the monster-building math). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Interesting to hear about Mearls's current evaluation of Fireball and other AOE spells. He mentions that the "doubling" (assuming two targets who both fail saves) to calculate the damage value of spells like this was probably wrong, and that he actually add about 70% to the base damage rather than 100%, based on his play experience. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fascinating to hear the comparison between M:TG's "strategy" and D&D's "lack of strategy." Mearls thinks this is a mistake, and posits that for fighting monsters, your strategy should be winning the action economy by focus-firing down monsters, and thus an AOE spell like Fireball doesn't help you that much. "Hypnotic Pattern is way worse than Fireball." This is another thing that might be worth blowing up into a whole thread, because I'm not 100% sure I'm on board with his strategy proposition...or if I am, I'm not sure that his proposed strategy is actually what we want (vs. just being what we wound up with). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">He also mentions that upcasting in general is way too low: proposes Fireball should go up by 2d6/level (to continue to be on par) and Magic Missile should go up by 3 darts per spell level</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The link between compatibility and modularity is curious. Shea talks about combining LevelUp5e (calls out the Supply system & the exploration system) with 2014 5e with Tales of the Valiant's luck system (which he really loves) and doom points (which he also loves, as an alternative to legendary resistance, because they let you do other things). This is something I love about 5e's mess. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Shea mentions that subclasses are one of the areas that AREN'T very modular. Which, yeah! Maybe they should be more modular!</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There's some rulings-vs-rules conversation where Mearls comes out swinging with "I don't think role playing games are games, they are an activity." I'm following his logic here, and it's a very interesting lens to look at D&D design through.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some gushing about Advantage and how it's binary (and I agree in a huge way - and am annoyed by the constant guidance/bless that I'm seeing).</li> </ul></blockquote>

Verification