D&D General The Resurrection of Mike Mearls Games.

[Thomas Shey]

Unfortunately, so many people seem so beholden to the rulebooks... which is why they try so hard to get WotC to change the rules in said rulebooks-- so they can have what they want printed in the format they seem to need.

As I've noted before, most people are not GMs. If its in the rulebook they can expect to get to use it with some reliability; if its dependent on a GM houseruling, that's far less likely.

 

[overgeeked]

As I've noted before, most people are not GMs. If its in the rulebook they can expect to get to use it with some reliability; if its dependent on a GM houseruling, that's far less likely.

There's no guarantee that simply because it's printed in the book you'll get to use it. Everything in the books is dependent on the referee.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As I've noted before, most people are not GMs. If its in the rulebook they can expect to get to use it with some reliability; if its dependent on a GM houseruling, that's far less likely.

And most GMs have better things to be doing than fixing rules. I'm quite capable of writing my own system (for that matter I'm currently running my own 4e-inspired system where I've pared the rules right back and written every character class to fit on a double sided trifold with all options) - but when I'm creatively improving things it won't necessarily be in the direction that some random person on the internet wants. And part of the point of using an off the shelf system is so I can get on with the world and the NPCs and let the game designers do their job rather than pay for an inadequate product. If the game was intended to be played with drama dice then it would have shipped with those rules.

 

[Shardstone]

I'll say that Mearls view that game books are toolkits for making a game is probably how I see games, and how I wish more people saw games. When you see it as a toolkit, everyone at the table is given a little bit of permission to be like "Hey, what if we tried X thing with Y rule?" etc etc.

Given that DND14 has a lot of design decisions influenced by time constraints, I think people should be even more emboldened now. After all, while the game works well, a lot of things don't really obey a strict secret formula. Thus, bother DM and player should see the rules as readily mutable imo.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's no guarantee that simply because it's printed in the book you'll get to use it. Everything in the books is dependent on the referee.

No guarantee, but given "Its in the book" and "random player wants a new rule to support it" I know which way I'd bet is more likely to be successfu.

 

[Zaukrie]

Good stuff released today. I'm very interested in everyone's thoughts about the layout of the syatblocks not just the new ideas.

 

[el-remmen]

Not sure I am a fan of “scripts” for general monster encounters. Tho I have no issue with them when presented about a specific example in an adventure because of the narrative context.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Good stuff released today. I'm very interested in everyone's thoughts about the layout of the syatblocks not just the new ideas.

Interesting material there. First I'm going to come straight out and say Xargath doesn't feel physically mighty enough for a dragon for me; if you were to replace the rot/necrotic with fire then that would feel like an excellent statblock for something fairly like a Warhammer Lord of Change to me; a large intelligent flying magic wielding demon who can use muscle if they are forced to and around whom magical things happen. (It also seems weird for a dragon master of time magic who is explicitly "Death's Sovereign" to be only CR5ish).

But I do like what it is doing in many ways; welcome back both Minions and Instinctive Actions from 4e! And I see no real reason for solos to roll initiative. (Groups, yes, to split them up). I dislike different CP at different levels - but that's a flaw in 5e not the CP system.

 

[Zaukrie]

Not sure I am a fan of “scripts” for general monster encounters. Tho I have no issue with them when presented about a specific example in an adventure because of the narrative context.

I'm not sure they are scripts, there are options every turn, mostly. It's a mash up of legendary actions and villain actions. As long as we have options every turn, I'm a fan. Not sure I like fixed initiative, but then I don't like initiative in general.

 

[Zaukrie]

Interesting material there. First I'm going to come straight out and say Xargath doesn't feel physically mighty enough for a dragon for me; if you were to replace the rot/necrotic with fire then that would feel like an excellent statblock for something fairly like a Warhammer Lord of Change to me; a large intelligent flying magic wielding demon who can use muscle if they are forced to and around whom magical things happen. (It also seems weird for a dragon master of time magic who is explicitly "Death's Sovereign" to be only CR5ish).

But I do like what it is doing in many ways; welcome back both Minions and Instinctive Actions from 4e! And I see no real reason for solos to roll initiative. (Groups, yes, to split them up). I dislike different CP at different levels - but that's a flaw in 5e not the CP system.

I love different CP for different levels! Ah, art.