(con't) I think that the game does need to reward both good Character Building AND good Party Building. I mean, it is fun sometimes to make a special group that breaks from the norm, but part of the reason that is fun is because it does in fact make the whole concept more challenging. A group of all fighters is great in straight combat, but the lack of the other 3 archetypes makes it harder to avoid traps, handle swarms, counter magic, and heal magically, as well as repel undead. A party of all...
View full comment(con't) I think that the game does need to reward both good Character Building AND good Party Building. I mean, it is fun sometimes to make a special group that breaks from the norm, but part of the reason that is fun is because it does in fact make the whole concept more challenging. A group of all fighters is great in straight combat, but the lack of the other 3 archetypes makes it harder to avoid traps, handle swarms, counter magic, and heal magically, as well as repel undead. A party of all Clerics is a little more rounded, especially if each is a cleric of a different God/Domain so they are better able to sub for missing archetypes, but still, their not quite as good at AOE as if they had a Wizard type, they aren't as good at trap-finding than if they had a Rogue, etc... A group of all Wizards is drastically hurting in the AC and HP departments. Much weaker in toe to toe fighting, however, with properly diverse spell selection, they can handle a lot of situations. They are still shy on healing.
Reward good Role-playing, reward good Character Building, reward good Background/storytelling, and reward good Party Building. Simple as that!
I love playing clerics, but I also like the option of DMing a world inspired by Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones - both settings with lower magic and less healing. Just as Mike Mearls likes to run an all day castle siege, and Chris Perkins a new campaign with lots of political intrigue, I think the basic rules should allow for an easy to use option for non-magical, or more rare, or slower forms of healing. Keep up the good work, Mike - and thanks as always for listening!
...halflings should return to their origins -hobbits- if we want that the power-of-the-genre-archetypes concept which D&D is based upon since it came to life spread its magic; it seems they do so and I'm very happy!
The problem with satyrs being male only is it is not really grounded in any sort of history. Satyrs weren't originally half-goat half men, fauns were and they could be female as well. There was a god and goddess that were fauns. Additionally, though it is more modern (by the 16th century), female satyrs or satyress' became prevalent. If you want to split the genders, include fauns (the O.G. satyr) as the female version, but to not have a classic female version against the role of history and...
View full commentThe problem with satyrs being male only is it is not really grounded in any sort of history. Satyrs weren't originally half-goat half men, fauns were and they could be female as well. There was a god and goddess that were fauns. Additionally, though it is more modern (by the 16th century), female satyrs or satyress' became prevalent. If you want to split the genders, include fauns (the O.G. satyr) as the female version, but to not have a classic female version against the role of history and popular modern art of this century I think is a bad call.
I don't mind the idea of female satyrs (precedent in Fauns, from Roman myth, they were uncommon, but existed), male harpies (just makes sense to me, unless harpies come into being some other way, curse, god-spawn, etc), inccubi (male succubi, precedent in Medieval myth, tho they did have different abilities), maedars (male Medusa, but with different characteristics and slightly different powers), but I am hesitant about male nymphs/dryads. In legend, dryads where just one kind of nymph, and the...
View full commentI don't mind the idea of female satyrs (precedent in Fauns, from Roman myth, they were uncommon, but existed), male harpies (just makes sense to me, unless harpies come into being some other way, curse, god-spawn, etc), inccubi (male succubi, precedent in Medieval myth, tho they did have different abilities), maedars (male Medusa, but with different characteristics and slightly different powers), but I am hesitant about male nymphs/dryads. In legend, dryads where just one kind of nymph, and the word nymph came from a Greek word that meant "marriageable young woman," or "virgin," depending on the translation (I've seen it both ways). To that end, I think those should stay as they are, but my opinion is biased, and if they were included to have male versions, I would probably simply exclude them from my game. BUT, if they are included, I think they should be sort of like the maedar. There should be notable differences between the genders (females are lithe and graceful, males are strong and powerfully built? They are supposed to be the "ideal" of beauty, but also defenders of nature), and a difference in abilities. I'm also in favor of a variety of nymphs, however, like the Greek legends. Without male nymphs, you should explain how new, full blooded nymphs come into being. Is a nymph's daughter also a nymph, regardless of father (leaving room for inherited templates)?
As for the centaurs, only thing that bugged me was the exeption to them using their hooves as weapons. Charging centaur, dual wielding lances, with improved overrun. THAT is scary.
As for minotaurs, anything was playable in 3E, you just had to work around over inflated LA. The DM's I know worked with players wanting to play exotic characters. But I do like the two versions. Could we differentiate them with a new name, sub-race, etc? Feral Minotaurs (different from Savage Species)?
I like the prehensile tail - I use something like that (in my games Kobolds are deamonlings). I don't like the connection to dragons - I don't like the weakest creatures to be tied to the most powerful in some contrived family bond. To be clear, I have nothing against Kobolds. In fact, some of my best monsters are Kobolds! I believe Draconians (Dragon Lance) cover the humanoid-dragon niche quite well. Anyway, you forgot to post the picture of a Kobold from 2e - you know, the one with...
View full commentI like the prehensile tail - I use something like that (in my games Kobolds are deamonlings).
I don't like the connection to dragons - I don't like the weakest creatures to be tied to the most powerful in some contrived family bond. To be clear, I have nothing against Kobolds. In fact, some of my best monsters are Kobolds! I believe Draconians (Dragon Lance) cover the humanoid-dragon niche quite well.
Anyway, you forgot to post the picture of a Kobold from 2e - you know, the one with the big bulgy eyes...
I must say you do have a difficult job in laying out the strategy as you release each new edition. From the standpoint of the three groups we've play tested 5e (Next) with we've come to the consensus that you must balance: 1. Maximization within the market segments that yield the highest profitability (I am guessing this gets younger as the years go on). 2. Various ages of D&D players who each have a special place in their heart for a specific edition. 3. Keeping the original...
View full commentI must say you do have a difficult job in laying out the strategy as you release each new edition. From the standpoint of the three groups we've play tested 5e (Next) with we've come to the consensus that you must balance:
1. Maximization within the market segments that yield the highest profitability (I am guessing this gets younger as the years go on).
2. Various ages of D&D players who each have a special place in their heart for a specific edition.
3. Keeping the original books in an edition release relevant as you release more books.
4. Upholding the basis of every facet of the RPG landscape, because let's be honest D&D dictates the game mechanics of every other table top and console game RPG that temporally follows.
You seem to be referring to point three though in terms of core books that we purchased vs. those of essentials. Of course I am guessing here, as I don't have the sales figures in front of me. One assumption, that which I think you are making, is ease of use for new players, which I would agree that essentials made it easier for new players to join. I myself found it easier to bring in about 30 new players, using the essentials over time, and then supplementing with PHB 2/3, and the other fantastic add-ons. The other way to possibly interpret it though is that PHB1 just became outdated in 4e with all the new DDI content that was published, especially in the areas of dailies, encounters, and utility powers.
Either way your new strategy sounds fundamentally sound. The key in expansion, in my opinion, though would be to continue to provide new content in the DDI compendium, and make it easy to access with a mobile app. In this manner you can reach more people if you put in place growth mechanisms to get a larger DDI subscriber base, and you also benefit from a beta-release approach being that you integrate it so well with the forum.
In summary I like the approach though, love the beta-test, and am excited for the 5e release.
I would never call the lack of fluff reason for mechanics a weak point for 4e, personally, I think one of 4e's strengths was it put the fluff back where it belonged, in the hands of DMs and Players...out of combat actions, story, roleplaying, all work better in an environment where the rules aren't focused on them, but rather on just resolution mechanics, which 4e was. The DM an the Players bring the story, the exploration, and the interaction, they bring the story alive, and the more staid and...
View full commentI would never call the lack of fluff reason for mechanics a weak point for 4e, personally, I think one of 4e's strengths was it put the fluff back where it belonged, in the hands of DMs and Players...out of combat actions, story, roleplaying, all work better in an environment where the rules aren't focused on them, but rather on just resolution mechanics, which 4e was. The DM an the Players bring the story, the exploration, and the interaction, they bring the story alive, and the more staid and mechanical and combat focused the rules are, the more it frees the game up for that.
Now, I understand how some had trouble doing 4e in TotM (I didn't, when needed, I've run it just fine that way, but have always preferred figures anyway) As for player and tactical decisions, leave those to the Players and DM explain, I don't want canned explanations, I want the PCs to have to come up with why they do what they do, and how.
Now, elements of 4e in 5e, let's see, the whole new HitDice healing mechanic is clearly a variation on Healing Surges. I see some other small influences of 4e, which are ever evolving as the playtest progresses, but that's the clearest example so far. At-Will spells, Backgrounds and Themes/Specialties all harken to 4e (and previous editions have had examples that were similar too, because that's where 4e got them)
Now, I know a ton of non-4e players who are diving in and participating in the playtesting right now, plus the new Season of Encounters is going to give the choice of 4e or 5e Playtest and most areas I've heard are opting for the 5e route. I'm looking forward to showing up for Encounters to play 5e myself. I'm both an Olde and New School gamer having played every edition, and yes, those who are active in the playtest and on the website will be the most vocally acknowledged, considering, but the more others encourage people to join the playtest, the more diverse the overall feedback can become
View full comment