Link here, for the curious. I'd strongly encourage you to read through his posts - he addresses a LOT of issues I've seen discussed on this forum. Whether or not you think he can deliver is still up to you, but as far as the goals and design philosophy of 5E, I'm a lot less worried.
Here are a few choice quotes that make me feel like we're not being completely ignored:
One of the big things we learned from 4e is that having a robust math system is a big help for the game.
If you look at where we are right now, the core game leans more toward combat as war. Fights are fast and reward people who can get advantage or force the monsters to commit piecemeal. You can become overwhelmed if you let all 10 goblins rush you at once.
For combat as sport, that is 100% where the full blown tactical rules module is aiming. This is one of those areas where groups have very different tastes, and modularity should help us bridge that gap if we do it right.
We're introducing a system of combat maneuvers, and we're also looking at stuff like the Book of Nine Swords, psionics, and the focus feats from the 3.5 PH 2 for inspiration for martial characters. In many ways, the key is finding a way to express those options that preserves the feel and flavor of D&D while also keeping the classes unique.
We're completely re-working armor. We're bulking up heavy armor, giving medium armor a better definition, and slightly pulling back on light armor.
1. We didn't have the fighter stuff done, and we also wanted to see if it felt weird to have clerics who can both pew-pew and bash-bash, so that's what we went with. A more complex fighter is in the works.
2. Here's the biggest thing people don't see when it comes to magic missile vs. the fighter - the fighter's multiple attacks at higher levels. Of course, if it's still unbalanced we'll fix it.
3. A full combat system is something that we expect will be in the core, but a formal interaction system is likely to be in a module. At this stage, combat speaks more directly to making healing, the actual combat rules, and character balance in a fight key. In other words, it provides an environment that better matches what the core covers in terms of core mechanics. That said, in reading play reports we're definitely looking to see if DMs are adding in those elements themselves, or if they need more mechanical pointers to bring those things into play.
You could say it [regarding 18 rats as an encounter] was a good idea in that it gave us a lot of immediate, aggressive feedback to never, ever, ever do that again and to immediately, right now, fix that.
First, I think that 4e fans will see more stuff they like - the tactical rules module, maneuvers for fighters, other magic systems - as we move along. So, that's one I think we can fix. What I hope for people who liked 4e is that they get the balance they want and the options to have cool, complex tactical battles that move much faster.
The key to me is to get out of the business of dictating what D&D must be for all groups, and instead give individual DMs the ability to shape the game as they see fit.
Regarding his article from 7 years back on the DM-may-I issue:
This is an easy one - we have a maneuver system in process. Also, the tactical rules module I'm writing as a lot more detail and removes DM adjudication to some parts of the rules (cover) for groups that want that.
The key to that post is that different players like different parts of the game, and their mechanical needs are much different. If you like combat as a tactical challenge, it's irritating if the challenge becomes much more about convincing the DM to let you do stuff rather than using the rules to come up with tactics to overcome an enemy.
People who like combat like the rules as arbiter more than the DM as arbiter. OTOH, people who like interaction and getting into character probably want the DM to take an active hand in judging things, rather than manipulating rules.
So, my outlook has not changed, but what has changed is the idea that one person's outlook should shape how everyone else runs D&D. It really speaks to modularity - let people shape the game to fit how they want to play.
And finally,
I mean, when we talk about modularity and making the game that people want to play, it's not like this enormous prank or something. We're aren't printing the first draft of the playtest as the final, unalterable game. That would defeat the purpose of the playtest.
Link here, for the curious. I'd strongly encourage you to read through his posts - he addresses a LOT of issues I've seen discussed on this forum. Whether or not you think he can deliver is still up to you, but as far as the goals and design philosophy of 5E, I'm a lot less worried.
Here are a few choice quotes that make me feel like we're not being completely ignored:
One of the big things we learned from 4e is that having a robust math system is a big help for the game.
If you look at where we are right now, the core game leans more toward combat as war. Fights are fast and reward people who can get advantage or force the monsters to commit piecemeal. You can become overwhelmed if you let all 10 goblins rush you at once.
For combat as sport, that is 100% where the full blown tactical rules module is aiming. This is one of those areas where groups have very different tastes, and modularity should help us bridge that gap if we do it right.
We're introducing a system of combat maneuvers, and we're also looking at stuff like the Book of Nine Swords, psionics, and the focus feats from the 3.5 PH 2 for inspiration for martial characters. In many ways, the key is finding a way to express those options that preserves the feel and flavor of D&D while also keeping the classes unique.
We're completely re-working armor. We're bulking up heavy armor, giving medium armor a better definition, and slightly pulling back on light armor.
1. We didn't have the fighter stuff done, and we also wanted to see if it felt weird to have clerics who can both pew-pew and bash-bash, so that's what we went with. A more complex fighter is in the works.
2. Here's the biggest thing people don't see when it comes to magic missile vs. the fighter - the fighter's multiple attacks at higher levels. Of course, if it's still unbalanced we'll fix it.
3. A full combat system is something that we expect will be in the core, but a formal interaction system is likely to be in a module. At this stage, combat speaks more directly to making healing, the actual combat rules, and character balance in a fight key. In other words, it provides an environment that better matches what the core covers in terms of core mechanics. That said, in reading play reports we're definitely looking to see if DMs are adding in those elements themselves, or if they need more mechanical pointers to bring those things into play.
You could say it [regarding 18 rats as an encounter] was a good idea in that it gave us a lot of immediate, aggressive feedback to never, ever, ever do that again and to immediately, right now, fix that.
First, I think that 4e fans will see more stuff they like - the tactical rules module, maneuvers for fighters, other magic systems - as we move along. So, that's one I think we can fix. What I hope for people who liked 4e is that they get the balance they want and the options to have cool, complex tactical battles that move much faster.
The key to me is to get out of the business of dictating what D&D must be for all groups, and instead give individual DMs the ability to shape the game as they see fit.
Regarding his article from 7 years back on the DM-may-I issue:
This is an easy one - we have a maneuver system in process. Also, the tactical rules module I'm writing as a lot more detail and removes DM adjudication to some parts of the rules (cover) for groups that want that.
The key to that post is that different players like different parts of the game, and their mechanical needs are much different. If you like combat as a tactical challenge, it's irritating if the challenge becomes much more about convincing the DM to let you do stuff rather than using the rules to come up with tactics to overcome an enemy.
People who like combat like the rules as arbiter more than the DM as arbiter. OTOH, people who like interaction and getting into character probably want the DM to take an active hand in judging things, rather than manipulating rules.
So, my outlook has not changed, but what has changed is the idea that one person's outlook should shape how everyone else runs D&D. It really speaks to modularity - let people shape the game to fit how they want to play.
And finally,
I mean, when we talk about modularity and making the game that people want to play, it's not like this enormous prank or something. We're aren't printing the first draft of the playtest as the final, unalterable game. That would defeat the purpose of the playtest.
Mmh, many great promises... when I see I will believe...
Classes also give ability bonuses, so the ideas is that a human is more balanced than other races and that the other races are a little more focused vs. the generalist human. Anyone can take maneuvers. We talked a lot about this, and the big key fell in two places - it inflates AC unless you take Dex out of that equation, and it creates big gaps in accuracy unless you take Str/Dex out of attack rolls. That's the plan, though you'll need to seek out character options for that. Healing is definitely going to get a number of dials to let DMs tweak it to fit their games. You can imagine a range that starts with "Festering wounds and missing limbs" on one end and has "Sleep cures all ills" on the other.
Everyone can take maneuvers, so martial characters get no unique toys. Now combine that with this:
Right now, it's mainly a feel thing. We could easily change some classes to themes, but the key lies in what feels right for the game. Also, some classes have enough unique mechanics that we might be overloaded the theme system if we tried to make that work. For instance, right now a theme gives you one thing at level 1. Would that feel correct for a paladin or monk? My sense is that it come across as a little too thin. OTOH, if a class feels like it could work in that way, we'll explore it. The assassin comes to mind - aside from poison use, a lot of the key assassin elements can be covered by the rogue.
Themes only give one ability per feat. This means that a level 20 fighter is capped at 10 maneuvers, ever. But a Cleric could get those same 10 maneuvers, and also have his spells. Someone please explain to me how this helps the caster dominance problem?
Themes only give one ability per feat. This means that a level 20 fighter is capped at 10 maneuvers, ever. But a Cleric could get those same 10 maneuvers, and also have his spells. Someone please explain to me how this helps the caster dominance problem?
Well, don't forget the two themes thing the fighter has going for him, doubling his potential manuvers.
Well, don't forget the two themes thing the fighter has going for him, doubling his potential manuvers.
I still think that idea is a cheap copout in lieu of doing actual design work on the Fighter. The Rogue gets Schemes that give him sets of unique tricks, why doesn't the Fighter get Forms or Schools that allow the same? Something roughly analogous to 7th Sea's schools would work very nicely, I think. Want an aggressive, single-blade Fighter? Choose langes schwert, which focuses on devastating efficiency with a long blade. Want a defensive brick wall? Choose legionnaire, which builds his defense around trapping opponents between his shield and his weapon. Want a lightning-quick style that attacks from all directions? Choose florentine, which fights with a blade in either hand. That kind of thing.
Themes only give one ability per feat. This means that a level 20 fighter is capped at 10 maneuvers, ever. But a Cleric could get those same 10 maneuvers, and also have his spells. Someone please explain to me how this helps the caster dominance problem?
Where are you getting this from? You're making a lot of assumptions about how Themes and Feats work, when we have no real data on either. Is there any particular reason why the Theme that grants combat maneuvers shouldn't work like the Magic User Theme and grant several at once?
And the "caster dominance problem" is something they've said they're addressing elsewhere in the math. To actually answer your question, though; a Cleric could take those same maneuvers, yes; but every round he's using one of those is a round he's not using a spell of his, and he's not taken any Themes that make his spellcasting stronger.
I'm just fine with combat maneuver systems being available to anyone, just like MU is available to anyone. A Fighter who busts out a magic missile instead of a crossbow when the fight happens at a distance is no different from a Wizard who reaches for a longsword instead of a shocking grasp when the fighting gets up close and personal.
...That is contingent on the Fighters also getting something more, however, as I said above.
Well, don't forget the two themes thing the fighter has going for him, doubling his potential manuvers.
I still think that idea is a cheap copout in lieu of doing actual design work on the Fighter. The Rogue gets Schemes that give him sets of unique tricks, why doesn't the Fighter get Forms or Schools that allow the same? Something roughly analogous to 7th Sea's schools would work very nicely, I think. Want an aggressive, single-blade Fighter? Choose langes schwert, which focuses on devastating efficiency with a long blade. Want a defensive brick wall? Choose legionnaire, which builds his defense around trapping opponents between his shield and his weapon. Want a lightning-quick style that attacks from all directions? Choose florentine, which fights with a blade in either hand. That kind of thing.
Themes only give one ability per feat. This means that a level 20 fighter is capped at 10 maneuvers, ever. But a Cleric could get those same 10 maneuvers, and also have his spells. Someone please explain to me how this helps the caster dominance problem?
Where are you getting this from? You're making a lot of assumptions about how Themes and Feats work, when we have no real data on either. Is there any particular reason why the Theme that grants combat maneuvers shouldn't work like the Magic User Theme and grant several at once?
And the "caster dominance problem" is something they've said they're addressing elsewhere in the math. To actually answer your question, though; a Cleric could take those same maneuvers, yes; but every round he's using one of those is a round he's not using a spell of his, and he's not taken any Themes that make his spellcasting stronger.
I'm just fine with combat maneuver systems being available to anyone, just like MU is available to anyone. A Fighter who busts out a magic missile instead of a crossbow when the fight happens at a distance is no different from a Wizard who reaches for a longsword instead of a shocking grasp when the fighting gets up close and personal.
...That is contingent on the Fighters also getting something more, however, as I said above.
I agree; I think a fighter should get a discipline (or something) that is similar to the role scheme plays wih a rogue. It would go a long way to addressing the fighter's issue in 3e in my opinion.
I'm with the OP on this, I like what they're saying. Now I want to see it put into action. And like Kalranya, I'm okay with all classes having access to some maneuvers, as long as Fighters are Kings in that Castle.
Themes only give one ability per feat. This means that a level 20 fighter is capped at 10 maneuvers, ever. But a Cleric could get those same 10 maneuvers, and also have his spells. Someone please explain to me how this helps the caster dominance problem?
Where are you getting this from? You're making a lot of assumptions about how Themes and Feats work, when we have no real data on either.
Is there any particular reason why the Theme that grants combat maneuvers shouldn't work like the Magic User Theme and grant several at once?
Read the second quote from mearls I put up in the post you quoted. He says that themes are only giving one ability at level 1. That means he's saying all feats are one ability. That implies the magic user theme has probably already been altered so they don't give more than one ability at level 1.
And the "caster dominance problem" is something they've said they're addressing elsewhere in the math. To actually answer your question, though; a Cleric could take those same maneuvers, yes; but every round he's using one of those is a round he's not using a spell of his, and he's not taken any Themes that make his spellcasting stronger.
But the Melee Cleric isn't casting most of his spells in combat. A lot of his spells are buffs. Even his heal is a non-action. Any maneuvers he gets are just gravy.
You can't fix the problem of option diversity with math. It just doesn't work that way. You can balance out combat damage output that way, maybe. But it doesn't fix casters dominating, it just limits their domination a little bit. But when you can have a caster who can put all of his spells into passive buffing and then take the Fighter's maneuver set on top of that? It's a recipe for trouble no matter which way you look at it. This is without even saying that all classes deserve to have a unique ability.
I'm just fine with combat maneuver systems being available to anyone, just like MU is available to anyone. A Fighter who busts out a magic missile instead of a crossbow when the fight happens at a distance is no different from a Wizard who reaches for a longsword instead of a shocking grasp when the fighting gets up close and personal.
Sure, if someone can spend a feat to get a couple cantrip-equivalent maneuvers, that's fine. I don't care if the wizard or cleric can pick up bull rush or whatever with a feat. What I do disagree with is making it so the only things that Fighters get is something that everyone else can also get. 3.5 went down this route, it didn't work. It doesn't matter if the math works and you can still deal level appropriate damage when everyone else has access to tons of options you don't, while you have no unique options of your own.
