En World: Mike Mearls on stuff... (Tome Show interview from GenCon)
by MerricB
I really want more content for this game. Sure you can definitely go overboardon content and make people feel overwhelmed, but wizards has overcorrected. 5th edition is boring and stale to me at this point, I really have little desire to play or run it (especially after being spoiled with 4th edition beautiful way of handling monsters). I really want an unearthed arcana, as an edition that was sold as being the modular edition, there sure isn't a lot to play with as far as alternate rules are concerned. I really want something that isn't another bloody adventure path. I know some people like them, but plenty of people don't. I don't even look at adventure modules, cuz I never use them, once in a great while there's an intersting one, or it has something cool I want to steal from it, but 99 times out of 100 adventures mean nothing to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only person to feel that way.
tehsquirrely wrote:
That is an interesting comment on the fighter. With the exception of eldritch knight, it is true they have the most generic subclass names (although hunter as a subclass of ranger comes pretty close too).
Mechatarrasque wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
The fighting style bundles in the playtest were more flavourful but they can probably bring those back in a UA article with suggested combinations and maybe a feat.
pauln6 wrote:
tehsquirrely wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
ive got to agree. I have no desire to run an adventure path. Even older modules that i can pick up for 5-10 bucks i usually cherry pick like crazy. As a dm, im super anal about what I want in my setting. The only published setting I have any intrest in being released is Dark Sun, mostly because its radical changes to fantasy norms. 50 dollars is way to steep of a price for me to go by adventure paths, espicaly when the adventure is split into two books, like tryan of dragons and horde was.
To be fair Tyranny of the Dragons did only cost $30 per book which is $60 for the campaign.
Also seeing how these campaigns last for a hundred hours of playtime, the price doesn't seem that high.
I personally are on the opposite side. I only need the PHB and an adventure module and I feel like I got everything I need. If one adventure module is complete, I just need a new one, which is maybe once per year. If they release four per year, I always have multiple to select one from. So I always get the play the best rated ones.
Thanks for posting that!
I definitely agree with the bullet point below. One of the things that really sunk 4e for me was the overwhelming amount of options and abilities out there. After a while, it seemed like for every challenging encounter, there was a corresponding PC ability to nerf it.
As for the D&D movie, I’m wondering at this point, what wizard put a curse on the cinematic property? Ever since the first movie, there have been...“problems.”
Kangodo wrote:
3rd party license.
There we go
tehsquirrely wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yeah, the first actual non-adventure, non-core book not being released til nearly a year and a half after the PHB is a bit slow to me too. I would have thought that first supplement would have come out back in the Spring, at the latest. Hopefully this will start a pattern of a new supplement being released about half way between the release dates of the adventure paths.
tehsquirrely wrote:
* The way things get announced and the role of conventions has changed. They noticed that if they gave a seminar at PAX they'd get a much bigger turnout than at GenCon, so they're moving to announce things and give seminars at PAX, while GenCon is becoming a more gaming-based convention (the gaming is much less at PAX). So GenCon has (for example) the DDAL Epics... It's based very much on what people are actually doing at these conventions..
eberg wrote:
I really want more cool spells. And I could care less about damage spells. I want utility spells and spells that benefit the party. I love spells that teleport people around the battlefield too. A few more archetypes would be nice. I feel the sorcerer has not even been tapped. But other than that I really want genre and setting specific books. Specifically a modern setting, steam punk setting, a cool scifi setting, an ancient world setting. But I am also happy to see those products come from quality 3rd party sources. I have alot of hopes and dreams in Legendary Planets and the new modern setting.
Grazel wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Ath-kethin wrote:
The part that really resonated with me was the philosophy of "Alternatives instead of Errata," as I feel the AL could see positive results of implementing it with regards to determining the AL legality of new content. Instead of outright banning of unbalanced options, like the Aarakocra, I'd prefer to see an AL-specific revision of such material. Doing so would prevent future instances of paying 100% of the price for something that you cannot use X% of, like how the DMG is pretty much only useful to AL DMs as a magic item catalog. I know that AL only makes up a small percentage of the overall D&D community, but it's the primary source of ongoing marketing done for 5e. Adopting this philosophy will make it easier for those of us in the trenches to actually promote the purchase of new materials to our players who only play in-store AL games.
Shasarak wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Grazel wrote:
tehsquirrely wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I do not think that any logical person can claim the game is complete with just the Players Handbook. 
Shasarak wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
If you don't create content you can't make money. I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure that's accurate. I'm not tyring to debate the finer points of economy, and exact release dates. People on these forums get VERY bogged down in minor details to win petty arguments, which is why I don't come here that often any more. I never said I was in the majority, I never said I fact checked everything. Every post is, and should be, taken to be opinion. And it's not like I'm "threatening" to leave D&D, I'm just saying that as the release schedule currently stands I am incredibly unengaged with D&D, and I know I'm not the only one. My 5e books sit on my shelf collecting dust because my friends and I would rather try new games and shake things up than play the same game with no new content at all for nearly a year. Nearly everyone I've talked to about 5th edition has a pretty similar opinion "yes it looks good, and it does a lot of things I like! But there's not much content, and afte a few campaigns it gets stale." I know a lot of people who haven't bought a new D&D book for a while and are interested in 5th, but want to see more content, and setting support. Personally I really want WotC to deliver on their promise of a modular game system with lots of rules you can plug in and out to better suit the type of game you want to run. And at the moment 5th edition isn't that, it feels like, for lack of a better term, 3.5 basic. It feels like basic D&D did to advanced in relation to 3.5. It does a lot of things better, but ultimately they feel very similar and for me right now that isn't a good thing. I had certain expectations of 5th, and not unreasonable ones I think, and many of them have yet to be met a year later. I'm not here to argue with anyone, this is my opinion. I like 5th edition, but it had better get its *** in gear if it wants to keep my attention. That's all there is to it, and everything else is a proposed solution to the problem.
Shasarak wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
He's being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Finding smaller and smaller pieces of the argument to cling to until he can win. Comparing D&D books to novels is like comparing video games to a CCG. It just doesn't make any sense, they're totally different. I'm not even having an arguement with anyone, I came to air my complaints, and list a few ways I think they could be easily resolved. If mistwell thinks different that's whatever to me, but that doesn't invalidate my opinion, and no amount of "objective data" will.
Mistwell likes getting stuck on small things. He thinks D&D has around 30 odd people working on it as he counts things like admoin staff not just the actual designers. Using the same criteria he does Paizo has around 50 staff working on Pathfinder where the real number is more like 20-25.
Outside the core ruyles 5E has not released that much and if you don't like APs or the Realms not much is effectively 0. There is no variety in the release schedule (after the core rules) so far every single item is FR. Opps that may not be technically correct eitherthere was a DM screen in there somewhere as well (DM screen big whoop).
Its liek the arguement over railroading. If someone says they feel an adventure is rail roaded I know exactly what they mean.
Mistwell wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
And another thread lost to pedantic arguments...
edwin_su wrote:
I, for one, am perfectly happy with a slower release schedule than 3e and 4e; it seemed like those 2 editions started pushing through more material than any sane person could use at any one table, just for the sake of the high priced hardcover splatbook, not that 2e didn't start that trend with box set upon box set . . .
I feel like this thread has turned into rules lawyers trying to min/max the statements Mike Mearls made in an interview. 
tehsquirrely wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
i didn't like his lionization of the Concentration Mechanic. D&D functioned perfectly fine for about 30+ years without it.
If you must know what it has done to our games, here's the basic response:
when people see spells that are hyperdependent on the concentration mechanic, those spells don't end up on the spell list of players. They are just mysteriously ignored as worthless.
A few spells with concentration mechanics are kept begrudgingly, but generally liked less than those without concentration mechanics. So now the spells that were once memorized for stacking utility are instead making way for only the best concentration spells or spells that don't use it at all. Our players are far less likely to waste their concentration mechanic on other members of their party, although a few exceptions exist, usually the Paladin - our players retain the "paladin always does what's right, and sacrifices their own advantage for others" motif.
There's over 100 spells with the concentration mechanic I think, and I'd guess around 60 of them never make it to our players sheets because of it. It's a mixed bag though, many of the classic greats, like Flaming Sphere, Web, Sleep, Command, and Color Spray - not all concentration spells - are now joke spells. I watched one of our players cast Sleep recently, and when he actually reread the rules, he had the facial expression of someone who discovered their checking account was empty after ordering lunch at a fancy restaurant.
The particular capacity for spells to chain together, especially at lower levels is critical for things like strategy and team work. 5e concentration mechanic, which apparently deludes itself into thinking it exists for balance, merely shifts the power into the hands of other class combinations. Webbing people and then flame sphering them will never be as potent as twinning a couple of chromatic orbs as a tempest priest asassin. So instead of seeing clever wizards chaining together duration spells, you are going to see clever players chaining together oddball class mixes.
shintashi wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I'll gladly take Concentration as a spellcasting restriction in 5e over having to cast defensively (which was...a CONCENTRATION check!) to prevent provoking attacks of opportunity in 3e. Don't forget that the other big spellcasting restriction that was removed from 3e, Arcane Spell Failure. 5e simplified casting in armor immensely. (I don't know what 4e had, nor do I give a kobold's arse about 4e.) Every edition has to have some form of checks and balances when it comes to magic. Plus, it forces players to actually make opportunity cost decisions when picking their spells, instead of always picking the "best spells."
I have a copy of the Lord of the Rings printed in three books and a copy of the Lord of the Rings printed in one book, so does that mean that it is one book or three books?
A real head scratcher. 
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
in order for a flaming sphere to do damage, the target creature has to end it's own turn with the sphere in their presence. The only way that would happen is some freak of nature coincidence where they both run out of movement and intentionally stay within the damage field. (there's a wind spell with similar wording). Flaming sphere used to roll around damaging creatures in it's path. It had a save to negate, but at least you could try to inflict damage with it.
Let's say you tried to attack my goblin with flaming sphere in 5e. I go on a 10. You go on 11. You go first. You cast flaming sphere. You aim it at me. Now it's my turn. I take no damage unless i end my turn with the sphere on me. I use 10 of my 30 feet of movement to walk away from the AOE, attack you, and another few steps. No damage.
Let's say you have a 9 initiative. I attack you, ending my turn. You cast flaming sphere. But my turn already ended. So you have to wait until next round for my turn to end. Next round, I go first, and move out of the flaming sphere area effect, attack you, and walk away. You move the flaming sphere to attack me, but my turn has already ended.
Let's say we go simultaneously. Your dexterity is higher, see 11 initiative. Your dexterity is lower, see 9 initiative.
optionally you may ram people directly with the sphere, indicating a 2d6 attack save for half. This spell is actually worse than cantrips, which will average double that level of damage.
The way this spell is worded, a monster cannot be attacked unless under a status affliction negating their ability to move. I'm not saying this makes sense. I'm not saying you guys run it this way. I'm just quoting the way it is phrased - much like i don't agree with Assassins using Twinned Sorcerer Spells, unfortunately, they are poorly worded to favor critical hit functions for a combo, and don't restrict spells.
shintashi wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Grazel wrote:
To be consistent, if we counted PHB, MM, and DMG as 1 product, then for 4e, PHB2 and MM2 (and maybe one of the campaign books) should be counted as 1 product as well. Also, adventures should be prorated by the number of levels PC's were supposed to gain over the course of the adventure.....
Mechatarrasque wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Out of curiosity, since everyone is trying their best to show the other side they are wrong, are the actual D&D games you play fun or is it also just another session that turns into rules lawyers nit picking words and rules cause some of these threads turn to crap over the smallest thing, i hate to imagine the game sessions? Ruins the fun of coming in here to read a thread.
Mistwell wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
The free rules pdfs are more complete than the starter set and are also recognized by the Adventurers League as the only thing you must have rules-wise in order to play or run the game.
But as for the 3 versus 1 release, let's use a recent example from the world of PC gaming. Nearly everyone expected Starcraft II to be released as one single game, yet Blizzard decided to split it into 3 parts and release them separately. Does that game count as one or as three?
I think some of the blame also belongs to Paizo, since they decided to do their core book as one huge rulebook, rather than splitting it into separate player and DM books. I would actually prefer that, if it would not make for a way too expensive 5th Edition book, because you know that a combined book from WotC would never sell for the same $50 that the PRPG core book does.
EthanSental wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
There is a full time Release Manager position currently posted on the WoTC careers site. Doesn't say if it's tied to Magic or D&D. If we are lucky enough to have someone on the forums get the job, you HAVE to let us know what the heck is in the works 
MechaPilot wrote:
shintashi wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote: