http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/323442-en-world-interview-mike-mearls-lead-designer-d-d-next.html
Excerpts:
Q:I saw some elements of 4E represented in some of the defensive spells - such as mirror image being set as interrupts (works well by the way). One of the complaints that I and lots of fans have with 4E is that the proliferation of interrupts for offense slowed the pace of each turn to a crawl. I know in December we spoke about the pace of the game being very important to you. With that in mind will we be seeing the interrupt mechanic more in an offensive way or just defensively?
A:I'd like interrupts to serve either two purposes. First, I think quick, simple interrupts that boost a defense are OK. For instance, an interrupt that boosts your AC or reduces damage you take. You resolve it quickly and it doesn't slow the pace too much.
For more complex interrupts, like those that require die rolls or decisions, I'd prefer the interrupt to take away part of your next turn. That way, the total time it takes to go around the table remains relatively constant. In essence, you're taking your action ahead of time rather than getting two actions during a round.
Q:The fighter in D&D Next feels like a fighter of old, but with more tricks up his sleeve than before. In my opinion the fighter feels like the one class that seamlessly melds the feeling of all editions into one class (surge power from 4E, hit point dominance from 1E, specialization from 2E and 3E). Is thought put into the classes so that each class has aspects which represent it in each edition, or was it just a perfect storm in the case of the fighter?
A:I think that you've captured the basics of our approach though, interestingly enough, the fighter changed a bit from that initial draft. I'll explain some of the mechanics for folks:
The surge mechanic was a fighter-only ability that let fighters heal. Based on closed playtest feedback, we added a mechanic that lets all characters heal by resting.
Like the basic D&D and AD&D fighter, the current fighter design has the best hit points, weapons, and armor class.
Weapon specialization has moved into themes. Again, based on feedback, we moved the fighter away from picking one type of weapon to be good at.
In any case, I think that every class has drawn from each edition. The interesting part to me is how much 2nd edition has influenced things, primarily from the idea that characters can be customized primarily according to how they fit into the world. Rogues pick a scheme, inspired in part by the 2e mechanic that let thieves allocate points to their skills so that they could focus on one ability or another. Our new take on domains moves a little closer to spheres in intent, while our focus on themes as bundles of feats that are tied to organizations, training, or some other element expressed in the setting is another nod to keeping characters grounded in the campaign world, rather than only in the mechanics.
Yeah, is WotC really gonna make the same mistakes again? Interrupts, for fuck sake?! Healing surges?
Healing surges in the 4e sense =/= healing by resting necessarily. The later has been in every edition of D&D I know. My guess is that they just gave it a name.
The Surge Power was a Fighter Class ability, by the looks of it and again not necessairly a healing surge in a 4e sense.
As for interrupts, I am guessing they are there as tactical combat will be in core 5e (though supposedly it may be ignored to some extent).
Huh! All this time I thought it was "healing STIRGES"! Boy, is my face red!
-clash
The healing surges don't look like they work at all like the 4e version. It looks like a midpoint between 1e's slow natural healing and 4e's anime style natural healing that works on a wholly different mechanic. Interrupts look like a choice that takes a portion of your action instead of giving whole new seperate actions on top of your standard action. Not the same to me but it's taken from 4e for sure.
Hit Points are a wonderful game mechanic until you start thinking about them.
Quote from: Marleycat;541030Interrupts look like a choice that takes a portion of your action instead of giving whole new seperate actions on top of your standard action. Not the same to me but it's taken from 4e for sure.
hurr hurr Or it's from Magic: the Gathering hurr hurr
Seriously, though, it's from M:tG. :)
It makes me wince almost as bad as 'defender' or 'striker'.
I think its just an instant spell right. The fighter swings before he hits you can improve your AC, reduce his damage or whatever.
Rather than consider it an intercept, a compute term R Garfield indeed applied to MtG, consider it as a Magical Action of Opportunity.
So you might have a spell that negates another spell, a counterspell if you will, you can cast that spell in reaction to another spell.
I think that looks fine.
I liked the healing HD stuff but want to keep it out of combat, so once the combat is over you can rest and heal 2HD or whatever. In combat is more of an issue for me.
Quote from: 1989;541018Interrupts, for fuck sake?!
You mean the thing that's been in the game since at least 1978*? Yeah. I'm shocked to discover those are still in there.
(*Probably earlier, but I'm too lazy to check when
feather fall was added.)
QuoteHealing surges?
Now, see, this actually
is the end of the world. I can see the storm clouds of blood forming on the horizon now.
I don't see how mirror image works as a series of interrupts. You cast the frikkin spell and then there are X number of images of the caster. Successful attacks destroy the images.
Why the hell does this need to be an interrupt?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;541064I don't see how mirror image works as a series of interrupts. You cast the frikkin spell and then there are X number of images of the caster. Successful attacks destroy the images.
Why the hell does this need to be an interrupt?
I assume you can do it in response to an attack. Does seem to be a little odd on that one though.
Generally I like the concept as it can lead to wizardly type battles with spell and counter spell etc but Mirror image is an odd one to highlight. Stoneskin, or somethign might have been a better choice.
Quote from: jibbajibba;541068I assume you can do it in response to an attack. Does seem to be a little odd on that one though.
Generally I like the concept as it can lead to wizardly type battles with spell and counter spell etc but Mirror image is an odd one to highlight. Stoneskin, or somethign might have been a better choice.
If thats how it works then it seems like quite a nerf. It would protect against only one attack per casting instead of the 2-5 the spell traditionally provides.
Yet another instance of using an iconic name for something completely different.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;541070If thats how it works then it seems like quite a nerf. It would protect against only one attack per casting instead of the 2-5 the spell traditionally provides.
Yet another instance of using an iconic name for something completely different.
I am speculating. Maybe it a pay off. Cast it in advance for a greater benefit cast it as an interrupt to save you now. I quite like that flexibility
Quote from: Exploderwizard;541070If thats how it works then it seems like quite a nerf. It would protect against only one attack per casting instead of the 2-5 the spell traditionally provides.
Yet another instance of using an iconic name for something completely different.
That doesn't make sense. Mearls mentioned more than once spells will be be powerful, they better be with less slots. I see mirror image lasting just like before, hit every image one at a time and done. Being defensive in nature it operates as a 4e style immediate interrupt not taking away from the wizard's action.
The counter to a mirror imaged mage in AD&D?
The dart throwing fighter ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;541077The counter to a mirror imaged mage in AD&D?
The dart throwing fighter ;)
or the hobbit with a bag of gravel :)
Quote from: trollock;541082Why can't it be just save vs. scratch, injury, permanent damage, death (severity increasing according to how much you fail your save) everytime they hit your murderhobo?
Because it wouldn't be D&D then, of course. ;)
Quote from: 1989;541018Yeah, is WotC really gonna make the same mistakes again? Interrupts, for fuck sake?! Healing surges?
4vengers 4ssemble! :rotfl:
I've never been a big fan of interrupts being a big part of the mechanics. Just sort of makes initiative irrelevant in a lot of ways, and more importantly, can slow things down too much.
I like fast moving combat. It keeps players engaged, rather than waiting 10 minutes for their turn, building a tower of dice out of boredom, or worse yet, engaging in crosstalk.
Quote from: Marleycat;541076That doesn't make sense. Mearls mentioned more than once spells will be be powerful, they better be with less slots. I see mirror image lasting just like before, hit every image one at a time and done. Being defensive in nature it operates as a 4e style immediate interrupt not taking away from the wizard's action.
According to discussions and interveiws the goal is to make interrupts cost you actions on your next turn, basically making them early actions instead of additional actions. This is why I hope its not an interrupt.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;541099According to discussions and interveiws the goal is to make interrupts cost you actions on your next turn, basically making them early actions instead of additional actions. This is why I hope its not an interrupt.
He seems to be saying it would work differently between offensive and defensive interrupts. How I understand it defensive is like 4e something offensive like a swordmage or OoA's would take some of your base turn away. We'll see though given I could be talking out my ass anyway.:)
The need to do away with this whole nomenclature and do what they said they were going to do initially, that is, excise all the crappy gamey terms and use more real-world terms.
Can they really be this clueless?
We don't need M:tG in our D&D.
Quote from: Marleycat;541102He seems to be saying it would work differently between offensive and defensive interrupts. How I understand it defensive is like 4e something offensive like a swordmage or OoA's would take some of your base turn away. We'll see though given I could be talking out my ass anyway.:)
I was actually hoping ALL interrupts and turn based initiative would be optional but oh well.
Quote from: 1989;541113The need to do away with this whole nomenclature and do what they said they were going to do initially, that is, excise all the crappy gamey terms and use more real-world terms.
Have you got a link to that comment? I am genuinely interested to know if WotC specifically said that.
TBH, I struggle to think of a better real world term for interrupting someone else's go than Interrupt.
Quote from: jadrax;541234TBH, I struggle to think of a better real world term for interrupting someone else's go than Interrupt.
I know I've been mentioning it all the time lately, but system I'm working on has reactions.
Quote from: Skywalker;541223Have you got a link to that comment? I am genuinely interested to know if WotC specifically said that.
Sorry, can't remember, but my brain filed that comment away as being particularly important.
Quote from: 1989;541247Sorry, can't remember, but my brain filed that comment away as being particularly important.
Cool. I haven't seen the comment myself, but it sounds like someone's hope projected onto WotC comments about moving away from elements of 4e.
I think we are going to see a lot of these kinds of reactions when the playtest docs come out this week, given the looseness of WotC's language and lack of detail so far.
Quote from: Skywalker;541252Cool. I haven't seen the comment myself, but it sounds like someone's hope projected onto WotC comments about moving away from elements of 4e.
I think we are going to see a lot of these kinds of reactions when the playtest docs come out this week, given the looseness of WotC's language and lack of detail so far.
Aha, here it is:
No explicit power sources. Moving away from jargon and keywords, towards natural language.
Do a search on the EnWorld 5e info page for "jargon".
Quote from: 1989;541258Aha, here it is:
No explicit power sources. Moving away from jargon and keywords, towards natural language.
Do a search on the EnWorld 5e info page for "jargon".
Cheers. FWIW WotC may move away from jargon and keywords, I still think there will be many examples of such being used in 5e. Surges and Interrupts seem to be on that list.
To give an example:
QuoteMearls: Here's something people might like — we've created a new mechanic for rogues called schemes. Schemes tell you what sort of rogue you're playing. You might want to be a thief, the classic D&D rogue who can sneak, steal treasure, and disarm traps. Or, you might want to play a charlatan who excels at deceit and, through trial, error, and practice, learns how to use scrolls, wands, and other magic items.
So, Builds by another name are back but called Schemes. Is that jargon or natural language? :)
From: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/05/d-d-update-mike-mearls/
Quote from: Skywalker;541292To give an example:
So, Builds by another name are back but called Schemes. Is that jargon or natural language? :)
From: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/05/d-d-update-mike-mearls/
I prefer 'kits', if they get them right this time around.
The internet may melt Thursday because the vitriol and panic will be a sight to behold. Where is Aos when you need him? :D
Quote from: Skywalker;541292To give an example:
So, Builds by another name are back but called Schemes. Is that jargon or natural language? :)
From: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/05/d-d-update-mike-mearls/
Notice the capital S - Schemes.
A skill scheme (small s), or a point distribution would be natural language. Maybe theme (small t), or area of expertise, or background, or something. But not this capital S Scheme bullshit. Next thing you know, we'll be back to what is your Role (capital R) -- Defender, Striker . . . blah blah.
I really think these guys don't get it.
STOP MAKING NEW MECHANICS AND JARGON. WE DON'T WANT THEM. PUT THEM IN A FUCKING MODULE ALREADY.
Quote from: 1989;541313STOP MAKING NEW MECHANICS AND JARGON. WE DON'T WANT THEM. PUT THEM IN A FUCKING MODULE ALREADY.
DDN,
Don't make new rules, then put the rules you didn't make in a module.
Sincerely,
Your Fans.
So, what would be the sin of just making a decently effective healing skill available to all classes? Seriously, if the fighter can do a little healing, and the magic-user can do a little healing it frees up some cleric spell slots for other stuff while allowing the cleric to get stuck in because the party's no longer terrified that the healer will get knocked out and they'll be screwed.
Actually though, I don't mind the idea that fighters recover hits faster than magic-users. Though IRRC in AD&D it pretty much balanced out in down time. The high level wizard needed weeks to re-memorize all his spells and the fighter needed weeks to heal back to full health.
Quote from: David Johansen;541316So, what would be the sin of just making a decently effective healing skill available to all classes? Seriously, if the fighter can do a little healing, and the magic-user can do a little healing it frees up some cleric spell slots for other stuff while allowing the cleric to get stuck in because the party's no longer terrified that the healer will get knocked out and they'll be screwed.
Actually though, I don't mind the idea that fighters recover hits faster than magic-users. Though IRRC in AD&D it pretty much balanced out in down time. The high level wizard needed weeks to re-memorize all his spells and the fighter needed weeks to heal back to full health.
Because we want D&D, not some new-fangled, heartbreaker healing system.
Put that new healing system in an optional module.
Then, we are both happy.
Quote from: 1989;541317Because we want D&D, not some new-fangled, heartbreaker healing system.
Starting to think that ship has sailed.
Quote from: 1989;541317Because we want D&D, not some new-fangled, heartbreaker healing system.
Put that new healing system in an optional module.
Then, we are both happy.
I'm not quite where DYAL is but I'm definitely getting some bad feelings. But I'm reserving judgment until I see the finished product.
Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;541319Starting to think that ship has sailed.
My guess is that there are going to be a lot of disappointed and outraged fans on the 24th. At this time nothing is certain, so people tend to put emphasis on things based on the snippets they hear and most of that will not bear out. Also, people tend to weigh what they react negatively to more than what they react positively to, which doesn't help.
Quote from: 1989;541317Because we want D&D, not some new-fangled, heartbreaker healing system.
Put that new healing system in an optional module.
Then, we are both happy.
I dunno, just something a bit more effective than the second edition Healing proficiency. Stick it in as a secondary skill that people have to select or roll to get.
For the most part when I read Mearls' latest botched Blather test I think, "you idiot, that was a feature not a bug!" but I've just had too many groups make a party without a cleric and had to hand out too many healing potions over the years. You can already bind wounds in AD&D, why not just buff it up to 1d4 once per day with a secondary skill?
Never the less, you're probably right, well except in the implication that anything they could ever produce would ever satisfy you. Me too really, 's why I'm always writing my own.
Quote from: 1989;541317Because we want D&D, not some new-fangled, heartbreaker healing system.
Put that new healing system in an optional module.
Then, we are both happy.
Its worth noting that the quote referred to talks about "healing when resting". This is a mechanic that has been in D&D since year dot. If you think that it is new-fangled, then so is pretty much every rule in 5e.
Sure, Fighters also have some kind of ability to heal in combat too, but its definitely a move back to pre 3e days on the whole.
Quote from: Skywalker;541331Its worth noting that the quote referred to talks about "healing when resting". This is a mechanic that has been in D&D since year dot. If you think that it is new-fangled, then so is pretty much every rule in 5e.
Sure, Fighters also have some kind of ability to heal in combat too, but its definitely a move back to pre 3e days on the whole.
As I said before what he's talking about when he says "surges" don't sound like 4e at all but something different that allows for slower healing without a cleric out of combat. Fighters may be able to do it in combat. Good for them they need it and other things so I can play my wizardress without someone bitching and moaning and without the nerfbat that is 4e.