| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 13:34:28
|
Mike Mearls on D&D:Next
Some quotes that I found interesting:
quote:
Originally said by Mike Mearls
we've made a big effort this time to define what exists within each piece of a character - race, class, feat, spell, magic item, and so on. Before, there were a lot of grey areas. For instance, in 4e powers were fairly well defined, but feats were all over the place.
So, the key lies in establishing the limits in each area and then, most importantly, throttling way back on the flood of mechanics. We have to consider each spell, theme, or whatever with the same attention that the Magic team regards a new card.
So feats have a defined aspect that supports somethign specifically, instead of being a catch-all for a ton of optoins that vary from required, good, mild, poor, and wretched. I like this approach far more than what we've seen in both 3E and 4E. I remember reading somewhere that Themes and Feats are going to be combat specific to character design. Hopefully that remains true.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mearls
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.
Glad to know they're using these as examples to draw from. Though I hope they also draw from the 4E mechanical design of manevuers as well, espically how they often incorporate Movement into the powers too.
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Mearls
we're looking at alternate magic systems for casters other than the wizard and cleric.
Also, we're 100% committed to taking the same approach to balancing the math behind the game and improving upon the 4e tools for encounter, NPC/monster, and adventure design.
Good to know Vancian spellcasting isn't the dominate force of spellcasting for DDN. Additionally, I love the 4E-style of NPC/Monster design and so I'm happy we're going with that model insetad of the v3.5 (1 rule to build them all) approach.
While it doesn't completely assuage my fears for DDN, I think these are all steps in the right direction for the game.
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 14:00:22
|
So the bonuses (or maluses) and effects for attributes, race, class, feats, items, spells, etc will each be limited and compartmentalized? This could obviously place some caps on how far things can be cumulatively stacked, which means that reaching extreme (game-breaking) peaks of hyperspecialization would become more difficult.
Something I haven't seen mentioned yet are "add-ons" like psionics. Previous game editions basically added psionics (along with a "fifth wheel" psionicist class) after all the other rules were put in place. Consequently, psionics was never really a good fit, it was redundant and wobbled the "balance" around with skewed powers and haphazard mechanics. I would personally prefer "5E" takes a firm stance on psionics from the onset; give them immediate and proper inclusion or unwaveringly establish that psionics do not exist now and will not be introduced in future products. I'm actually not trying to bash psionics or demand they be included/excluded - but I am trying to say that psionics serve as one example of inevitable game content which tends to pwn or nerf or imba previous mechanics when appended to the rules instead of being integrated and "interbalanced" alongside everything else at the initial design stage. |
[/Ayrik] |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 15:49:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
So the bonuses (or maluses) and effects for attributes, race, class, feats, items, spells, etc will each be limited and compartmentalized? This could obviously place some caps on how far things can be cumulatively stacked, which means that reaching extreme (game-breaking) peaks of hyperspecialization would become more difficult.
Quite true. The design philosophy is the keep the math relatively low except for Damage/HP ratio. Those two aspects will go up pretty heavily to express stronger monsters and how heroes overcome those obstacles. It also means you can't become a Diplomacy-God with the ability to out-talk yoru way out of battle with a near perfect chance of success (like we saw with v3.5 and the Evangelist PrC).
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Something I haven't seen mentioned yet are "add-ons" like psionics. Previous game editions basically added psionics (along with a "fifth wheel" psionicist class) after all the other rules were put in place. Consequently, psionics was never really a good fit, it was redundant and wobbled the "balance" around with skewed powers and haphazard mechanics. I would personally prefer "5E" takes a firm stance on psionics from the onset; give them immediate and proper inclusion or unwaveringly establish that psionics do not exist now and will not be introduced in future products. I'm actually not trying to bash psionics or demand they be included/excluded - but I am trying to say that psionics serve as one example of inevitable game content which tends to pwn or nerf or imba previous mechanics when appended to the rules instead of being integrated and "interbalanced" alongside everything else at the initial design stage.
I thought 4E did psionics fairly well and implemented a pretty interesting way of doing their powers that differed from the normal A/E/D/U style. But I'm fairly certain that Psionics will be included into DDN and probably a moduel later on (if not in the core rules). Was Psionics that far outside the norm of balance in v3.5? I never got the EXP or the Psionics Handbook for that edition and often don't see my players using those classes. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 16:38:40
|
To be honest, my impression was that psionics in 4E were basically just another school of magic under a different name ... yeah technically different rules and all that, but psionics could be renamed as "eldritch" or "neuromancy" and see little functional difference. Not a lot different from 3E, although I personally think the 3E psionics were very broken even before countless OGL sourcebooks expanded it into unwieldy complex constructs. They were definitely horrible in AD&D 2E (even with the DarkSun materials) and they were basically munchkin food in 1E.
Carrying that further, to be brutally honest, psionics - to my mind - is just the sci-fi name for magic and doesn't belong beside magic in a fantasy setting. But psionics has been in previous D&D editions so it will of course be included (or worse: added) to the new D&D edition. Maybe I'm just old skool, Dungeons & Dragons should be magic, Gamma World should be psionics, even they happen to use identical rules. I just hope psionics are not treated as an afterthought injected into already "complete" rules machinery like it has been many times before. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 17 Jun 2012 16:52:20 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4436 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jun 2012 : 18:56:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
To be honest, my impression was that psionics in 4E were basically just another school of magic under a different name ... yeah technically different rules and all that, but psionics could be renamed as "eldritch" or "neuromancy" and see little functional difference. Not a lot different from 3E, although I personally think the 3E psionics were very broken even before countless OGL sourcebooks expanded it into unwieldy complex constructs. They were definitely horrible in AD&D 2E (even with the DarkSun materials) and they were basically munchkin food in 1E.
I'm not sure if your familiar with Psionics in 4E but instead of "encounter" powers, they receive a pool of points called Power Points that allow you to fuel their At-Will abilities for greater effects. This is significantly different when compared to other classes becuase it allows for a much greater flexibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Carrying that further, to be brutally honest, psionics - to my mind - is just the sci-fi name for magic and doesn't belong beside magic in a fantasy setting. But psionics has been in previous D&D editions so it will of course be included (or worse: added) to the new D&D edition. Maybe I'm just old skool, Dungeons & Dragons should be magic, Gamma World should be psionics, even they happen to use identical rules. I just hope psionics are not treated as an afterthought injected into already "complete" rules machinery like it has been many times before.
I'm all for multiple styles of magic or Special Effects in D&D and espically ones that diverge from the straight-jacket that is Vancian spellcasting. So lets hope it gets a strong support quickly out of the gate for DDN instead of taking a few years to just be the "different" style of magic it's always been. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Mike Mearls discloses some info for DDN on Reddit
