# Penny Arcade Podcast with Mike Mearls



## Morrus (Aug 7, 2012)

Mike Mearls, Senior Manager of D&D R&D at Wizards of the Coast, sits down with the folks at Penny Arcade and PvP. In this podcast, he helps educate them on character creation and conversion—gearing up for the Live D&D game taking place at this year's PAX! Warning: This podcast may contain strong language.

The Group

*Jerry Holkins* (_Tycho_ from Penny Arcade): Omin Dran, CEO of Acquisitions Incorporated.
*Mike Krahulik* (_Gabe_ from Penny Arcade): Jim Darkmagic of the New Hampshire Darkmagics.
*Scott Kurtz* (from PvP): Binwin Bronzebottom.
Download it now! (9.9 Mbs, 28:51 minutes) Click on the link to listen to the file in your browser, or right-click Save As to download to your computer.


----------



## Iosue (Aug 7, 2012)

Surprised this hasn't been posted already, but here it is:

Penny Arcade/PVP 1 (of 4)

I find it pretty interesting. You have Jerry Holkins, the guy who likes playing all editions of D&D, Mike Krahulik, who's only familiar with 4e, and Scott Kurtz, the casual gamer who's not all that invested, but is game for any game.

They don't cut Mearls any slack, and yet they are open-minded enough to recognize faults of the games they like. And the whole podcast will be the process of converting their 4e Acquisitions, Inc. characters for 5e, which they'll play at PAX this year.


----------



## calprinicus (Aug 7, 2012)

Overall, I think that this is a good marketing move by Wizards to show the transition of bringing characters from different versions to DnD Next and I'm interested in how the easy the swap will be. They haven't done anyone yet, though Jerry sounds like he'll be the first character guided through the process.

Interested on the design change of 'Healing Word' to be pretty much a cantrip type effect. Though it still sounds like Clerics will be a healing machine like older versions in DnD Next compared to the battle Cleric feeling in 4.0. But we'll see as the game design progresses.

I'm looking forward to going to the event at PAX. Though I have a gut feeling it will be a very clunky play session. A lot of pressure will be on Chris Perkins (Dungeon Master) I imagine.


----------



## Raith5 (Aug 7, 2012)

Thanks for posting the link. The section on encounters (about 9 minutes in) is interesting where Mearls directly says that they built 4th ed around encounters and encounters became too long and overshadowed the adventure.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Aug 7, 2012)

Good news everyone: Channel Divinity is now for healing, but *can be used for other things instead if your god isn't into that*. Finally! (I wonder how Turn Undead works, though.)

Also, it's funny how Mike Krahulik has basically become a 4e grognard. Big change from the first podcast, where they had to pay him to play it. It sounds like 4e matches his and his friends' playstyle, so he's resistant to switch to 5e. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they thrust him into a more old-school kind of game.


----------



## Someone (Aug 7, 2012)

Their body language in that photo speaks volumes.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Aug 7, 2012)

Someone said:


> Their body language in that photo speaks volumes.



Ha... yeah, good catch. My interpretation: Mike aka Gabe has his arms crossed in a defensive position, while also leaning back in his chair away from the conversation. (4e grognard.) Jerry aka Tycho is, in contrast, leaning forward in a 'edge of the seat' position, signifying he wants to know more and is excited to learn. His arms are also crossed, reflecting his 'scientific' skepticism. (jack-of-all editions) Scott looks like a combination of interested and disinterested; in that he is facing toward Mike, though is not making eye contact and is instead writing, reflecting his status as the 'casual' gamer. And Mearls is in a neutral explanatory stance, using normal hand motions and eye contact.

I really enjoyed listening to this podcast because of the rare human element to it. Reading the digital articles on WotC gives me a very cold sterile feeling, especially in the most recent Rule of Three. Also, these guys, minus Mearls understandably, are absolute comedians, so they made listening to four dudes talk about role playing games actually hilarious at times. Well played.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 7, 2012)

fuzzlewump said:


> Ha... yeah, good catch. My interpretation: Mike aka Gabe has his arms crossed in a defensive position, while also leaning back in his chair away from the conversation. (4e grognard.) Jerry aka Tycho is, in contrast, leaning forward in a 'edge of the seat' position, signifying he wants to know more and is excited to learn. His arms are also crossed, reflecting his 'scientific' skepticism. (jack-of-all editions) Scott looks like a combination of interested and disinterested; in that he is facing toward Mike, though is not making eye contact and is instead writing, reflecting his status as the 'casual' gamer. And Mearls is in a neutral explanatory stance, using normal hand motions and eye contact.



Hah, nice analysis!

I haven't watched this yet, but I'm not sure these guys represent much except Penny Arcade.  Mike had burned out on 4E some time ago, so I think he's just looking for something to excite him rather than being attached to the current edition; Jerry seems to have a voracious appetite for all games of all stripes, so your conclusion is spot-on I would say; Scott is an artist by trade and never, ever stops drawing, so in some ways might represent the attention-deficit gamer we all know and love.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Aug 7, 2012)

Didn't Mike switch to Pathfinder a while back?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 7, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Good news everyone: Channel Divinity is now for healing, but *can be used for other things instead if your god isn't into that*. Finally! (I wonder how Turn Undead works, though.)




I'm thinking perhaps that they did a complete swap between Cure Wounds and Turn Undead-- the healing now falling into Channel Divinity, and the turning now becoming a spell.  Which to me makes a lot of sense.

With three or more Channel Divinity uses per day (over and above the Cleric's normal allotment of spells), we've seen over many recent editions that you just don't use Turn Undead that much.  Yes, it's been kept this way as a legacy to the classic Cleric, but in our modern D&D the undead just aren't used as a threat so often that you needed 3+ uses per day in your arsenal.  That's why Complete Divine began creating "alternate uses" for Turn Undead's power, and why 4E created Channel Divinity so as to give other powers to use in addition to TU.

But the fact of the matter is... healing is much more important and much more likely to be used 3+ times per day than Turn Undead is.  Turn Undead could easily be just a spell that could be part of a Cleric's arsenal, pulled out when necessary.  Swap healing to the Channel Divinity subset of ability outside of spells, and make Turn Undead a part of the spell list.  Based upon how (and how often) both those abilities traditionally get used... this makes much more sense than the other way.


----------



## Iosue (Aug 7, 2012)

wedgeski said:


> Hah, nice analysis!
> 
> I haven't watched this yet, but I'm not sure these guys represent much except Penny Arcade.  Mike had burned out on 4E some time ago, so I think he's just looking for something to excite him rather than being attached to the current edition; Jerry seems to have a voracious appetite for all games of all stripes, so your conclusion is spot-on I would say; Scott is an artist by trade and never, ever stops drawing, so in some ways might represent the attention-deficit gamer we all know and love.



Actually, fuzzlewump was spot on with Mike/Gabe.  His big question was "Why do I need a new edition?"


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 7, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> lso, it's funny how Mike Krahulik has basically become a 4e grognard. Big change from the first podcast, where they had to pay him to play it.




The Acquisitions Incorporated podcasts are possibly the best advertising push that WotC has ever done. They were *all* paid for all of the podcasts that they did.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Aug 7, 2012)

So far, the podcast has done a great job of cutting to the heart of the changes brought by D&D Next. It may be the best way yet to bring somebody up to speed on what D&D Next is all about.


----------



## VinylTap (Aug 7, 2012)

How do people, generally, handle HP restoration in traditional DnD games? Do you buy lots of potions? Buy your healing afterwards from an NPC? What is the most common mechanic from the supporters of the dogmatic 'zero to nil passive HP regen'/'healing surges are bad' crowd? Do people behind this ideology always run with a heal bot? How do you heal 75% health on 4+ PCs without things getting out of hand?

I mean, even if you go light healing (say one cure spell per party), you're still looking at multiple days to get everyone topped off after a tough dungeon day. 

I've heard a lot of decent on the matter, but very little in the way of alternative game mechanics? I really like the idea of this hardcore/realistic, but can't figure out a solution beyond "ok we're taking a week off so the healer can reset his/her CLW 7 times."


----------



## The Human Target (Aug 7, 2012)

Gabe not having it is pretty funny so far.


----------



## B.T. (Aug 7, 2012)

VinylTap said:


> How do people, generally, handle HP restoration in traditional DnD games? Do you buy lots of potions? Buy your healing afterwards from an NPC? What is the most common mechanic from the supporters of the dogmatic 'zero to nil passive HP regen'/'healing surges are bad' crowd? Do people behind this ideology always run with a heal bot? How do you heal 75% health on 4+ PCs without things getting out of hand?
> 
> I mean, even if you go light healing (say one cure spell per party), you're still looking at multiple days to get everyone topped off after a tough dungeon day.
> 
> I've heard a lot of decent on the matter, but very little in the way of alternative game mechanics? I really like the idea of this hardcore/realistic, but can't figure out a solution beyond "ok we're taking a week off so the healer can reset his/her CLW 7 times."



Generally, the idea is not to take damage in the first place.  If you do, you have a cleric and potions and rest.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Aug 7, 2012)

VinylTap said:


> How do people, generally, handle HP restoration in traditional DnD games? Do you buy lots of potions? Buy your healing afterwards from an NPC? What is the most common mechanic from the supporters of the dogmatic 'zero to nil passive HP regen'/'healing surges are bad' crowd? Do people behind this ideology always run with a heal bot? How do you heal 75% health on 4+ PCs without things getting out of hand?
> 
> I mean, even if you go light healing (say one cure spell per party), you're still looking at multiple days to get everyone topped off after a tough dungeon day.
> 
> I've heard a lot of decent on the matter, but very little in the way of alternative game mechanics? I really like the idea of this hardcore/realistic, but can't figure out a solution beyond "ok we're taking a week off so the healer can reset his/her CLW 7 times."




My "traditional D&D" experience with 5-6 years of 2E could be summed up as:

1. A few DMs just handwaved it, and we were back to full after resting.
2. A few DMs provided NPC healbot Clerics, and between the healbot and PC Clerics we'd rest until magical healing restored us to full.
3. I tended to go the route of cheap and effectively infinite potion availability when I was DM.

Across every 2E table I ever sat at, resting for days/weeks to restore HP was taboo.


----------



## CM (Aug 7, 2012)

As a 4e fan, I feel that Mike, Scott, and Jerry are doing a great job of voicing the concerns I personally have with 5e so far.


----------



## MooMan68 (Aug 7, 2012)

VinylTap said:


> How do people, generally, handle HP restoration in traditional DnD games? "




If the party was seriously hurt, we typically rested for multiple days.  Each day, each player would heal X points, and the cleric was assumed to have devoted all of his spell slots possible for healing and would have X dice to distribute.  Later we ruled that heal spells cast out of combat always did maximum.  If after the end of the day the party wanted to rest another day, we repeated.

If no cleric was in the party (not uncommon) either we used an NPC non-combat cleric hireling/follower, or the party was friendly with a local cleric who would provide plentiful healing potions at the price in the PBH.

Nobody had a problem with this at the time


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 8, 2012)

A cleric in every town, a potion on every corpse, and a wand in every chest!

Totally cut off at the good part.


----------



## fba827 (Aug 8, 2012)

i am probably reading way too much in to this but might this hint that the next playtest packet will be more character creation focused?  Or in any case, as they get further into the conversion process on subsequent podcasts, i'm sure some basic character creation stuff can be gleaned.... at least for the classes in question...


----------



## keterys (Aug 8, 2012)

WotC stated the next packet includes character creation, and will be available sometime around Gen Con-ish.

I suspect it means people will create their own characters to try out DDN at Gen Con.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Aug 8, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> The Acquisitions Incorporated podcasts are possibly the best advertising push that WotC has ever done. They were *all* paid for all of the podcasts that they did.



Well yeah, but the point is, (as he described in the Dark Sun podcast) Mike would never have touched D&D if WotC had not paid him a significant amount of money for that first podcast.


----------



## PinkRose (Aug 8, 2012)

[MENTION=43019]keterys[/MENTION], your suspicion is in fact, fact.
GenCon - GenCon
Players will be able to make D&D Next characters and then run them in an adventure.
And if you're lucky (or unlucky), you'll have me as your DM.


----------



## Maxboy (Aug 8, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Well yeah, but the point is, (as he described in the Dark Sun podcast) Mike would never have touched D&D if WotC had not paid him a significant amount of money for that first podcast.




Can i have a Citation for this, or is this you guessing


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 8, 2012)

VinylTap said:


> How do people, generally, handle HP restoration in traditional DnD games? Do you buy lots of potions? Buy your healing afterwards from an NPC? What is the most common mechanic from the supporters of the dogmatic 'zero to nil passive HP regen'/'healing surges are bad' crowd? Do people behind this ideology always run with a heal bot? How do you heal 75% health on 4+ PCs without things getting out of hand?
> 
> I mean, even if you go light healing (say one cure spell per party), you're still looking at multiple days to get everyone topped off after a tough dungeon day.
> 
> I've heard a lot of decent on the matter, but very little in the way of alternative game mechanics? I really like the idea of this hardcore/realistic, but can't figure out a solution beyond "ok we're taking a week off so the healer can reset his/her CLW 7 times."






B.T. said:


> Generally, the idea is not to take damage in the first place.  If you do, you have a cleric and potions and rest.






MooMan68 said:


> If the party was seriously hurt, we typically rested for multiple days.  Each day, each player would heal X points, and the cleric was assumed to have devoted all of his spell slots possible for healing and would have X dice to distribute.  Later we ruled that heal spells cast out of combat always did maximum.  If after the end of the day the party wanted to rest another day, we repeated.
> 
> If no cleric was in the party (not uncommon) either we used an NPC non-combat cleric hireling/follower, or the party was friendly with a local cleric who would provide plentiful healing potions at the price in the PBH.
> 
> Nobody had a problem with this at the time






Minigiant said:


> A cleric in every town, a potion on every corpse, and a wand in every chest!
> 
> Totally cut off at the good part.




All of the above. We recently returned to 2e, and I snagged the HD mechanic from D&D Next. All I had to do is change healing/herbalism skill and voila. Works well, without reminding at all about the 4e healing surge wonkiness.


----------



## variant (Aug 8, 2012)

Did I hear talk of encounter powers? That isn't going to go over well.


----------



## Revinor (Aug 8, 2012)

VinylTap said:


> How do people, generally, handle HP restoration in traditional DnD games? Do you buy lots of potions? Buy your healing afterwards from an NPC? What is the most common mechanic from the supporters of the dogmatic 'zero to nil passive HP regen'/'healing surges are bad' crowd? Do people behind this ideology always run with a heal bot? How do you heal 75% health on 4+ PCs without things getting out of hand?




1st lvl Cure Light Wounds wands (in 3e). 750gp for 50d8 healing - you cannot beat it cost-wise. My players at 18 lvl were carrying tens of them. They were calling it 'brushwood'... 
This is one of the reasons I'm so happy with 4e approach to that - you don't need to workaround the system.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 8, 2012)

Revinor said:


> 1st lvl Cure Light Wounds wands (in 3e). 750gp for 50d8 healing - you cannot beat it cost-wise. My players at 18 lvl were carrying tens of them. They were calling it 'brushwood'...
> This is one of the reasons I'm so happy with 4e approach to that - you don't need to workaround the system.



Wand of Vigor was even better, IIIRC. But that spell came so late to the game that I mostly remember the CLW Wands.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 8, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Well yeah, but the point is, (as he described in the Dark Sun podcast) Mike would never have touched D&D if WotC had not paid him a significant amount of money for that first podcast.



Funny - I get the impression that this same situation would apply to a lot of folks over 4e...


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 8, 2012)

Very enjoyable 'cast. Why did they have to chop them up? Just dump the whole thing, don't string it out.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 8, 2012)

Maxboy said:


> Can i have a Citation for this, or is this you guessing




He's mentioned it several times.

Here is the Dark Sun podcast from the WotC website.

And here is the Penny Arcade Television episode about D&D where Mike also mentions it.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 9, 2012)

Iosue said:


> Actually, fuzzlewump was spot on with Mike/Gabe.  His big question was "Why do I need a new edition?"



Yup, having listened to it, he was surprisingly defensive about 4E given that he stopped playing it a while back. Mearls' answer was nice and blunt: if you still love 4E, much as I'd like you to buy all our new books, you don't need a new edition.


----------



## Iosue (Aug 9, 2012)

wedgeski said:


> Yup, having listened to it, he was surprisingly defensive about 4E given that he stopped playing it a while back. Mearls' answer was nice and blunt: if you still love 4E, much as I'd like you to buy all our new books, you don't need a new edition.



I don't think he ever stopped playing it.  His long-running campaign stalled at 20th level, and he was burned out on that.  Not surprising since WotC never did come out with a DMG covering Epic play.  But he was still playing in Jerry's Dark Sun game, and I imagine still playing in lower-level games.


----------



## Szatany (Aug 9, 2012)

Where are parts 2, 3, and 4? I want to hear them very much.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Aug 9, 2012)

Szatany said:


> Where are parts 2, 3, and 4? I want to hear them very much.



Apparently they'll come out weekly, leading up to the celebrity game at PAX.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 9, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Apparently they'll come out weekly, leading up to the celebrity game at PAX.




Yep, the next 3 mondays.


----------



## atgeirr (Aug 10, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Wand of Vigor was even better, IIIRC. But that spell came so late to the game that I mostly remember the CLW Wands.




We also had lots of CLW wands in 3rd edition. In 2nd edition we house-ruled that the cleric could spontaneously convert spell levels to curing, at a rate of 1d6 per spell level used. I imagine that house rule variants like this were fairly common, which lead to being a core rule in 3rd edition.

Players are always going to wish for more healing. In 4th we keep pining for surgeless healing...


----------



## GX.Sigma (Aug 13, 2012)

2nd one is up.

Krahulik's ignorance of the word "nock" is irritating.

Mention of setting-specific deity-specific domains is exactly what I wanted to hear.

Possible interrupted mention of make-your-own domains is intriguing.

I keep agreeing with everything Mearls says.

It's weird hearing such an interesting conversation going on and being unable to join in.


----------



## variant (Aug 13, 2012)

It sounds like 'encounter' abilities are a Warlock specialty.


----------



## Li Shenron (Aug 13, 2012)

VinylTap said:


> How do people, generally, handle HP restoration in traditional DnD games? Do you buy lots of potions? Buy your healing afterwards from an NPC? What is the most common mechanic from the supporters of the dogmatic 'zero to nil passive HP regen'/'healing surges are bad' crowd? Do people behind this ideology always run with a heal bot? How do you heal 75% health on 4+ PCs without things getting out of hand?
> 
> I mean, even if you go light healing (say one cure spell per party), you're still looking at multiple days to get everyone topped off after a tough dungeon day.
> 
> I've heard a lot of decent on the matter, but very little in the way of alternative game mechanics? I really like the idea of this hardcore/realistic, but can't figure out a solution beyond "ok we're taking a week off so the healer can reset his/her CLW 7 times."




You've answered your own question: resting for as long as it takes *is* a solution.

If the party has a cleric or druid, it will require very little time, most often just one day of rest, since you can assume that all spell slots will be used for healing.

If the party has no cleric or other healer, it definitely takes longer but not an enourmous amount of time: in 3ed the slowest rate of natural healing is 1 hp/level, which means that a PC that has e.g. ~10 HP per level (probably a Fighter-type) heals about 10% of HP per day. Thus in the worst case of no healing resources other than natural healing AND some of the tough PC in the party are near-zero HP, it might take 10 days to heal completely.

In 3ed someone with the Heal skill can increase the natural healing ratio of everyone (except herself) to 3 times that, so you end up with 3-4 days unless she also was close to zero HP.

It's a problem only if you like all your adventures to be fast-paced with exhausting combats every single day and no downtime, in which case you should definitely change how healing works in your campaign.

For me these rules are not a problem, they are an opportunity for more planning, more varied strategy (i.e. not just rushing into every single combat but also consider avoidance) and even more creativity (because when you cannot fight for a day you can come up with some ideas on minor but still useful things to advance the story).


----------



## vagabundo (Aug 13, 2012)

Mike is selling me on 5e. I'm getting excited while listening to the podcast.


----------



## hopeless (Aug 13, 2012)

*Part 2 is now up!*

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Penny Arcade/PvP [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=2]#2  (of 4))[/url]


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Aug 13, 2012)

Things I recall from listening to it just now:

Clerics start with no armour or weapon proficiencies - their domain decides that, as well as what minor (at-will) spells they can cast and the spell list they have to cast from 3E-Sorcerer style.
Wizards will have a tradition, that does something..
Backgrounds (which appeared to be 3 skills and a trait) mentioned included Noble (you get henchmen!), Soldier, Bounty Hunter, Artisan, Knight.
Themes are now specialities or something, mentioned are Leader (Feat 1 Battle Commander will give allies advantage and a move, for your action), Magic-User.
Skills are from a fixed list (sort of) at the moment, including Commerce, Trade, Bluff, Insight.

The PA guys are either playing stupid, or find it really difficult to learn/recognise new things.


----------



## VinylTap (Aug 13, 2012)

I like the PA guys a lot, watch most of their TV show even, but I think it would be a little naive to think that their reaction to this play-test is completely straight-up. They realize WOTC's business model, like the guys (Chris Perkin's Dmed their DND PODcasts), and are looking for a different game, anyway (from what I've gathered, they're a little frustrated with late-game balance). Their response to this will be glowing by the end... Still a great listen.


----------



## Aegeri (Aug 13, 2012)

Iosue said:


> I don't think he ever stopped playing it.  His long-running campaign stalled at 20th level, and he was burned out on that.  Not surprising since WotC never did come out with a DMG covering Epic play.  But he was still playing in Jerry's Dark Sun game, and I imagine still playing in lower-level games.




He is actually playing an entirely different system, Mouseguard. Though I haven't heard a lot about how that experiment has gone for him.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Aug 13, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> The PA guys are either playing stupid, or find it really difficult to learn/recognise new things.




Or they have not been hanging out on D&D message boards for the past few months.


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 13, 2012)

VinylTap said:


> I like the PA guys a lot, watch most of their TV show even, but I think it would be a little naive to think that their reaction to this play-test is completely straight-up.




PA has made it a point of their site that they pull no punches, and will tell exactly what they think about a game no matter how much money the company pays to advertise on it. If it sounds like they like the game, then chances are very, very good that it is legit.


----------



## Pour (Aug 13, 2012)

The only thing I take exception with in part 2 is the idea that the 'wheels wobble' at 20th level and above because of some inherent, yet unsolvable, issue that justifies moving on to a new edition. 20+ is so spotty because Epic was not given the attention it needed, or the larger support many of us still want. It's not an unfixable issue, as the clones and heartbreakers are showing (really impressed with them, actually). And DMs like myself are making their own adjustments and facilitating play just fine.

I can see the argument that rogues level 20+ become wizards with knives, but what does any Epic character become by level 20+? You're doing things on a demigod level, and even that is largely dependent on the context of the game. If he's speaking toward too much uniformity between classes for his taste, why at level 20 did this become an issue and not level 4? I'm having trouble following their sudden epiphany beyond the 'Ooo, shiny new edition! Different approach!' which is, admittedly, the only reason I lurk New Horizons hehe. It's cool to be excited and want to try something new, I just don't see a logical evolution they're expressing from 4e to 5e , ie I can't make the jump with them that 5e is some sort of advancement/fix/reaction to 4e. Maybe in a few ways, though it feels more like inclusion than advancement from following the L&L on here. Were they speaking solely to the idea that every class now gets its own mechanical schtick, which 4e forgoes for a uniform AEDU model? Is that what they're saying 5e advances from 4e? I'm just a little confused there.

I do understand the excitement of a new edition in its own right, though.


----------



## VinylTap (Aug 13, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> PA has made it a point of their site that they pull no punches, and will tell exactly what they think about a game no matter how much money the company pays to advertise on it. If it sounds like they like the game, then chances are very, very good that it is legit.




I think you're right, but its slightly more complicated... I think they're intentionally bringing up larger issues that the community is digesting and making sure those issues are framed in a way that's good for WOTC. I believe they like where the game is going, but i think there's a bit of PR going on too. I think they're acting tough in regards to their questions so the final glowing recommendation at the end of it is that much more convincing. 

I'm also really looking forward to next, and hope it does really well. Currently only playing pathfinder, but the more modern mechanics really have me interested.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 13, 2012)

VinylTap said:


> I think you're right, but its slightly more complicated... I think they're intentionally bringing up larger issues that the community is digesting and making sure those issues are framed in a way that's good for WOTC.



I really, really don't think that's the case. It is entirely possible to maintain an open mind, be interested in the changes without being judgemental, and have a good time learning about the new game with its prime mover guiding you through the process...even if you think you don't need a new edition or even particularly like what they're doing. (Especially if you're getting paid, natch.)


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 13, 2012)

VinylTap said:


> I think you're right, but its slightly more complicated... I think they're intentionally bringing up larger issues that the community is digesting and making sure those issues are framed in a way that's good for WOTC. I believe they like where the game is going, but i think there's a bit of PR going on too. I think they're acting tough in regards to their questions so the final glowing recommendation at the end of it is that much more convincing.




I don't think it is that. I think that they are acting the way they because that is what they *really* feel. They are *very* passionate people about the games they play, and it surprises me not that they are asking the tough questions. Not to get a better "payoff" or "reward" when they say that they like it at the end, but because they would ask the same questions if it was the next instalment of a videogame that they enjoyed.


----------



## mlund (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm liking what I'm hearing, especially how Cleric Domains essentially give you huge variance in builds and how Magic-Users (I love that they said Magic-User at the end instead of Wizard) are going to have Traditions. Fighters with Combat Styles would fit the bill nicely too. By the end of this we could have all 4 Cardinal Classes with a good set of build options that prior editions would force you to take as a separate class after waiting 2-5 years for a splat-book.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Scribble (Aug 13, 2012)

If you ever watch any of the Penny Arcade TV videos the way they are talking, asking questions, and making jokes is very similar to the way they come up with their comics. It's just how they are, and how the think /process information.  

I wouldn't read anything "sinister" into it.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Aug 13, 2012)

The warlock thing was the newest random tidbit I noticed. It actually sounds a lot like this idea Someone had for psionics (#2 in his post): you start with one or more at-will powers, but have the ability to "boost" them to encounter powers, and maybe even to daily powers.

So at level 1 I can eldritch blast for (let's say) 2d6 damage vs. AC against one target every round, but once per encounter I can blast for 3d6 vs. Dexterity, and maybe once a day I can turn that into a 4d6 fireball-type area effect.

That would be a very cool thing if there are a number of sufficiently distinct  base abilities to choose from (e.g. telekinesis, blink/teleportation, etc). It would also cordon off "encounter powers" which some people hate into a class that's relatively new and since 3e has traditionally been mechanically weird.

Also in the podcast, the Leader specialty sounds cool, even though it's pretty clearly cannibalizing the Warlord class (which I had hoped to see as a class). A wizard-Leader 

 But I'm confused about cleric healing again; I thought Mearls had meant that healing is being cordoned off into Channel Divinity to free cleric spell slots up for other actions, but now he made it sound like you can use Channel Divinity AND spells for healing, which might not solve the initial problem at all (that is, clerics will still feel pressured to reserve all their slots for Cure X Wounds IN ADDITION to their Channel Divinity). 

Also, the back-and-forth made it unclear whether ALL cleric spells are spontaneous- Vancian (a la 3e sorcerer) or whether non-domain spells need to be prepared wizard-style. I'm 99% sure it's all spontaneous, but the conversation confused me again.


----------



## VinylTap (Aug 13, 2012)

Pour said:


> I just don't see a logical evolution they're expressing from 4e to 5e ,  ie I can't make the jump with them that 5e is some sort of  advancement/fix/reaction to 4e. Maybe in a few ways, though it feels  more like inclusion than advancement from following the L&L on here.  Were they speaking solely to the idea that every class now gets its own  mechanical schtick, which 4e forgoes for a uniform AEDU model? Is that  what they're saying 5e advances from 4e? I'm just a little confused  there.





I played 4th as soon as it came out, but only the once. My initial reaction was "wow, this is a lot of fun right off the bat! This is great, and I can see why they chose this direction". I found a group of people willing to play, but after some web-research decided pathfinder was a safer bet for my group as they seemed to lean more towards narrative than combat. The only problem I have with pathfinder is it holds true to a lot of aged game mechanics that drive me nuts, 

I'm looking forward to that feeling I got with that initial 4th introduction ("wow, all of this makes a lot of sense!"), but as a very basics, polished open-ended framework of rules I can adapt to my own devises. 

That's really exciting for someone looking for an elegant, innocuous-as-possible system. It does feel like a bit of a regression, but in the long run, 4th might end up feeling like a smaller blip on the culture than any of the other editions. 

Not only that, but the slowing of power-creep of abilities/items, bounded-accuracy, and larger level range for monsters really speaks to the game designer in me.


----------



## Pour (Aug 13, 2012)

VinylTap said:


> I played 4th as soon as it came out, but only the once. My initial reaction was "wow, this is a lot of fun right off the bat! This is great, and I can see why they chose this direction". I found a group of people willing to play, but after some web-research decided pathfinder was a safer bet for my group as they seemed to lean more towards narrative than combat. The only problem I have with pathfinder is it holds true to a lot of aged game mechanics that drive me nuts,
> 
> I'm looking forward to that feeling I got with that initial 4th introduction ("wow, all of this makes a lot of sense!"), but as a very basics, polished open-ended framework of rules I can adapt to my own devises.
> 
> ...




Sorry, I'm even more confused now. And I don't want to stir any edition war sentiments here, so I'll mosey on off. Maybe if we had the full podcast I could make some overarching assumptions *shakes fist at Wizards*.


----------



## tuxgeo (Aug 13, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Things I recall from listening to it just now:
> 
> Clerics start with no armour or weapon proficiencies - their domain decides that, as well as what minor (at-will) spells they can cast and the spell list they have to cast from 3E-Sorcerer style.
> Wizards will have a tradition, that does something..
> Backgrounds (which appeared to be 3 skills and a trait) mentioned included Noble (you get henchmen!), Soldier, Bounty Hunter, Artisan, Knight.




If I heard aright, Mearls said that each character gets 3 skills from his or her background, except that Rogues get additional skills as part of their class. However, he also mentioned that Clerics get the Religion skill from their class. (The rules are probably still in flux. . . .) 



> Themes are now specialities or something, mentioned are Leader (Feat 1 Battle Commander will give allies advantage and a move, for your action), Magic-User.
> < snip >



Yeah, the thing that used to be called "Theme" -- i.e. a list of feats that the character gets progressively starting at Level 1, then more at later levels -- is now called "Specialty"; and the word "Theme" is now a blanket term covering both Background and Specialty. (Again, if I heard aright.)


----------



## mlund (Aug 13, 2012)

I kind of wish every class got one skill - Cleric: Religious Lore, Ranger: Nature Lore, Fighter: Athletics, Wizard: Arcane Lore etc. Well, except for the Rogue archetypes would've got a slew of skills, what with it being their shtick and all.

- Marty Lund


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 13, 2012)

I may be reading to much into it here, but when mike said "clerics get religion" I almost felt like it was a omg how could we not think of that butt pull


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Aug 13, 2012)

mlund said:


> I kind of wish every class got one skill - Cleric: Religious Lore, Ranger: Nature Lore, Fighter: Athletics, Wizard: Arcane Lore etc. Well, except for the Rogue archetypes would've got a slew of skills, what with it being their shtick and all.




Honestly, rogues should get Stealth, because I can't imagine a 5e rogue functioning without it. And I wouldn't be surprised if rangers got, say, Survival AND Perception to give them a leg up on skills over other classes (except rogues).

The only trick with this system is that a lot of the best-suited backgrounds for a given class would cover the default skills. For example, the "priest" background obviously should include Knowledge: Religion and equally obviously should be a good choice for clerics. I'm guessing there will be a "pick one other suitable skill of your choice, at DM's discretion, when they overlap" line to cover those situations.


----------



## mlund (Aug 13, 2012)

ZombieRoboNinja said:


> Honestly, rogues should get Stealth, because I can't imagine a 5e rogue functioning without it.




I can't imagine a thief functioning without it, but if say, the Bard is a sub-set of the Rogue again then maybe Bluff would be more appropriate. Every rogue knows how to create a diversion, an opening, or pretend like he's not up to know good. Anyone in their lines of work without those skills winds up jailed or dead quick enough. 



> I'm guessing there will be a "pick one other suitable skill of your choice, at DM's discretion, when they overlap" line to cover those situations.




I'd hope so. The whole "pick and mix" feature for background skills would logically extend to this.

- Marty Lund


----------



## The Human Target (Aug 13, 2012)

I know its a play test and all, but how you get skills/special abilities seems extraordinarily either cookie cutter or complicated.


----------



## hopeless (Aug 27, 2012)

Here's part 4

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Penny Arcade/PvP [URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=4]#4  (of 4))[/url]

Interestingly there's an extra bit where they list their new character sheets and backgrounds they went for.


----------

