AMAredditMike

When did you decide to add traits into the game, and how did they develop?

Leave a comment
I really like traits/ideals/etc and Inspiration, and I like how Inspiration works differently from similar mechanics in other games- I like how it isn’t a point economy, and its easy to have it, use it, and award it.
When did you guys decide to add traits/etc into the game, and how did they develop? Ditto Inspiration?They came in fairly late in the process, if I recall correctly. We knew we wanted to have mechanical support for roleplaying, and it was something we suspected that people would react well to.
The mechanics were inspired by two RPGs, FATE and Pendragon. They gave us some nifty models for adding a system to encourage RP without being heavy handed about it. We knew that the rules needed a light touch, because some people would really latch on to it while others would avoid it.
I’m happy with the end result – it’s nifty to see it accepted by so many people. I think inspiration, along with advantage and backgrounds, are the signature elements of this edition.Comment from discussion AMA: Mike Mearls, Co-Designer of D&D 5, Head of D&D R&D.

Could you explain in a bit more detail what kind of books we’ll see in the future?

Leave a comment
You’ve mentioned that you were going to stay away from the splatbook-a-month model of 3.x, and that most of the monetization would come from settings and APs. It’s also been said that you would expand character options with books on things like psionics.
Could you explain in a bit more detail what kind of books we’ll see in the future and what kind we won’t? Will we see the same kinds of books as in 3.x, but with more time for editing and more care given to avoid bloat?
I’ll give you an example of a theoretical expansion.
Let’s say we wanted to do psionics. We’d tie that to a campaign you can play, maybe one centered on mind flayers or a similar foe.
The psionic sourcebook would be the player’s companion to the DM’s mind flayer campaign. The sourcebook would have all the info for creating psionic characters, along with world material for players who are creating characters for the mind flayer campaign. The player’s book might also have a chapter written from an in-world perspective on psionics and psionic monsters, the kind of information that a character might have access to or have heard.
You can expect us to do one or two such products a year, to give people enough time to play through a campaign without overwhelming them with new options.Comment from discussion AMA: Mike Mearls, Co-Designer of D&D 5, Head of D&D R&D.

Do you think Gnolls should have rights?

Leave a comment
Heck yeah gnolls should have rights… Gnolls have the right to pillage, loot, and kill anyone they want… Gnolls have the right to worship Yeenoghu ALL NIGHT LONG… Gnolls have the right to feed on the living and cuddle with the dead. GO GNOLLS!!!Comment from discussion D&D AMA with Mike Mearls and Chris Lindsay 1/15.

I’m really curious about your thoughts on the design behind Paladins and clerics

Leave a comment
Comment from discussion Hi Mike,
I hope I’m not too late to ask this – work is busy so it’s hard to take time out to write a post.
I’m really curious about your thoughts on the design behind (and niche filled by) Paladins and clerics. I don’t want to prime your answer by putting my thoughts, but I do see some overlap with things like the 3rd level war specialization on the priest (sorry, no book in front of me) that make it hard for me to distinguish between the two classes.
Love 5e. It’s been a breath of fresh air and it has definitely rejuvenated my gaming group. Thank you for all you do!One of the things we tried to do was make paladins distinct by adding in the concept of the oath. A paladin doesn’t need to be tied to a deity to wield power, and in a future product we present a paladin who uses spells but has an oath tied to a kingdom or crown, rather than a god.AMA: Mike Mearls, Co-Designer of D&D 5, Head of D&D R&D.

What made the designers decide that the Death domain should be evil?

1 Comment
Comment from discussion I’m curious, what made you/the designers decide the the Death domain should be villainous/evil, DMG only material? Especially when the flagship setting for 5th edition has a neutral god of death in Kelemvor? Not to mention the fact that the Necromancer wizard has a far more evil vibe, but was still put in the Player’s Handbook instead of held back like the Death domain.
I can understand the whole “undead are evil” thing, but the Death domain doesn’t even mess about with undead for the most part (it has animate dead as a domain spell, but that’s it… and again, the Necromancer wizard loves undead). Given the wealth of non-evil deities of death, both in the real world and the various D&D settings, what caused that decision?Kelemvor is a little bit of an outlier compared to most settings. We wanted it to be available in the core, but felt that making it a default didn’t fit the flavor of most campaigns.
While DMs can pick and choose options, we felt that the PHB had to be a selection of material that 90% of DMs would be happy to have in their campaigns. The death domain and the oathbreaker didn’t quite hit that level.AMA: Mike Mearls, Co-Designer of D&D 5, Head of D&D R&D.