# D&D Next Playtest Package Questions Answered! (Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford)



## Morrus (May 29, 2012)

Today (May 29th), another live D&D Next chat took place with Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford. The transcript of that chat is below. This chat, like the previous one, deals primarily with the D&D Next public playtest - more specifically the playtest package which was released last week. This chat covers a lot of the questions being repeatedly asked on the forums.

*Trevor:* Welcome to this week's D&D Next Playtest Q&A. Mike and Jeremy will be joining us shortly. This is a moderated chat, which means we will see your questions and comments, but the room won't see them until we push them live so Mike and Jeremy can give you an answer. 

*Mearls:* Hello everyone.

*Jeremy Crawford:* Hi, everyone!

*Trevor:* And the stars have arrived! Let's get a brief introduction from the two of you and then jump into some questions!

*Mearls:* Hey everyone. My name is Mike Mearls and I am the senior manager for the D&D team.

*Jeremy Crawford:* I'm Jeremy Crawford, head of development and editing for D&D. Bring on the questions!

Mike Looney: I've noticed that to hit doesn't seem to go up with levels or with monster's hit points. Is this in fact correct or is it an artifact of the play test material being for 1-3rd level only? 

*Mearls:* You don't see those number rise at levels 1 to 3, but we are overall toning down numerical advancement. The classes generally get more stuff to do, rather than bigger numbers. With a flatter curve, we can make monsters and characters scale much better. For instance, a 10th-level party can still take on orcs as a viable threat, they'll just fight a ton of them. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* Yeah, we want to see less number inflation throughout the system. Except for the number of monsters, that is. 

Brian: Can you explain where the extra +2 damage for the fighter comes from (beyond Weapon Focus)? Will we get an explanation of the racial benefits to damage and hit dice soon so we can understand what to do as characters change equipment? 

*Jeremy Crawford:* The fighter's bonus comes from the class's advancement table. It's a class feature. As for the racial benefits, there will more explanation when we release the information on building your own character.

mepstein73: Hello! Just wondering why the wizard's cantrips are so strong. Ray of Frost can end combat pretty quickly, and Magic Missile is very powerful if it's unlimited/day. 

*Mearls:* I think that for at-will abilities, we might have made them a little overpowered a bit in terms of math and feel. For instance, does it feel OK that magic missile does auto damage every round? The speed thing on ray of frost is tricky, because it can vary from being very powerful to being useless. I think getting the minor spells right will take a few iterations. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* When we playtest things, we prefer to start powerful and tone things down, rather than starting weak and beefing things up, hence the spells' potency.

lucinian: Thanks for taking the time to do these chats. They're very informative, and help let us know you really care what we think. My question: There seems to be, overall, very little from 4E that's made it into the core rules for D&D Next. What can 4E fans expect going forward?

*Jeremy Crawford:* Things we love about 4th Edition continue to work their way into the design. The at-will spells are a great example of such a thing.

*Mearls:* There are quite a few core 4e changes that are in the game - at will magic, the hit die mechanic, the clarity of the combat rules. These are all trend lines that started with 4e and have moved forward. In terms of powers, we're working on a combat maneuver system right now and will show that off as part the ongoing playtest. Also, I did some work over the weekend on the tactical rules options. In many ways, the depth of 4e's approach to combat and options will sit atop the system you've seen so far as rules modules. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* Our current work on monsters is also being informed by some of the advances that 4E brought to the presentation of monsters' abilities.

*Mearls:* That's right - monsters haven't seen much work yet, so you'll see a 4e influence there, too.

Guest: One of my questions is this... in the weapons descriptions the sling is listed as a 1d6 weapon. However, with the rogue character it is a 1d8. Why is that? 

*Mearls:* Races that have a cultural affinity for weapons get a die bump in damage. So, halflings are good with slings and therefore use a bigger damage die.

*Jeremy Crawford:* Also, one of our developers is currently doing a review of every weapon. Expect some of the dice to change.

NumberOneTheLarch: Hello and thank you for answering our questions. I wanted to ask about skills themselves. In the playtest, your skill bonuses are derived from your Background. In your plans for DnD Next, is this the only source for skill bonuses, or will there be an option or implementation to select individual skill bonuses through other means? Thank you again! 

*Mearls:* You can gain more skills through your class and through your theme. The samples we showed off don't happen to offer that. But as an example - the rogue class receives a few bonus skill, and you can expect the same for the ranger.

*Jeremy Crawford:* We will also provide an option for you to build your own background, which effectively means you can choose skills a la carte.

Rheim: I have a question about Armor balance. From the playtesting guide, it seems that there isn't a good balance between Light/Medium and Heavy Armors. Are there revised rules coming out on this? Right now there seems little advantage to wearing say, Heavy Armor versus Medium Armor. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* Armor--that's going through the same review with weapons, so I expect changes there too. 

*Mearls:* Yes, armor will go back to the drawing board. We included it in the document as a reference, but it hasn't received a lot of attention. I'd like to see if we even need medium armor in the game. Starting gear might also change - you might start lower on the totem pole and buy your way up to better armor over the first few levels.

Roll 3d6: I like where this edition is going. Thank you! Had a question regarding the Guardian Talent for the Cleric. We saw that there is currently no limit for how often the Cleric can shield someone. Should this be 1x/round? 

*Jeremy Crawford:* That ability requires the cleric to use it as a reaction, and a character can take a reaction only once per round.

The rogue: Why did you decide to remove the different types of actions? (Standard/Move/Minor/Free)

*Mearls:* Two reasons. First, we wanted to speed up play. We found that some players felt that they had to use each of those actions, and would slow the game down trying to find things to do. Second, we decided to start with simple rules and see what people felt they needed added to the core, as opposed to a rules module, through the test. Sometimes, having the action buckets led to design that existed only to fill those buckets, rather than design that made the game more fun or more interesting.

*Jeremy Crawford:* We have played with several versions of the action system. The one you're using now is the simplest. We want to see how far we can go with it. 

Guest: About hiding. When I try to hide it is an action. If no-one see me (no LoS) I guess it's no roll and no action, right? 

*Jeremy Crawford:* The thing to keep in mind is that hiding involves being both out of sight and silent. If you're out of sight, you aren't necessarily hidden. You could be making a bunch of noise. Hiding is something you do consciously and carefully, hence it requiring an action. 

Pentadrone: How will low wisdom rogues be able to scout effectively? Feats? Will you be adding skills back into the mix so characters can overcome stat deficiencies? 

*Mearls:* Obviously, the pregen isn't the best scout. We had talked about giving the rogue class an extra bonus to finding traps, so that's something we'll look at. The key with the rogue will be in making sure that the class does the things people expect. The error might simply be in treating Wis as the dump stat for the pregen. We've also thought about letting rogues use a different stat to find traps, such as Intelligence.

*Darklight:* When are we going to be given the chance to provide some actual feedback, and when do you estimate the next phase of the playtest will take place?

*Mearls:* I believe that the first survey launches later this week, plus we're watching forums and blogs for reactions. Posting a playtest recap in a forum or blog is great, because we get to read it and it helps get people talking about issues.

The next phase will depend on what the feedback looks like. I'd like to start pushing out some more fighter options and perhaps show off the tactical rules module.

As far as an actual schedule, we're aiming at a big update about every 5 to 6 weeks.

Scipio202: Right now there are no rules that give a downside for moving in combat. Opportunity attacks can get complicated quickly, but are you considering a simple version for the core rules? (e.g. the mover is only subject to OAs from enemies that made a melee attack at them within the last round)

*Mearls:* A rule for breaking away from melee is something we've seen come up a bit. It's a tricky thing to navigate. It might come in as a rules module. The hard part has been finding a rule that works that also doesn't feel too restrictive. For instance, for a while the rule was that your movement stopped if you entered a hostile creature's reach. However, that feels a little artificial.

*Jeremy Crawford:* We have experimented with a number of opportunity attack alternatives. Ultimately, we don't want everyone in the core system to make such attacks, but we expect certain characters and monsters to be able to do so as a special ability.

*Mearls:* Another one we talked about - leaving a creature's reach is an action. If you don't use that action, it gets a free hack at you. So, you can't attack and move away without a return attack. This is an area where after playing without such a mechanic, I'd like to put it out there as an option and see if people want it as an option or in the core.

Jon: Can you talk about the motivation behind the advantage/disadvantage?

*Mearls:* This was a contentious issue on the design team. Basically, we wanted to do two things -

1. Make modifiers much more important, rather than relying on lots of little ones that don't have a big effect but require a lot of bookkeeping.

2. Introduce a benefit or disadvantage that you can apply after you rolled and forgot about it. I like that if you forget advantage or disad, you can just throw another die and resolve it. I've found in my games that sometimes people roll, announce a result, pick up their dice, and forget what they had when someone points out a missing mod 5 seconds later.

The rogue: Can distance be measured in squares instead of feet? As a european/non-american it's hard to convert from feet all the time. In squares it's rather universal.

*Jeremy Crawford:* Sure! The rule of thumb is that 5 feet equal a square. When we break out miniatures and a grid, we find ourselves saying "squares" instead of "feet." It's been easy, thankfully, to switch back and forth. 

*Mearls:* We tried to keep things at a 5 feet minimum because we felt that both with and without minis, that's the easiest distance to imagine in your head. Personally, I actually like meters because if you draw a map with one meter per square, the dimensions of rooms are more realistic. Alas, we're based in the US and people like their non-metric measures here. It might be something we'll look at for translations and such in the future.

Lyrant: As my group and I were going over our character sheets for the playtest we noticed a few numbers that were higher than anything on the page said they had a right to be. For instance, the Cleric of Moradin had a +2 to AC that couldn't be found anywhere, and some other characters had similar bits with their damage, whassup with that? 

*Jeremy Crawford:* The bonuses are coming from a variety of sources, especially class and race.

*Mearls:* I think I know where that comes from. Dwarves get +1 AC in medium and heavy armor. Also, I think that the armor chart in the test is 1 point off from the armor as given to the characters. When in doubt, use the character sheet number. That's what we based the monsters off of. 

This stuff will all make sense when we move to letting people make characters for the test.

Guest: What makes a good theme or background? What do you look for?

*Jeremy Crawford:* A good background says something evocative about a character's place in the world, especially the character's place before the campaign started. The background should have skills, a trait, and starting equipment that all say something flavorful about a character. 

*Mearls:* A good theme should be evocative and really speak to how your class operates. The themes we have right now are mostly mechanical in nature, but as we flesh them out you'll see more evocative ones.

For instance, I like the idea of a necromancer theme that alters all of your spells in some minor way. For instance, when you damage a creature with a spell you get some small healing. Or, if you kill a creature with a spell it pops back up as a skeleton or zombie.

If a class says what you can do, a theme says how you can do it. So, the paladin, fighter, or ranger who is a two-weapon duelist looks much different than the character who took the guardian theme and is an expert with his or her shield.

What it boils down to is that the theme does something interesting or fun that rests outside character class. Think of it as the sum expression of your feats.

*Jeremy Crawford:* In many ways, backgrounds can be a guide to roleplaying. The commoner fighter and the noble fighter, for instance, are likely to have very different motivations.

*Mearls:* Since the core math advancements rests only in class, we can afford for themes to be much more flavorful and specialized.

*Jeremy Crawford:* One more thing about backgrounds and themes: A background, ultimately, describes who you were before you started adventuring, whereas a theme flavors how you adventure.

August: In the 'How to Play' section (page 7), it notes that if you attack a creature from whom you are hidden, you gain advantage. That makes sense. But doesn't it make the Thief's 'Ambusher' power completely irrelevant? 

*Mearls:* There's a subtle point to Ambusher that make make it fairly lame in practice.

When you're hidden, you are no longer hidden the moment that you are no longer obscured from view. So, if you hide and then step out into bright light to stab an orc, the orc sees you as you attack and you lose advantage.

Ambusher negates that - you keep advantage until your turn ends, so you can step out into the light and then attack with it. I think the rule might be a little too fiddly, though. There's a good chance that Ambusher will be revised or replaced based on feedback.

SlyFlourish: Is the plan to give each PC something exciting each level and how do you plan to put that burden across race, class, theme, and background?

*Mearls:* We're definitely aiming for something at each level, and you can expect that to be spread across class and theme. Race does not automatically give you something, but we've talked about race-based themes (dwarven defender) that speak to your race abilities.

So, you could imagine that at each level you get either a class thing, a theme thing, or an improvement to an existing ability. I do believe that your skill bonuses increase at a couple, specific levels, so backgrounds do improve.

Guest: Will characters only have one theme or background over their character life or will they be able to add more later? What about changing them out as the character changes over the story?

*Jeremy Crawford:* We expect certain characters to have more than one theme, and we are exploring the concept of advanced themes at higher levels.

*Mearls:* Background is a level 1 choice that represents what you did before becoming an adventurer, so it doesn't change. However, you can gain access to more skills and traits at higher levels through class and theme.

For themes, you can pick one and advance in it, mix a couple, or build your own by selecting feats a la carte. I also hope that DMs see them as a tool to create custom themes for their campaigns.

*Jeremy Crawford:* We have even talked about fighters getting two themes at 1st level.

*Mearls:* As far as changing stuff, that is an option we'll include. The first step will likely be, "Talk to your DM", but it makes sense to give people the option to do-over choices.

ExtendedRest: Is there a plan to deal with long term wounds? Right now having all health and everything reset after a long rest seems a little too easy. Especially with as little healing options as a Next party have access to on their own right now. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* We're not likely to make long-term wounds a part of the core, but we have discussed providing a wound option for DMs to incorporate into their campaigns.

*Mearls:* We erred on the side of letting long rests heal everything, primarily because we were fairly split on how to treat it. Personally, I'd like to see a rule where you get back a certain amount of hit dice each extended rest. It might be based on Con and/or class. I have to admit that the current rule picks at my sense of realism. 

To follow-up what Jeremy said, I've toyed with a wound system where you get some effect each time you drop below 0 hp, to represent a bad injury, For instance, broken bones, strained joints, concussions, etc. But that would be a rules module. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* This is another example (the long rest) of us leading with the powerful version of something with the expectation that we might end up dialing it back, based on playtest feedback.

Duskreign: How exactly does the cone from Burning Hands look? We had a few issues with how it is supposed to look on the grid. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* We will eventually show you how we expect things like cones to look on the grid. 

*Mearls:* Yeah, we'll figure out if its a template or if we draw it to fit the grid.

*Jeremy Crawford:* As we've mentioned before, the rules do not assume the use of miniatures, but we will provide support for the use of miniatures. Almost everyone in the office likes to use minis at some point during an adventure.

Jon McCarty: Given the feedback about Save or Die mechanics, I sort of expected we might see something a little different in the bestiary. From what I've seen, it appears that only the Medusa really has such a mechanic, and it appears to be the old sort without anything like an HP threshold. Do we have anything more forgiving coming up? Are Stirges supposed to be a less direct save or die monster?

*Mearls:* Monsters are still a work in progress. With the medusa, we tried a mechanic where a character can choose to take a risk or avert his eyes and suffer a drawback. The stirge also shows something of a 4e approach, with a condition that gets worse and can scale up. It does have an issue with stacking, though, so the final form might be a save or check each round, rather than a situation where three stirges pounce on and kill a character.

Stephen: What was the thought process behind brining electrum back into D&D? 

*Jeremy Crawford:* Bringing electrum pieces back is a nod to the game's history. The coins also have a nice story now; they're remnants of lost kingdoms and fallen empires. In other words, we don't expect electrum pieces to be part of a kingdom's normal economy. They're exotic. 

Guest: Are critical hits always only maximum damage, i.e. is there every anything additional? Criticals seem noticeably weaker and more boring than in past editions.

*Jeremy Crawford:* We've playtested more critical hit systems than I can count.  

*Mearls:* This is another area where we kept it simple and will see what kind of feedback we get.

*Trevor:* Alright, one last question then we'll let these guys get back to work.

Felix T. Katt: What has the quality of the playtest feedback been so far? Are there things you would like the community to sound off more or less about?

*Mearls:* The feedback so far has been good. The big thing is to write about the conditions of the game - did you play it like a regular session, was it just a test of the combat rules, and so on. It also helps to get a sense of what you want and where the game failed to deliver it.

Really, everything is useful. It can range from doing some math and finding something that looks to good to coming across an unclear rule in play. For instance, the questions about the Ambusher ability show us that it isn't clear and might be too fiddly.

The feel is very important, too. Does this feel like D&D? Are you missing rules? Did rules get in the way?

The big thing is to avoid snark and an overly antagonistic attitude. We're human, and it's easy to tune out someone who comes across as a crank.

So, basically play the game, read over the rules, ask questions, and post your thoughts. This is a big undertaking - the biggest tabletop gaming play test ever - and we're committed to making it work. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* We also like it when people make a distinction in their feedback between their reading of a rule and their play of it. The two experiences are often quite different from each other.

*Mearls:* Thanks for the questions, everyone! It's great to see what issues are coming up and how the game is playing. 

*Jeremy Crawford:* Yeah, thanks, everyone! We hope you're enjoying digging into the game. We look forward to your feedback now and in the months ahead.

*Trevor:* That wraps our this Q&A. Thanks much to everyone for being a part of this and the D&D Next playtest! We'll keep you updated on the upcoming chats and other communications!


----------



## CleverNickName (May 29, 2012)

Thanks, team...reading this made me feel a lot better.  I look forward to running a few more test games, and generating lots of constructive feedback for you.  Keep up the good work!


----------



## Blackwarder (May 29, 2012)

The part about what sort of feedback they want is really helpfull, hopefully by Saturday I'll have three playtest sessions under my belt with two different groups so I'll write my impressions then.

Warder


----------



## Kaodi (May 29, 2012)

No questions about why online play was disallowed? That... stinks. Literally the only question I was looking for an answer to.


----------



## Morrus (May 29, 2012)

Kaodi said:


> No questions about why online play was disallowed? That... stinks. Literally the only question I was looking for an answer to.




My questions never get chosen either. They love that "The rogue" guy, though! Find out who he is and get him to ask next time they do one.


----------



## Melkor (May 29, 2012)

Thanks for the great info.

I continue to really like what I am hearing from the Next design team.


----------



## AeroDm (May 29, 2012)

Kaodi said:


> No questions about why online play was disallowed? That... stinks. Literally the only question I was looking for an answer to.



Lots of reticence to talk about anything online so far (play or tools). Maybe they're understandably shy since its consistently been a thorn for them. Or maybe they have a huge announcement of something awesome about to be revealed! Here's hoping.


----------



## Morrus (May 29, 2012)

More likely, Mike and Jeremy have nothing to do with legal.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 29, 2012)

The trouble with Ambusher isn't that it's not good, or that it's too fiddly, it's that the text doesn't tell you what it actually _does_.  It says you gain advantage, but you already have advantage.

What it *does* is allow you to remain hidden when you move into sight.

A better wording for it might be:

Benefit: When you start your turn hidden from a creature, you remain hidden from that creature even if you move to a place where it would normally spot you.  If you do not use your action to hide, the creature notices you at the end of your turn.

It basically does the same thing, but instead of "Huh?" or "That sucks, I already get advantage!" It's _awesome_.  

You can also use it to go from one hiding place to another without being spotted (an exploration option! Woot!)


----------



## Kichwas (May 30, 2012)

On th question on OA's, it seems to me like the simple approach would be something as small as:

1: "x penalty to AC vs. melee next round."

Or:

2: "anyone who could have hit you in melee last round can still do so for the next round without having to move."

The first one assumes 'generally distracted from moving out' and the second one assumes 'one last swing before you get away'. Do either or of these, not both - depending on the more 'ideal' philosophy for the AO.


----------



## Kichwas (May 30, 2012)

AeroDm said:


> Lots of reticence to talk about anything online so far (play or tools). Maybe they're understandably shy since its consistently been a thorn for them. Or maybe they have a huge announcement of something awesome about to be revealed! Here's hoping.




I always thought the online issues for DnD had to do with a messup between TSR selling rights to Microsoft -way back in the day-. Of course these days there are several online things that imply this got resolved long ago - unless its only been resolved in pieces.


----------



## Kichwas (May 30, 2012)

Mearls: "Personally, I actually like meters because if you draw a map with one meter per square, the dimensions of rooms are more realistic."

Use 1 yard. also known as three feet. Its very close to 1 meter. And for many people, "close" to the distance from ground to hips (for those needing a visual).

1 meter = 1.0936133 yard. Also known as pretty darn similar. Most of us yanks can also visualize a yard because almost every elementary school in nation has a yard stick in the classroom somewhere...


----------



## Ichneumon (May 30, 2012)

FitzTheRuke said:


> The trouble with Ambusher isn't that it's not good, or that it's too fiddly, it's that the text doesn't tell you what it actually _does_.  It says you gain advantage, but you already have advantage.
> 
> What it *does* is allow you to remain hidden when you move into sight.
> 
> ...




That's a much better wording, and with the last sentence in mind, I'd propose to have its name changed to Stalker.


----------



## john112364 (May 30, 2012)

arcady said:


> Mearls: "Personally, I actually like meters because if you draw a map with one meter per square, the dimensions of rooms are more realistic."
> 
> Use 1 yard. also known as three feet. Its very close to 1 meter. And for many people, "close" to the distance from ground to hips (for those needing a visual).
> 
> 1 meter = 1.0936133 yard. Also known as pretty darn similar. Most of us yanks can also visualize a yard because almost every elementary school in nation has a yard stick in the classroom somewhere...




Absolutely. This is what The Hero system does. Instead of moving 30 feet you could move 10 yards (or meters if you prefer. Close enough.) Each square could equal 2 yards (or meters), because I can easily see you controlling 2yards of personal space. it translates well enough and doesn't really affect the math. Actually I think it makes it easier.

 And didn't 1e measure distances in inches which translated to feet (for indoor distances) or yards (for outdoor distances). So there's even a sort of precedence.


----------



## occam (May 30, 2012)

FitzTheRuke said:


> The trouble with Ambusher isn't that it's not good, or that it's too fiddly, it's that the text doesn't tell you what it actually _does_.  It says you gain advantage, but you already have advantage.
> 
> What it *does* is allow you to remain hidden when you move into sight.
> 
> ...




But that's not what Ambusher does. Without Ambusher, you wouldn't usually get advantage with an attack from hiding, because the attack itself would reveal you (barring a sneak-friendly setup, typically out of combat, like attacking a distracted guard from behind). With Ambusher, it doesn't matter if the attack (or a prior move) reveals you, you get advantage on the first attack anyway.

The unclear wording is in the description of getting advantage on attacks while hiding (p.7 of How to Play), not in the Ambusher feat.


----------



## JonArkanix (May 30, 2012)

arcady said:


> I always thought the online issues for DnD had to do with a messup between TSR selling rights to Microsoft



I always wonder where people get these myths from. TSR never sold the rights to Microsoft for development or publishing of games based on the D&D properties. The vast majority of D&D games were published by SSI, Interplay, and Atari over the years.

Read and learn -> 1982-2011 DnD licenced games


----------



## Morrus (May 30, 2012)

I didn't really get the 5-feet question. Whether he calls a square a 'square' or '5-feet', why is he converting it to anything? Or does he mean dividing by five to make squares presents a difficulty? 

Being also European, I simply don't share his difficulty. It's never even occurred to me. Is he converting GP to Euros and speed to km/hr, too?

Colour me confused. Just call it a square it it makes you happier; I prefer 5' myself as it feels more real.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (May 30, 2012)

Good clarifications.  It seems to me like they are really fiddling with the details of the game, interested in variations, and have already keyed in on some of the things that bug us (armor design, heal on extended rest, at-will MM) as deliberate things to experiment with.

If they run multiple iterations like this, it will restore a lot of my faith in their process even if they make some decisions I don't personally care for.


----------



## jadrax (May 30, 2012)

arcady said:


> Mearls: "Personally, I actually like meters because if you draw a map with one meter per square, the dimensions of rooms are more realistic."
> 
> Use 1 yard. also known as three feet. Its very close to 1 meter. And for many people, "close" to the distance from ground to hips (for those needing a visual).
> 
> 1 meter = 1.0936133 yard. Also known as pretty darn similar. Most of us yanks can also visualize a yard because almost every elementary school in nation has a yard stick in the classroom somewhere...




Yes, the Yard is great, much better then 5 feet.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 30, 2012)

> Stephen: What was the thought process behind brining electrum back into D&D?
> 
> Jeremy Crawford: Bringing electrum pieces back is a nod to the game's history. The coins also have a nice story now; they're remnants of lost kingdoms and fallen empires. In other words, we don't expect electrum pieces to be part of a kingdom's normal economy. They're exotic.



Cool. I like electrum pieces, and making them exotic seems interesting to me.


----------



## renau1g (May 30, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I didn't really get the 5-feet question. Whether he calls a square a 'square' or '5-feet', why is he converting it to anything? Or does he mean dividing by five to make squares presents a difficulty?
> 
> Being also European, I simply don't share his difficulty. It's never even occurred to me. Is he converting GP to Euros and speed to km/hr, too?
> 
> Colour me confused. Just call it a square it it makes you happier; I prefer 5' myself as it feels more real.




I'm Canadian, and while we have a lot of American influence, I also don't suffer any issue with the units of measurement in the game. 

2 yards/meters seems too much for me for some reason. 6.5 feet seems high....


----------



## Drowmage (May 30, 2012)

Yard is better to a more international audience.


----------



## Thalionalfirin (May 30, 2012)

Forgive my ignorance, but was this chat on the Wizards website?  I looked for a recap there and didn't see anything being announced.


----------



## Kichwas (May 30, 2012)

renau1g said:


> 2 yards/meters seems too much for me for some reason. 6.5 feet seems high....




EDIT: Read you as suggesting 2 meters, and like an idiot I didn't even finish reading your sentence... I always get annoyed when people do that to me...

So the below is really in agreement with you rather than disagreement... 


2 yards / meters is even worse than 5 feet in terms of scale - it makes drawing rooms very hard, and makes it near impossible to hold a fight in a normal sized room without having special rules for 'standing in the same square as somebody else'.

Plus, growing up in the inner city - 3 feet is more like the space you use for a fight, even one armed with machetes / shovels and such. You can fit 2 people in about 2 to 4 feet of space once it hits unarmed (which becomes a great way to take out a "kung-fu kid" -as opposed to a real martial artist that knows how to set up a move- who tries to kick somebody, when you grab their leg...).

Of course in the real world these things get super messy and you'd end up 'sharing the space' of a whole living room or such and you toss, shove, pull, trip, and so on... even when armed... Tracking that on a miniatures grid is almost pointless from being -too clean-.


----------



## Kichwas (May 30, 2012)

JonArkanix said:


> I always wonder where people get these myths from. TSR never sold the rights to Microsoft for development or publishing of games based on the D&D properties. The vast majority of D&D games were published by SSI, Interplay, and Atari over the years.
> 
> Read and learn -> 1982-2011 DnD licenced games




I could have sworn there was some issue with one of the major game publishers in the 90s selling its rights to online use to Microsoft - and I'd thought it was D&D. But I'm coming up blank on any Google references... so... shrug... not sure where I got that from.


----------



## jadrax (May 30, 2012)

arcady said:


> Of course in the real world these things get super messy and you'd end up 'sharing the space' of a whole living room or such and you toss, shove, pull, trip, and so on... even when armed... Tracking that on a miniatures grid is almost pointless from being -too clean-.




When I ran Warhammer, which had a lot of Urban fights, we was always interesting when you could say that the fight was taking place in room with the same dimensions as we were playing in (even if this meant moving location). With the right props suddenly you start realsing that you can only realistically attack with full sword strokes from certain angles and every time you do so your going to be endangering your own side.

And yes, 5 foot steps will often take you out of the room.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 30, 2012)

Glad to hear they may dial back the full heal with 8 hour rest. I really don't likt the HD mechanic as written now. Too much healing, too fast.


----------



## Blackbrrd (May 30, 2012)

I really like the things I am reading here. It seems like they have pounced on the items that I don't really like about 4e. Less numerical progression and less square combat sounds great.


----------



## Dahak (May 30, 2012)

arcady said:


> I could have sworn there was some issue with one of the major game publishers in the 90s selling its rights to online use to Microsoft - and I'd thought it was D&D. But I'm coming up blank on any Google references... so... shrug... not sure where I got that from.




That was Fasa.


----------



## Thotas (May 30, 2012)

arcady said:


> Mearls: "Personally, I actually like meters because if you draw a map with one meter per square, the dimensions of rooms are more realistic."
> 
> Use 1 yard. also known as three feet. Its very close to 1 meter. And for many people, "close" to the distance from ground to hips (for those needing a visual).
> 
> 1 meter = 1.0936133 yard. Also known as pretty darn similar. Most of us yanks can also visualize a yard because almost every elementary school in nation has a yard stick in the classroom somewhere...




This has been what I've wanted to see for decades now.  For exactly this reason.  Call the unit a "yom" (Yard Or Meter) and say it's the unit of measure in Greyhawk/The Forgotten Realms/Golarion (what's that?).  The approximate 10% difference between Yank and European is less than the margin error in generalization we're already using.


----------



## tuxgeo (May 30, 2012)

Thalionalfirin said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but was this chat on the Wizards website?  I looked for a recap there and didn't see anything being announced.




It was a live event on the Wizards website, that anyone could watch while it happened; but Wizards is typically quite slow to post transcripts of those sessions. 

That's one of the reasons for the great popularity of Russ' "EN World" website, here: transcripts get put up for view within hours, not weeks. (This is a significant service to the gaming population.)


----------



## Swick (May 30, 2012)

And, they also like that "Guest" guy too! 

I was wondering, where were the Cleric Domains?  Were they hidden in the character sheet somewhere? And, what was the difference between Hill and Mountain Dwarves?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 30, 2012)

occam said:


> But that's not what Ambusher does. Without Ambusher, you wouldn't usually get advantage with an attack from hiding, because the attack itself would reveal you (barring a sneak-friendly setup, typically out of combat, like attacking a distracted guard from behind). With Ambusher, it doesn't matter if the attack (or a prior move) reveals you, you get advantage on the first attack anyway.
> 
> The unclear wording is in the description of getting advantage on attacks while hiding (p.7 of How to Play), not in the Ambusher feat.




I'm not sure what you think is unclear about the "Advantage on Attacks" benefit of being hidden.  If you attack from hidden,  you have advantage, and then you are revealed.

But if you feel that way, perhaps a better wording would be:

Benefit: If you start your turn hidden from a creature, you remain hidden from that creature until your first attack against it is resolved, even if you move to a position where the creature would normally spot you before attacking.

Or whatever.  Makes it only useful in a direct combat sense, though.   Sometimes "ambushing" requires one to be able to move from one position to another, which is why I prefer the other wording.  At any rate I meant that my other wording did the same thing story-wise, not quite mechanically.

Depends on what they really mean for ambusher to do exactly.


----------



## Alukane (May 30, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I didn't really get the 5-feet question. Whether he calls a square a 'square' or '5-feet', why is he converting it to anything? Or does he mean dividing by five to make squares presents a difficulty?
> 
> Being also European, I simply don't share his difficulty. It's never even occurred to me. Is he converting GP to Euros and speed to km/hr, too?
> 
> Colour me confused. Just call it a square it it makes you happier; I prefer 5' myself as it feels more real.




In the european versions of d&d books all unit of measurement are converted. An "european" square is 1.5 meters. I'd rather prefer not converting at all and go with feet and pounds...


----------



## Fifth Element (May 30, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Glad to hear they may dial back the full heal with 8 hour rest. I really don't likt the HD mechanic as written now. Too much healing, too fast.



Full hp recovery overnight has nothing to do with the HD mechanic.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 30, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Full hp recovery overnight has nothing to do with the HD mechanic.




It is tied into the whole healing package and is becoming the shorthand for the playtest's approach to healing. I dont like the 8 hour recovery and not a fan of the HD mechanic itself.


----------



## Balesir (May 30, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I didn't really get the 5-feet question. Whether he calls a square a 'square' or '5-feet', why is he converting it to anything? Or does he mean dividing by five to make squares presents a difficulty?
> 
> Being also European, I simply don't share his difficulty. It's never even occurred to me. Is he converting GP to Euros and speed to km/hr, too?
> 
> Colour me confused. Just call it a square it it makes you happier; I prefer 5' myself as it feels more real.



I think I know just what he's getting at - the conversion from feet to squares. It's not difficult, it's just irritating and an unnecessary obfuscation as I find it. Every time I come upon something in (multiples of five) feet my brain is asking "what the heck is _that_ in Christian money?"

It has also led to some very odd wording in the "How to Play"/rules documant, such as "every 5 feet you swim/climb/whatever costs an extra 5 feet of movement". So, if you swim or climb 4 feet, what happens? Does it "cost" you an extra 5 feet? An extra 4 feet? Nothing extra at all? This needs to either say "swimming/climbing/etc. movement counts against your move distance as if you had moved twice the distance you actually did" or to just admit that it's a game we're playing and say "each square of swimming/climbing movement costs 2 movement points".

Given the other changes in there, I'm thinking "movement points" would be a useful concept, since it's clear that standing up and such like cost movement to perform. I'm really pretty sceptical that this is going to end up *simpler* than having 3-4 separate action types, but we'll see.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 30, 2012)

I really like the hd mechanic. A heal check (or as in the playtest an application of the healing kit) should heal an amount determinded by class. Because Class HD more or less define how griveous a 5hp wound is.
Mike feels that healing to full is off. And I really would expect the heal all HD but no HP mechanic would really make the game ver gritty.

You have 17hp or so at level 1 if you have high con and a hig hit die. The most you can heal is one HD + con per night, which is about half as much on average. So you need some more than a single night of sleep to proper heal and then have some HD remaining.
When you level up, it gets better. But limiting the number of HD you gain back in some way could limit that.

All in all, a neat mechanic.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (May 31, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I didn't really get the 5-feet question. Whether he calls a square a 'square' or '5-feet', why is he converting it to anything? Or does he mean dividing by five to make squares presents a difficulty?
> 
> Being also European, I simply don't share his difficulty. It's never even occurred to me. Is he converting GP to Euros and speed to km/hr, too?
> 
> Colour me confused. Just call it a square it it makes you happier; I prefer 5' myself as it feels more real.




That also struck me as a little odd. Is it possible the person was just being snide about the use of Imperial units? I've seen some scorching reviews by Europeans of cookbooks written in the US that use Imperial units. Regardless, as you point out, it seems like a non-issue and a waste of a question.


----------



## Warunsun (May 31, 2012)

*?*

So my main question is why did they make people agree to an NDA web page (even if it was never legally signed) if they actually want people to post about the play-test in their blogs and on forums?

And...

Am I the only person that thinks that disadvantage sucks? Heck, I am the DM. And I still don't want to see my player's 18's or 20's turned into a 5. I cringe on the idea of disadvantage coming up a lot as a pretty un-fun mechanic. Sure everyone wants to have advantage but if you don't have disadvantage around almost as much it feels cheaty.


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 31, 2012)

Warunsun said:


> So my main question is why did they make people agree to an NDA web page (even if it was never legally signed) if they actually want people to post about the play-test in their blogs and on forums?



Pretty standard cover-our-asses legal mumbo-jumbo.

Basically, in the future, they will need to have forced us to agree not to reproduce the playtest materials.

It's not a great explanation, but law is weird.


----------



## MortalPlague (May 31, 2012)

Warunsun said:


> Sure everyone wants to have advantage but if you don't have disadvantage around almost as much it feels cheaty.




I don't think it'll come up as often.  Look at your game now; how often are players getting a +2 to hit for favorable circumstances (flanking, prone, etc)?  How often are they getting -2 to hit for unfavorable circumstances?

In most games, I expect the +2 comes up a fair bit more.


----------



## Blackwarder (May 31, 2012)

arcady said:


> Mearls: "Personally, I actually like meters because if you draw a map with one meter per square, the dimensions of rooms are more realistic."
> 
> Use 1 yard. also known as three feet. Its very close to 1 meter. And for many people, "close" to the distance from ground to hips (for those needing a visual).
> 
> 1 meter = 1.0936133 yard. Also known as pretty darn similar. Most of us yanks can also visualize a yard because almost every elementary school in nation has a yard stick in the classroom somewhere...




This ten times over! Change feets to yards/meters, it's the biggest hindrance for non-US new players to visualize what the hell is happening.

Warder


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 1, 2012)

Agreed. 1 square = 1 yard or 1 meter also reestablishes *three* medium creatures fighting side by side in the ubiquitous ten food corridor as called for by 1E AD&D.







Eye of the Beholder said:


> Quoting the original AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, regarding the use of miniatures in the game:
> 
> "Figure bases are necessarily broad in order to assure that the figure will stand... Because of this, it is usually necessary to use a ground scale twice that of the actual scale... squares of about one actual inch per side are suggested. Each ground scale inch can then be used to equal 3 1/2 linear feet, so a 10' wide scale corridor is three actual inches in width and shown as 3 separate squares. This allows depiction of the typical array of three figures abreast, and also enables easy handling of such figures when they are moved."​
> In short, the corridors were drawn ten feet wide, but with the assumption that ten feet was enough for three people fighting side by side (three squares), not two.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 6, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is tied into the whole healing package and is becoming the shorthand for the playtest's approach to healing. I dont like the 8 hour recovery and not a fan of the HD mechanic itself.



Obviously I can't agree that they're one in the same since I'm digging the HD mechanic but dislike full hp recovery on a rest.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 6, 2012)

Fifth Element said:


> Obviously I can't agree that they're one in the same since I'm digging the HD mechanic but dislike full hp recovery on a rest.




No, they are not identical. HD is a bit more believable to me (though I still find it gamey) but the full HP in a day is a killer bad idea IMO. It is like they took the stuff from 4e heaing I hated and cranked it up to 11 (just a total handwaving of any realism). I guess from mybperspective the HD and the full heal and the HD seem to grow out of the same pot (placing the desire for smooth play over the needs of the setting). Howver I suppose with the revised definition of HP, there is a strong argument to made that HD is there to capture the mojo aspect. 

Has anyone taken a good hard look at this though? I have to admit I haven't really broken it down yet and have mainly been focused on just gettin a hang on the new mechanics. But they have kind of committed to physical wounds happening at key intervals of hp loss, isn't this going to mean in pratice (if say fighter uses his hd to heal himself above that interval) that he is healing actual wounds on his own?


----------

