# Seminar Transcript - Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions



## Morrus (Jan 26, 2012)

This transcript is *paraphrased*, with some responses shortened. It is compiled from various tweets (thanks especially to Critical Hits, E. Foley, and Rolling20s for their live tweeting - I suggest you check out their Twitter feeds) plus WotC's live chat feed, and other sources. Photo tweeted by 
Rolling20s.

Welcome to the *D&D XP Seminar: Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions*! Please ask no questions about product releases, digital tools, etc. In attendence: Monte Cook, Mike Mearls, and Jeremy Crawford.

*Q What needs to be preserved from older editions? Player/DM relationship?*
Monte: The core mechanic of #dnd is: player says 'I want to X' and DM responds. Therein lie the stories. 
Mike: Offering a wide variety of options so every player can play the way they want to. 
Jeremy: The game being a toolbox for players/DMs to create stories together. And fireballs. (Some jokes about the importance of fireballs).

*Q: What are the essential elements of #dnd*?
Mike: The shared language: HP, AC, and things that lead to a shared culture.Shared stories: The Dread Gazeebo, the Head of Vecna, these things help make our common culture. 
Monte: Different players have different desires for their games, DMs, too. Take the distilled essence of #dnd, and build upon that in a modular way. Each group can use what they want. You like tactical, grid combat, or feats and extended skills? Use those. If you just like the core game, just use that.
Jeremy: Our goal is to get something from the design team with a specific goal. It's analyzed and evaluated... We're there to reality-check and forecast what the proposed design thoughts would be, now, and down the road. My team also does a lot of number-crunching. We make sure that everything done fulfills the overall vision. A synthesis of the "Greatest Hits" of all editions of D&D. Present and past.

*Q: How can we achieve balance in such a modular, flexible game?*
Jeremy: What's important to know is that module approach is a spectrum of playstyles.
Jeremy: There's a baseline game that provides the foundation. From there, you add on what you want. The seeds are there.
Monte: For example, the basic game fighter might have specific level-bases abilities. Things that every fighter has. If you decide to get more customized, you can swap standard abilities for more complex, optional abilities. These are the kinds of things that feats do now. But the complex stuff is balanced with what's in the core. One character is more complex, but not necessarily more powerful.
Jeremy: The DM should be able to create the experience that their group wants. The players should be able to choose their level of complexity, and have it work no matter the options chosen.
Mike: You can see expressions of character types that are found in other editions.
Monte: The DM says: we're using grid, mat and minis. The players can then choose options that match the DM's style.
Mike: If we get this right, everyone is sort of playing their own edition of the game. All at the same table.

*Q: How will roleplaying, combat and exploration be supported?*
Mike: If we support those three things, we've covered about 90% of what's important in the game. The customization comes in at the table level. DM makes choices along with the players to craft their game.
Jeremy: If a group wants more social interaction, the DM can choose the module that support that. If the group wants more tactical combat, then the group chooses those modules.
Mike: For example, a mass combat expansion would have a basic, core system. Choose modules to play generals, etc. Are you seeing the mass combat from the top down, or from an individual's POV?
Monte: These choices hve helped influence class design as well. This lets a combat-heavy fighter and an exploration-based rogue to both fulfill their roles well. Bards can still kick ass. Depending on what a player wants to do in/out of combat, there will be classes that well support that.
Mike: Swap the core class bits to make the character you want to play.

*Q: How will high level play work? *
Monte: Every edition of the game "breaks down" at a certain level. I don't think it breaks down, I just think it changes. I think 4E does the best of 
highlighting that high level change and being clear that things are changing. I think that we can run with that for the future and have a list of options for classes/characters that open up when you hit a certain level. We can also have other options, like building a castle, having followers and vassals. We can build that into what high level characters get. 
Mike: I think Monte hit on the really important point with saying that different people mean different things when they say the game breaks down at high levels. Some people are excited that their characters get really powerful. The question is what should that change really be? How should the game change at high levels? What should it look like and how should we build the breadth of options to cover that? Those are the real questions we're trying to answer when addressing high level play. 

*ON MONSTERS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS*

Monte: Instead of the fighter getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate. I think it offers a better play experience that the orc/ogre can remain in the campaign, and people can know how the monster would work from a previous experience, but they remain a challenge for longer.
Jeremy: The Monsters are in the design teams hands now and we'll be moving to development in the next few weeks. What I can say about this goal that Monte is talking about is that we're working ot provide the DM with really good world building tools. And it's important to provide information about the orcs place in D&D while making sure that a Monster remains relevant as the characters level up. They're might be an orc shaman, an orc champion or whatever for higher levels, but we also want the basic orc to be relevant at higher levels. We want it to be really easy for the DM to open the Monster Manual and drop an orc or iconic monsters into the game. 

*ON PLAYSTYLES & FEEL *

Jeremy: It's been great to see in playtesting how many different playstyles and desires have come up. The thing that's been driven home for me is how important his modular approach is, and the big tent to bring everybody in to play the same game. We know that the standard D&D game falls into the middle of all roleplay and all combat, but the feedback so far really drives home all the diversity and difference in desires and playstyles. When one person wants X and another person wants Y and they're both on opposite ends of the spectrum it's important that we take into those ideas and adding it in to our modular 
approach.
Monte: Making sure that a D&D wizard, or a D&D ranger feels like a D&D wizard/ranger is really important. Capturing that feel is one of the more difficult challenges because it's more ephemeral. It's difficult, but I think we've done a good job. When you get a chance to help in the playtest, hopefully you can let us know. (In response to a question: the ranger feels more like Aragorn than Drizzt).

*ON ADVENTURE DESIGN*

Jeremy: We have talked about having advengtures that cater to very particular tastes - political intrigue or classic dungeon crawl. You can also have the sandbox adventure that is an environment with hooks, fleshed out NPCs, evocative locations, And it really becomes a canvas for players and DMs to paint on. Sometimes, I think that's the best approach for people who want to choose their own way, but sometimes it's better to give a more directed approach for people who need that. 

*Q: What's the targeted game that you would make for your table?*
Monte: I would probably use miniatures, but I wouldn't necessarily want to get too tactical. For example, I would want rules for using a grid for movement around an encounter, but I wouldn't want to worry about too much detail. I would want there to be a lot of social interaction in my game and exploration. I would want those interaction to focus on player/character ingenuinity and descriptions of what they're doing instead of just rolling their dice and telling me what they got.
Mike: I like changing things up from session to session based on what's going on. I really want that flexibility.
Jeremy: I would want to have the flexibility to swing back and forth between mass battles and normal sized encounters, and for the rules to cover those kinds of things. 

*Q: How will multiclassing be handled? Will it go back to previous editions or be a feat tax?* 
Mike: We want to make it simple, but iconic class features need to be important as well. There are also packages we're looking at where characters can gain certain features or qualities that helps them branch out and feel like more of an individual or a real person. 

*Q: In the recent editions it looks like a lot of the player options have been narrowed down to things they can/can't do in the rules. Is this next iteration going to get away from that?* 
Monte: While having options in the rules is great, we want to open things up so players can get creative and ask to do things that are specifically covered by the rules. We want to empower DMs to with information in the DM guide and others resources to be able to handle those out of the box situations. So basically better gaming through better DM tools and DMing. 

*Q: Are the random tables going to make a return to D&D?*
Monte: There are a few different groups that most DMs fall into, and one of those groups wants to have randomness or at least an easy way to drop something into the game. I do want to make sure that we have those random tables for support for those kinds of DMs. 

*Q: Is there a timetable as to when we can start playtesting?*
Greg: The open playtest starts up sometime in the spring, and that's about all the information we have at this point. 
Q: How easy is it to switch to different styles of gameplay with this modular approach depending on the play groups mood or progression of the story? 
Mike: The idea is that, hoepfully if we do it right, that you can switch on the fly if you need to from one encounter/story bit to the next. Like maybe you can use miniatures and grid rules for this fight, but switch to some social modularity for the next bit. If we do it right that should be fairly easy. 

*Q: How are you addressing the specific needs of organized play, and how are we going to see that in the future.* 
Mike: What I imagine what you might see us doing is, so for our organized play game, here our the standard rules that characters and DMs will be using. It's important for us in an organized play environment that people know what we're getting in to. It's like what you've seen in LFR where there are accepted character options and players and DMs know what to expect. 

*Q: Do you expect one player to have fun with really stripped down rules and another player to have fun with controlling and doing bigger things?*
Monte: Running a few playtests, I had at one long term table a guy who hadn't played since 1st editon, a guy who was more 3rd edtion and a guy who was recently in to 4th. The guy who hadn't played in 1st edition didn't want a lot of options. This solidified in my mind, along with the other evidence we've seen, that there are a lot of players who want to have very few options on their character sheet. As a game goes on, that guy might see some of the cool things that other classes are doing and might want to add some of those modular abilities. This is something that is easy to do and change as the character progresses - he can pick up some of those more modular options if he wants after that point. 
Mike: The players will have the flexibility they want at the tables, so the other goal is to make sure the DM has the tools he needs to make sure the different characters/players have a chance to shine with whatever options they choose. 
Jeremy: You can have two fighters that are very different at the same table, based on picking from the spectrum of complexity and options. You can have someone who is more just a sword and board, and another guy who focuses on combat maneuver options on the other end of complexity. It's about taking that spectrum we already have in the game and making it broader. 

*Q: Sometimes you have arguments at the table causing lulls or a character who has too many options and takes forever to act. Any plans on addressing these issues?*
Monte: For the first one, we're going to give the DM a lot of tools to address players actions as well as rules discussions. We want to keep play moving quickly. The same goes for the player with too many options - we're planning on DM and player help to address as much of that as possible. 
Mike: I think D&D needs to have elements of chaos in it. Sometimes that can be funny, or weird or off the wall. I think that's one of the places where the randomness of the d20 can come into play. I think that some of the recent history of the game has the designer buttoning down and eliminating some of that chaos, and we want to get away from that. It's the interactions between the DM, the players and the game that make it was it is, so we shouldn't stifle that. 
Jeremy: the idea that this game is taking itself to seriously has crept into our art as well. I'll give an example - in the last two editions if you look at 
the art, I think you'll see a lot of characters that look like super heroes. They all look like they've been to the gym recently, they don't have backpacks for traveling through the dungeon - the guys are well shaven. In our recent art we've added a more diverse, modular approach - you've got people that look vastly different. You'll have the halfling who's a bit overweight with some food stains on his clothes along side the more heroic look dashing sort. 
Q: How are you guys going to provide iconic D&D experiences or having some awesome and interesting longer combats. 
Mike: The first step there is defining what those iconic D&D experiences are, which is what we've been focusing on in a lot of these playtests. There's a lot 
of room there between roleplay and smash and grab combat, and tactics.
Jeremy: we've seen a great range of tactical style and combat length in the playtest's so far, so our plan is to definitely have DMs and players be able to determine what kind of combats they want to have and have the right options to support those. 

*Q: What are you doing to make sure that each character/player feels useful in each part of the game?* 
Mike: It goes back to the three pillars and supporting the different kinds of play - we definitely are working on having DM and player tools and options in place so that characters are engaged. Example - you can have that master climber, but you want others to feel included and involved in whatever thing when that master climber gets to show off. 

And that's the end. Tomorrow we'll be having a seminar on class design at 12:30 Eastern time. Thanks for coming.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 26, 2012)

They are apparently streaming video, as well:  Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (D&D XP Seminar Chat Stream)


----------



## Morrus (Jan 26, 2012)

Aeolius said:


> They are apparently streaming video, as well: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (D&D XP Seminar Chat Stream)




That's not video - that was the live chat stream mentioned above.


----------



## darjr (Jan 26, 2012)

Gah! I wish they were streaming video.`


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jan 26, 2012)

I want to see the fireball jokes!!!


----------



## ferratus (Jan 26, 2012)

I am happy I got fat halflings and Aragorn-style rangers back.

I'm not sure what else I can say for sure from all the news we got today.


----------



## delericho (Jan 26, 2012)

Hmm. That all leaves me... kinda cold, really. A lot of fine-sounding words, but very short on specifics (understandably, of course).

The sooner we get to the playtest, the better. I need to see how this fits together.


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 26, 2012)

Morrus said:


> That's not video - that was the live chat stream mentioned above.





Yeah, I spoke before waiting for the bloody thing to load


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 26, 2012)

Very excited to hear about the modest attack bonus increases! Hopefully this means they're taking measures to keep modifiers from ballooning out of control (at least until high levels).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 26, 2012)

I'm feeling 10 out of 10 reading this. I hope they can meet these goals, they are 100% in line with what I'm hoping for.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> I am happy I got fat halflings and Aragorn-style rangers back.




Me too!


----------



## jeffh (Jan 26, 2012)

> on monsters at different levels
> 
> monte: Instead of the fighter getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate. I think it offers a better play experience that the orc/ogre can remain in the campaign, and people can know how the monster would work from a previous experience, but they remain a challenge for longer.
> Jeremy: The monsters are in the design teams hands now and we'll be moving to development in the next few weeks. What i can say about this goal that monte is talking about is that we're working ot provide the dm with really good world building tools. And it's important to provide information about the orcs place in d&d while making sure that a monster remains relevant as the characters level up. They're might be an orc shaman, an orc champion or whatever for higher levels, but we also want the basic orc to be relevant at higher levels. We want it to be really easy for the dm to open the monster manual and drop an orc or iconic monsters into the game.




breaks into wild applause


----------



## mcintma (Jan 26, 2012)

Surprised no one asked about the spell system ...

The rest sounds good so far ...


----------



## StarFyre (Jan 26, 2012)

I actually kinda like Drizzt more than Aragorn.

Also don't care much for using orcs/ogres at higher levels since my players (and myself as DM) get bored of monsters once we've used them too much. I try hard to use new stuff every campaign (as long as it makes sense for the campaign it self)..

but the design goals do sound pretty good. still will see if my players go for it...

Sanjay


----------



## Kurtomatic (Jan 26, 2012)

*D&D Next is a Stack*

In today's seminar, they talked about the core rules _lexicon_, and the idea that the optional modules would have _seeds_ in the core. This part of the seminar isn't getting the bandwidth that splashier bits like the playtest snippets are getting, but let's have some fun with it.

This description suggests a model where the "core" is really a vocabulary of terms and relationships. The core also includes some basic rules which provides the process for using that vocabulary in play (an implementation). Optional modules hook into the core by assigning or changing these underlying rules without modifying the seeded lexicon or its defined relationships (i.e., design by contract).

The lexicon is a game platform with an included "core" vanilla runtime. The various rules modules are an implementation package library contracted to that platform. These modules can be swapped out and layered as desired to meet varying output requirements. New modules can be added by the players themselves or third parties.

D&D Next is a stack.


----------



## Nivenus (Jan 26, 2012)

This is kind of what I expected: that a lot of things would be touched on in the core books but elaborated on in supplements (online or print). It also sounds like the easiest way to accomplish 5e's "modularity" goal.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 27, 2012)

I think in more or less fuzzy terms this is what most people expected. The questions now are: what are the invariants? What are the elements of the game that define how every other supplement to plug into it.

It's a good thing they are getting into a little higher level math here for design. It's been in my head for awhile now that D&D is more of a language game and the core elements a lexicon. That's a good term and I believe it has some history in the hobby. I'm curious whether or not they will be dipping into linguistics as well, but I suspect not for the short term. Most of what has been talked about for core are numerical descriptors.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 27, 2012)

So, I'm curious how this is done in a way which is different than what is already being done with some of the toolkit systems.  

For example, I can play a campaign using GURPS Lite.  It's not nearly as robust as the Basic Set, but it's possible.  If I want more in depth options for melee combat, I can by GURPS Martial arts, and it expands upon the rules in the Basic Set.  If I want a modern game which is inspired by Hollywood reality, Matrix, and things of that nature, I use Gun Fu.  If I want a more gritty experience with guns in the vein of something like Band of Brothers, I would get Tactical Shooting.  

None of these options change the core.  They simply expand upon the core options.  Like I said, Martial Arts gives more melee options.  I listed both gun books as a way to illustrate how two different supplements can cover the same topic, but do so in a way which provides a completely different style of game.  As said, Gun Fu is over the top action in the vein of Equilibrium, The Matrix, and etc; Tactical Shooting would be more for a more realistic treatment of modern weaponry.

(Note: If I really wanted to, I could mix elements from both of the mentioned gun books together too.)

Is the D&D 5E model similar to that (in theory) or different?  I'm curious how such an approach can be made in such a way to keep the core essence and feel of D&D.  I'm also curious how such an approach can make itself different enough to make me choose it over one of the other modular games.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 27, 2012)

Kurtomatic said:


> D&D Next is a stack.



Good. I like pancakes.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Jan 27, 2012)

howandwhy99 said:


> The questions now are: what are the invariants? What are the elements of the game that define how every other supplement to plug into it.



What are the invariants, indeed!

It's fun to chase each other in circles trying to guess what classes/races/doodads are going to be part of the "core rules", but I'm not sure those lines of thinking are as applicable as many assume. Everyone wants to make sure their favorite stuff ends up in the core, because traditionally a lot DMs like to use the "core rules" as a convenient firewall (and for good reason!).

But that's all implementation, and less important to the core in this theoretical _Next_ model. It's a different way of thinking about the game. I'm not sure it matters much if my favorite||hated classes are in the basic rules volume, whatever that ends up looking like. The real question is, can I safely include||exclude the desired||loathed game elements using the core lexicon.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Jan 27, 2012)

mcintma said:


> Surprised no one asked about the spell system ...
> 
> The rest sounds good so far ...




I think that is going to come up in tomorrow's presentation on class mechanics.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 27, 2012)

Kurtomatic said:


> In today's seminar, <SNIP>



That sounds very interesting but I have absolutely not the faintest idea what all that *means*!


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 27, 2012)

ppaladin123 said:


> I think that is going to come up in tomorrow's presentation on class mechanics.



Well, there goes *my* productivity tomorrow at work.


----------



## Erdrick Dragin (Jan 27, 2012)

What the hell? They still haven't talked about how they plan on releasing new material!

Are we getting new stuff for each edition? Or are we only getting new stuff "basic" stuff? Are we getting a book, for example, with new feats (3e and 4e styles), new class kits (2e), new prestige classes (3e), new paragon paths (4e), new spells (all 4 editions), etc.? That's what I'm looking forward to, I really don't care to sit different play styles at my table.

And what about the monsters?! I like my monsters to be more 3E style, as in they have spell-like abilities, DR, etc. Are they doing monsters across 3 editions? (I count 1e and 2e as the same, 2e is just an expanded 1e) 

They're answers sounded like riddles. I want to see hard data that they currently have. I'm more confused than before.


----------



## No Big Deal (Jan 27, 2012)

*Fanboyism, Beer Googles, and the Future of D&D*

Just read the interview and (admittedly sketchy and inferred) design goals mostly don't seem like good ideas. The ones that do I don't trust the team (mostly Mearls) to implement. Why should orcs be a threat at every level? Modules for classes and subsytems?

But the primary issue that I see is the desire (from the original announcement) is the desire to use feedback from all editions of D&D. That sound suspicously like trying to please everyone which, as the proverb goes, will please no one.

So why the enthusiasm? Why are you so pysched for what is shaping up to be (IMO) a rehash of the same poor mechanics that turned into 4e?


----------



## ferratus (Jan 27, 2012)

It is more fun to speculate that things are going to be even better than 4e, while regaining some of the things you loved in previous editions (and hopefully not picking up the things you didn't).  

Saying that things are probably going to suck is a downer, and not very interesting.   There is nothing really to talk about if you've already decided there isn't anything worth talking about.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 27, 2012)

Kurtomatic said:


> What are the invariants, indeed!
> 
> It's fun to chase each other in circles trying to guess what classes/races/doodads are going to be part of the "core rules", but I'm not sure those lines of thinking are as applicable as many assume. Everyone wants to make sure their favorite stuff ends up in the core, because traditionally a lot DMs like to use the "core rules" as a convenient firewall (and for good reason!).
> 
> But that's all implementation, and less important to the core in this theoretical _Next_ model. It's a different way of thinking about the game. I'm not sure it matters much if my favorite||hated classes are in the basic rules volume, whatever that ends up looking like. The real question is, can I safely include||exclude the desired||loathed game elements using the core lexicon.




Well, the thing is it is one thing to think of the lexicon in terms of things like say keywords or whatnot, but at least as important is what the numbers mean. While in theory you could have different baselines of say hit points, in practice you can't really do that because every other layer is going to have to depend on a hit point meaning something fairly concrete. In other words you can't make a module that provides a certain magic system or combat system unless you know that doing '10 hit points of damage' means a scratch or a killing blow. 

These decisions are also highly important to the feel of the game. You can't make a consistent system where 1st level PCs can start out with radically different hit point totals, so you really have to decide in the core if your system is gritty or high fantasy. I'm still rather dubious about the whole concept of being able to make a game that works for everyone's concept of what D&D is. Most of these things will be locked in by the core and no amount of option modules are going to satisfy the people who don't like those core decisions.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 27, 2012)

No Big Deal said:


> Just read the interview and (admittedly  sketchy and inferred) design goals mostly don't seem like good ideas.  The ones that do I don't trust the team (mostly Mearls) to implement.  Why should orcs be a threat at every level? Modules for classes and  subsytems?
> 
> But the primary issue that I see is the desire (from the original  announcement) is the desire to use feedback from all editions of  D&D. That sound suspicously like trying to please everyone which, as  the proverb goes, will please no one.
> 
> So why the enthusiasm? Why are you so pysched for what is shaping up to  be (IMO) a rehash of the same poor mechanics that turned into  4e?







Personally, I think 4E had a lot of good ideas which never quite made it into the final product.  

As for orcs?  I'm of the belief that being stabbed in the face with a greatsword should be just as much of a problem for the king of the castle as it is for the lowly peasant.  I'm also someone who prefers that heroes lead armies rather than heroes who fight armies.

I'm cool with a skilled hero (Conan) besting several foes in combat.  I'm cool with using situational awareness and good tactics (300 Spartans) to defeat overwhelming odds.  I'm even fine with stretching reality a little bit to allow what I suppose you could call a 'Hollywood sense of realism.'  However, I'm not a huge fan of one lone swordsman single-handedly defeating an entire army using super uber cool wire-fu* moves, his Mr. T starter kit of magical jewelry, and his golf bag of magical weapons.

*I'm not totally against the concept, but I believe there are times when the unbelievable becomes too unbelievable; unbelievable to the point where it seems silly rather than cool.


----------



## Raith5 (Jan 27, 2012)

Wormwood said:


> Well, there goes *my* productivity tomorrow at work.




Yep, mine to. Nothing aids procrastination like a new edition of D and D.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 27, 2012)

No Big Deal said:


> So why the enthusiasm? Why are you so pysched for what is shaping up to be (IMO) a rehash of the same poor mechanics that turned into 4e?



Because I'm an optimist and there are things to like about every edition of D&D, including (and, for me, at least, especially) 4e. 

You know, I'm starting to think that if you hate _any_ edition of D&D (and recognizing flaws is not the same as hate), then 5e will not be for you.


----------



## No Big Deal (Jan 27, 2012)

> As for orcs? I'm of the belief that being stabbed in the face with a greatsword should be just as much of a problem for the king of the castle as it is for the lowly peasant. I'm also someone who prefers that heroes lead armies rather than heroes who fight armies.
> 
> I'm cool with a skilled hero (Conan) besting several foes in combat. I'm cool with using situational awareness and good tactics (300 Spartans) to defeat overwhelming odds. I'm even fine with stretching reality a little bit to allow what I suppose you could call a 'Hollywood sense of realism.' However, I'm not a huge fan of one lone swordsman single-handedly defeating an entire army using super uber cool wire-fu* moves, his Mr. T starter kit of magical jewelry, and his golf bag of magical weapons.




Here's the thing. Those aren't high level play. The king isn't "high level" he's an aristocrat. If your going to have "Go to Hell/The Abyss/Limbo to bargain for someone's soul" (which is totally a thing you should be able to do) your problems should not be orcs. Yes orcs are iconic, but so are brutal kingdom burning dragons, cunning demonic archdukes, and alien aboleth mage-princes.

Conan and 300 are (in 3.5 terms) E6 campaigns. Yes you should be able to play a game that starts at "one step above Joe the Dirt Farmer" and ends at "king of Sparta" but that should NOT be the core assumptions of the game. Even 4e doesn't assume that. If the new edition's goal is to be inclusive, why is one of its core assumptions that you don't reach a point where your starting enemies aren't a threat?



> Because I'm an optimist and there are things to like about every edition of D&D, including (and, for me, at least, especially) 4e.
> 
> You know, I'm starting to think that if you hate any edition of D&D (and recognizing flaws is not the same as hate), then 5e will not be for you.




Here's the thing: I don't hate 4e. Do I think its not great?  Yes. Do I think it has fundamental flaws? Yes. Do I think its boring? Sure. But I think those things about 3.5 too. I'm still playing that. Why? because for all its flaws, it starts at a better place than 4e does.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Jan 27, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> So, I'm curious how this is done in a way which is different than what is already being done with some of the toolkit systems.
> 
> ...
> 
> Is the D&D 5E model similar to that (in theory) or different?  I'm curious how such an approach can be made in such a way to keep the core essence and feel of D&D.  I'm also curious how such an approach can make itself different enough to make me choose it over one of the other modular games.



It's a really good question, and I don't play a game designer on TV (much less in RL), so I probably won't do a very good job of guessing what they're up to. So take this with the same giant grain of salt you're already using for all the other threads in this forum. 

The GURPS comparison is apt, though. That style of modularity intended to provide completely different games using the same mechanics. _Next _is trying to give you the same game with different mechanics, so to speak.

Let's try that another way. GURPS/Hero/Etc extends the same game rules to implement many different genres, which can each be described as having it own _language_. GURPS/Hero/Etc translates each of those various setting tropes to a common set of mechanics. So in theory, a _GURPS Traveller_ imperial marine could head-to-head with a _GURPS CthulhuPunk_ mythos critter because even though their genre languages are completely different, they use the same mechanical underpinnings.

_D&D Next_ is not at all concerned with genre-tripping. D&D is *its own genre*, and the designers are seeking to create a language (lexicon) that distills the common experience of D&D gameplay. That's why you hear these guys muttering on about "what is a wizard?", and so forth. What are the axioms (invariants) of the D&D experience, and how can we create a dictionary of terms with strict definitions that describe this experience? Once you have the language defined, you can then back-fill with different sets of actual rules (implementation) to taste. In theory, the different flavors of rules will still produce a common D&D experience. In theory.

So what kind of stuff goes in lexicon? Here's a possible example:







AbdulAlhazred said:


> Well, the thing is it is one thing to think of the lexicon in terms of things like say keywords or whatnot, but at least as important is what the numbers mean. While in theory you could have different baselines of say hit points, in practice you can't really do that because every other layer is going to have to depend on a hit point meaning something fairly concrete. In other words you can't make a module that provides a certain magic system or combat system unless you know that doing '10 hit points of damage' means a scratch or a killing blow.



That was handly, thanks! 

So, I think its safe to say that *hit points* will definitely show up as an important entry in the lexicon. It's got a have a concrete definition. Even if methods for adding, reducing, and recovering hit points vary across rules modules, as long as they hew to the defined meaning, they can remain compatible to some degree. Words like level, fighter, hit point, spell, turn, etc, are the inflection points where all the parallel D&D universes meet.

That's a lot of ivory tower noodling. In practice, I am sure there will be some amount DM greasing required to make it work smoothly.


----------



## Thulcondar (Jan 27, 2012)

Morrus said:


> *Q: Do you expect one player to have fun with really stripped down rules and another player to have fun with controlling and doing bigger things?*
> Monte: Running a few playtests, I had at one long term table a guy who hadn't played since 1st editon, a guy who was more 3rd edtion and a guy who was recently in to 4th. The guy who hadn't played in 1st edition didn't want a lot of options. This solidified in my mind, along with the other evidence we've seen, that there are a lot of players who want to have very few options on their character sheet. As a game goes on, that guy might see some of the cool things that other classes are doing and might want to add some of those modular abilities. This is something that is easy to do and change as the character progresses - he can pick up some of those more modular options if he wants after that point.




I've got to say, this makes me a bit antsy. It almost feels like the attitude is that those poor benighted grognards who don't want lots of options when they first roll up their character will be enticed by all the superfunoptioncandy and finally "see the light" and want to get options for their characters once they see what they've been missing. 

Plus, what sort of input does the DM have in what sort of options are allowed, I wonder?

Not making any big assumptions based on an off-handed remark in a seminar, but very interested to see what else touches on this aspect of the design.

Joe
Greyhawk Grognard


----------



## Kurtomatic (Jan 27, 2012)

Crikey! I've been merged!! Into a news thread!!!


----------



## Kurtomatic (Jan 27, 2012)

Thulcondar said:


> I've got to say, this makes me a bit antsy. It almost feels like the attitude is that those poor benighted grognards who don't want lots of options when they first roll up their character will be enticed by all the superfunoptioncandy and finally "see the light" and want to get options for their characters once they see what they've been missing.



I think the main takeaway from that statement is, player characters won't be locked into just the options used at creation; they can be refactored later for taste. You could just as easily simplify the character after deciding the superfunoptioncandy you picked initially tastes way too sweet. Empty carbs and all that.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 27, 2012)

No Big Deal said:


> So why the enthusiasm?




I am enthusiastic because I love D&D. I've played every edition and I love aspects of each.

I am enthusiastic because I believe Wizards when they say they want to bring back the Old-School without throwing out the last 30 years of RPG design. I have a long list of things I would love to see in 5e, but no deal-breakers. 

And at the end of the day, I'm enthusiastic because I'd rather be positive than negative. It's a choice.


----------



## Jeffrey (Jan 27, 2012)

Morrus said:


> *Q: In the recent editions it looks like a lot of the player options have been narrowed down to things they can/can't do in the rules. Is this next iteration going to get away from that?*
> Monte: While having options in the rules is great, we want to open things up so players can get creative and ask to do things that are specifically covered by the rules. We want to empower DMs to with information in the DM guide and others resources to be able to handle those out of the box situations. So basically better gaming through better DM tools and DMing.




Am I reading this wrong (blame it on a bad cold and fever) but shouldn't the word "not" be placed in Monte's reply in the first sentence between "ask to do things that are" and "specifically covered"?

Ow. It hurts to type.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 27, 2012)

Kurtomatic said:


> That's a lot of ivory tower noodling. In practice, I am sure there will be some amount DM greasing required to make it work smoothly.




Well, in practice yeah. I think there's a degree of flexibility in terms of a given style of play already. You can probably manage to eek out a 'one step from death at every instant' kind of feel and a "we're heroes in the making" feel out of a character that has 15 hit points at level 1. I suspect though that certain specific options aren't going to mix well with some genre, because poison and spells and whatnot are going to need to change based on what you want to do.

While I think there may be a decent amount of common ground about D&D's interpretation of 'wizard', there's still a lot of wiggle room in there and a lot of variety of level of buy-in to what that should be.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 27, 2012)

Wormwood said:


> And at the end of the day, I'm enthusiastic because I'd rather be positive than negative. It's a choice.



Amen.

The Touchable Trio are certainly optimistic--and I like that. I really hope they do succeed.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 27, 2012)

Johnny3D3D said:


> Personally, I think 4E had a lot of good ideas which never quite made it into the final product.
> 
> As for orcs?  I'm of the belief that being stabbed in the face with a greatsword should be just as much of a problem for the king of the castle as it is for the lowly peasant.  I'm also someone who prefers that heroes lead armies rather than heroes who fight armies.
> 
> ...




Well, I strongly disagree. D&D is not meant to be a realistic simulation*, but heroic fantasy game. Why try to turn it into a game that it's never been (and indeed, expressed and deliberately designed not to be, in the opening of the 1st ed DMG, EGG is proud to call it a "dismal failure" at realistic simulation, and happy that it's a fun game).

While it is extreme, King Arthur was said to singlehandedly have killed 960 men at the battle of Mons Badonicus. I would hate to actually run that in a game, but I think that should be possible at the very, very high end - that's the kind of stuff D&D is meant to emulate, after all.


* Though I doubt that even in a realistic simulation, a highly skilled warrior would allow himself to get stabbed in the face with a greatsword by a neophyte. Sure, maybe by a similarly grizzled, veteran warrior of the orcs. But not a green faced recruit. There's a lot of skill in fencing/hand to hand fighting


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 27, 2012)

Thulcondar said:


> I've got to say, this makes me a bit antsy. It almost feels like the attitude is that those poor benighted grognards who don't want lots of options when they first roll up their character will be enticed by all the superfunoptioncandy and finally "see the light" and want to get options for their characters once they see what they've been missing.




Actually, I think this akin to the Essentials/Core paradigm: an E-class (simple, limited options) can play at the same table with a PHB-class (complex, many options). 

But to Monte's point, I started my current game using Essentials (bringing in 2 newbies to the hobby, thankyouverymuch). By 5th level, the Slayer decided he wanted more options so  he retconned into a Weaponmaster. 

In a perfect world, I would have preferred the ability to swap class features for powers without having to start a new character. I think that's what Monte is getting at, and I LOVE it.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jan 27, 2012)

Fanaelialae said:


> Very excited to hear about the modest attack bonus increases! Hopefully this means they're taking measures to keep modifiers from ballooning out of control (at least until high levels).




This is something I want to see. All to often the d20 is rendered trivial by bonus increases.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 27, 2012)

What kind of complexity are they talking about?

So a Fighter has 10 standard abilities. A supplement offers hundreds (or more) optional abilities that can be swapped in and out. Are these 1/2 a standard? 1/3rd? 1/4?

Is the complexity about the fact that the options are many? Or is it that the end number for any 1 PC is more or less? Or is it something else?

Does this have to do with supplements? A high tactical minis game is used, but the default, simple PC can use it unchanged? But that game also allows for PCs who have more options? I'm not sure.

Their targeted games sound fun and really hit how this iteration will be different from the past.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 27, 2012)

No Big Deal said:


> Here's the thing. Those aren't high level play. The king isn't "high level" he's an aristocrat. If your going to have "Go to Hell/The Abyss/Limbo to bargain for someone's soul" (which is totally a thing you should be able to do) your problems should not be orcs. Yes orcs are iconic, but so are brutal kingdom burning dragons, cunning demonic archdukes, and alien aboleth mage-princes.
> 
> Conan and 300 are (in 3.5 terms) E6 campaigns. Yes you should be able to play a game that starts at "one step above Joe the Dirt Farmer" and ends at "king of Sparta" but that should NOT be the core assumptions of the game. Even 4e doesn't assume that. If the new edition's goal is to be inclusive, why is one of its core assumptions that you don't reach a point where your starting enemies aren't a threat?
> 
> ...





But no one said Orcs would be equally threatening across all levels.  They said that the power curve is shallower and therefore monsters of lower (or higher) level will remain a possible threat over more levels than in recent versions of the game.

So your great hero will still slap the lowly orc grunt silly for daring to attempt to stab him in the face, and will still feature predominantly in campaigns against demons and archdevils.  

The only difference is the DM won't have to modify a level 1 orc's stat-block in order to make it possible to use him agianst a level 4 PC without rolling 17's on the die to possibly hit and may also throw in a level 8 Ogre against the level 4 PCs without the PC having to roll the 17s or having to level the ogre down.

It's simply grind-reducing, prep-easing, and allows for things like characters of differing levels to play together and off-level adventures to be viable options with less tweaking.

In other words, it's a feature, not a fault.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 27, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> Well, I strongly disagree. D&D is not meant to be a realistic simulation*, but heroic fantasy game. Why try to turn it into a game that it's never been (and indeed, expressed and deliberately designed not to be, in the opening of the 1st ed DMG, EGG is proud to call it a "dismal failure" at realistic simulation, and happy that it's a fun game).
> 
> While it is extreme, King Arthur was said to singlehandedly have killed 960 men at the battle of Mons Badonicus. I would hate to actually run that in a game, but I think that should be possible at the very, very high end - that's the kind of stuff D&D is meant to emulate, after all.
> 
> ...





Fair enough.  I don't expect D&D to be a perfect model of reality.  I simply feel that there's a difference between my idea of heroic fantasy and D&D's current idea.  

Again, I have no problem with Conan taking on several warriors.  In your King Arthur example, his ability was augmented by Excalibur which was (according to those stories) one of the most powerful magic weapons available.  In real life, Audie Murphy stood alone against an advancing enemy.  Sometimes skill, better equipment, or just pure luck and determination can swing the tide of battle in your favor.  I have no problem with that.

I simply prefer a world in which that is not assumed to be the norm for everybody.  I prefer mechanics which don't support that as being the norm for everybody.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 27, 2012)

Dice4Hire said:


> This is something I want to see. All to often the d20 is rendered trivial by bonus increases.



Not just the d20.  The d8, the d6, the d12 - all the damage dice get squashed by the bonus as well.

Lan-"hoping the other dice get to play more in 5e, in the last two editions the d20 stole the spotlight"-efan


----------



## Ashilyn (Jan 27, 2012)

I'm still liking what I hear so far, but that's part of what worries me. That may sound negative and cynical, but it's not meant to be - I'm actually quite excited and really looking forward to seeing what they've done for 5E. My problem is that these guys talk the talk a little too well, and what they want to accomplish sounds like a pipe dream. If they can pull it off, more power too 'em. I'm certainly cheering them on. I'm glad they're finally getting past answers that sound like marketing and into answers that have some polish to them, but they're not quite past it yet.


----------



## conclave27 (Jan 27, 2012)

Well like all of you I am hopefull. Yet there is one thing I don't quite clearly understand.

3E D20 was made to be the Universal system right? So why doesn't 5E use that model again. Basically that was compatible with every iteration of almost any RPG out there.
Pazio has made some great improvements to it too... so is this new version of 5E D&D going to be able to compete?

Plus a variant All-Edition version of D&D kinda came out in XDM: Xtreme Dungeon Mastery by Tracy Hickman that simplifies the RPG mechanics. Is 5E aiming to be like this?

I think perhaps they are missing the point, IMHO. For me it was always the Fluff... injecting flavor in the game with complete campaign settings. Then a couple of books with game mechanics.

Well I hope that 5E offers something, if not I found a home with Paizo.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 27, 2012)

conclave27 said:


> Well like all of you I am hopefull. Yet there is one thing I don't quite clearly understand.
> 
> 3E D20 was made to be the Universal system right? So why doesn't 5E use that model again. Basically that was compatible with every iteration of almost any RPG out there.
> Pazio has made some great improvements to it too... so is this new version of 5E D&D going to be able to compete?
> ...




I'm not entirely sure I follow you, but if you're talking about the d20 mechanic of "roll d20 add bonus check against difficulty" I would be very surprised if 5e abandons it.  So surprised, in fact, that I'm willing to bet it's there.

Also I'm not sure what point you think they are missing.  "Fluff... injecting flavor with campaign settings" has been mentioned as part of the plan.  So they're not missing it.


----------



## buddhafrog (Jan 27, 2012)

I've been optimistic throughout the 5e discussions, but reading this transcript has me giddy.  I expect to give a ton of money to D&D when it is released.  They've initially won over this customer at this point.


----------



## Iosue (Jan 27, 2012)

Wormwood said:


> Actually, I think this akin to the Essentials/Core paradigm: an E-class (simple, limited options) can play at the same table with a PHB-class (complex, many options).
> 
> But to Monte's point, I started my current game using Essentials (bringing in 2 newbies to the hobby, thankyouverymuch). By 5th level, the Slayer decided he wanted more options so  he retconned into a Weaponmaster.
> 
> In a perfect world, I would have preferred the ability to swap class features for powers without having to start a new character. I think that's what Monte is getting at, and I LOVE it.



Agreed.  Also, while I love 4e, one thing that I miss from older editions is fast character generation.  I like 5-10 minutes to boo-ya.  One thing I'm hoping is that this modularity will allow me to rapidly generate a character and get right into playing, and then I can fiddle with it, adding options at my leisure between games.  I think that'll really help to bring new players to the game, too.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 27, 2012)

Overall a very nice seminar that delivers me the idea that the designers are strong and have a good spirit 

The only thing that left me dubious is *modularity*, indeed the key idea of the whole next edition...

I'm not dubious about the concept but about how they are implementing it. The only examples of modularity I'm getting so far are:

- characters' modularity, swap fixed abilities for custom abilities: how is this new, really? 3e was already modular, and it also provided "starting packages". Eventually 3e did not do a good job in the presentation, because nobody remembered the starting packages, so those who would have wanted a ready-made fighters were seldom told by the DM to just get a starting package. Furthermore, many 3e classes still contained fixed abilities, so let's say that character modularity can be largely improved in 5e, by allowing both extremes (in 3e terms, it could be e.g. a Paladin, lowest-complexity case with all its fixed abilities and more fixed abilities replacing spells, highest-complexity case all the fixed abilities replaced by Paladin-only bonus feats)

- mass battle rules: a no-brainer module... Want mass battles? Use mass battle rules. Don't want mass battles? Ignore mass battle rules.

- social interaction: this is not such a no-brainer, but still fairly simple to get the point. Some groups want rules (i.e. dice rolls) for social interactions, other groups want to be rules-free and go with pure RP. Can be done already in 3e, but eventually the books should make it more explicity that _it is an option_, otherwise everyone who hates to roll for social interaction is going to complain that the standard requires to roll.

- minis, mat and grid: major doubt here. They keep giving this as an example of something that a group may want to use, but *they never mention if the game is still going to work without them* if the group doesn't want them. What are the alternatives considered by the designers here? Note that normally, those groups who don't want to use minis & grid, don't want to do so because they are _less_ interested in tactical combat... yet if they don't use them in 3e or 4e, combat becomes way more difficult! That's exactly the opposite they want! How is 5e going to address this problem?


----------



## Victoly (Jan 27, 2012)

When did "they remain a challenge for longer" become "epic-level characters will still deal with Orcs!"? Last time I checked the dictionary "longer" didn't mean "forever". Blatant exaggerations make your complaints seem silly, not stronger.

FitzTheRuke hit the nail on the head with his commentary about rolling 17s, but I'd like to add that, from a narrative perspective, it's nice for the rules to be able to support a plotline where a certain faction or race - say, an Orcish cult of a slaughter deity, for example - can remain a significant threat for a good chunk of the campaign (around 4 levels or so). In 3E the DM would either have to do a ton of work in doing advancement on monster tables _or_ they'd have to do a ton of playing off-the-cuff, neither of which is ideal. 4E was better with that in general, and I'm glad they'll be keeping that in mind with the design of the new edition.


----------



## No Big Deal (Jan 27, 2012)

On the "orcs should be a threat for a while," maybe into epic levels is hyperbole, but no matter how long you want orcs to be a threat your saying "you can't have abilities that curb stomp orcs til level X." Why is that bad, _because players want those abilities_. Alright you ask, why is that bad? (this is just opinion) Because it bloats your level table, and bloats your book. If you want to run with "orcs stay a threat" just play a game like E6 with a level cap, or *don't level up very often*. Why should the more restricting rule be the default when its really easy to emulate them?

On the "3e orcs weren't a threat at level four" sure they were. Have someone (an Orc Battlepriest or Orc Warlord) to buff the orcs. Have the orcs aid each other. Even if they only hit on a 17+, they still will get some hits and those hits do damage players care about that! And, honestly this is probably leveling _too slowly_.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 27, 2012)

No Big Deal said:


> On the "orcs should be a threat for a while," maybe into epic levels is hyperbole, but no matter how long you want orcs to be a threat your saying "you can't have abilities that curb stomp orcs til level X." Why is that bad, _because players want those abilities_. Alright you ask, why is that bad? (this is just opinion) Because it bloats your level table, and bloats your book. If you want to run with "orcs stay a threat" just play a game like E6 with a level cap, or *don't level up very often*. Why should the more restricting rule be the default when its really easy to emulate them?
> 
> On the "3e orcs weren't a threat at level four" sure they were. Have someone (an Orc Battlepriest or Orc Warlord) to buff the orcs. Have the orcs aid each other. Even if they only hit on a 17+, they still will get some hits and those hits do damage players care about that! And, honestly this is probably leveling _too slowly_.




There is a thread on this topic in the new horizons forum - could you take further discussion on this issue to that thread, thanks.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 27, 2012)

I like Aragorn as the archetype of the ranger. Drizzt can still be in the game, but should be a build entitled "kewl drow death ninja."


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 27, 2012)

Morrus said:


> (In response to a question: the ranger feels more like Aragorn than Drizzt)




I'm now curious about whether this got changed a bit in the paraphrasing, as reviewing the tweets from last night, they all seem along the line of


Monte: Identifying a D&D ranger is like looking at whether it's best represented by Aragorn or Drizzt.

- ie raising the question rather than giving the answer (unless a subsequent question clarified that, and I've not spotted that on the various twitter feeds I've looked at)


----------



## btmcrae (Jan 27, 2012)

Based on the seminar chat, a great level of flexibility looks to be what they want to build into 5E.  So, what I think was really being said regarding the 5E Ranger is that it is based on the archetypal D&D Ranger, meaning it is more like Aragorn.  That doesn't mean that a Drizz't-like Ranger character can't be created using the 5E modular system of modular modularness though.

It will likely be worked out that Human Ranger with X skills/abilities =  Aragorn, and Drow Ranger with Y skills/abilities = Drizz't, meaning  that the total package could be dependent upon both character race as  well as what class skills/abilities are chosen.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 27, 2012)

Another interesting snippet from CriticalHits twitter

Jeremy: The playtests will hint at some of the options.* For example, the fighter is also a noble which grants some social skills.*


----------



## Kzach (Jan 27, 2012)

Once again, they're saying all the right things. The problem I have with this is in the delivery. We've seen far too many promises be broken to have any faith in the outcome. So whilst I like a lot of what I'm hearing, it's still all smoke and mirrors until I see a final product that delivers all those promises.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 27, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> Not just the d20.  The d8, the d6, the d12 - all the damage dice get squashed by the bonus as well.
> 
> Lan-"hoping the other dice get to play more in 5e, in the last two editions the d20 stole the spotlight"-efan




Definately.  What's the point of having all those lovely platonic solids if they never get any use?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 27, 2012)

I'm sensing real platonic love here, IYKWIMAITYD.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jan 27, 2012)

> Monte: For example, the basic game fighter might have specific level-bases abilities. Things that every fighter has. If you decide to get more customized, you can swap standard abilities for more complex, optional abilities. These are the kinds of things that feats do now. But the complex stuff is balanced with what's in the core. One character is more complex, but not necessarily more powerful.




That would be the easy way to do it, for sure. Just have a prebuilt "Fighter" class, where all you have to do is copy a page or two out of the book and onto the table you go. Then have a stripped down "Warrior" class who can pick all their own feats and abilities.

Also, I am guessing "Abilities" are the new "Powers"



> ON MONSTERS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS



_Note: The below is pure speculation._
The easy way to do that would be templates for everything. Just take the level 14 magic-user template (debuff ability, ranged attack, and AoE attack), apply the orc race template bonuses (Rage of Gruumsh ability), then maybe slap on a primal theme template. 

Or, if you don't have time for all of that, just use the handy Orc Shaman who is already stated for you to run right out of the book.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 27, 2012)

Leatherhead said:


> _Note: The below is pure speculation._
> The easy way to do that would be templates for everything. Just take the level 14 magic-user template (debuff ability, ranged attack, and AoE attack), apply the orc race template bonuses (Rage of Gruumsh ability), then maybe slap on a primal theme template.
> 
> Or, if you don't have time for all of that, just use the handy Orc Shaman who is already stated for you to run right out of the book.




I think that the easier way (and what I'm reading in their responses) is no templates or anything like that.

No modification.

Just pull some orcs out of the MM and you're good to go - because attack bonuses and AC won't be scaling out the wazoo (as per 3e+), it means that even when you're 8th level those orcs still have a non-trivial chance to hit you. Sure, you've got more hp, and fancy manouvers, but you can't just ignore them.

They mention the possibility of including some Shaman or chieftans too, but the main aim is that the removal of the underlying AC/to hit scaling means that lower powered creatures are still useful.

Cheers


----------



## buddhafrog (Jan 28, 2012)

Kzach said:


> Once again, they're saying all the right things. The problem I have with this is in the delivery. We've seen far too many promises be broken to have any faith in the outcome. So whilst I like a lot of what I'm hearing, it's still all smoke and mirrors until I see a final product that delivers all those promises.




But at this point, you don't blame them for not showing things yet, right?  They are keeping play-testing hidden so they can adjust things before it is more widely released.

At this point, all they can do is "say things," and I feel they are saying all the right things that I want to hear.  I take the for what it is and am very optimistic.  WotC's new leadership has been saying these things for months and I believe it is legit.  Can't wait.


----------



## Hautamaki (Jan 28, 2012)

Parts that stood out to me:  

Higher level characters get more options, but not exponentially more powerful to the point that 1/2 to 3/4's of the monster manual becomes obsolete/trivial for them to deal with.

Built-in support for mass combat and other higher level styles of play like castle ownership, etc, that players can easily switch between in addition to dungeon crawling.

Their goal of having something for everyone seems sort of pie in the sky optimistic but at this point as we all know D&D needed a hail mary and they seem to be putting in a noble effort to that end.


----------



## Leatherhead (Jan 28, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think that the easier way (and what I'm reading in their responses) is no templates or anything like that.
> 
> No modification.
> 
> Just pull some orcs out of the MM and you're good to go - because attack bonuses and AC won't be scaling out the wazoo (as per 3e+), it means that even when you're 8th level those orcs still have a non-trivial chance to hit you. Sure, you've got more hp, and fancy manouvers, but you can't just ignore them.




The scaling bit is intriguing ( I wonder if more abilities is enough for progressions sake), but the rest sounds a bit too "easy". I sincerely hope there is some form of baked-in modification, I would hate it if I had to reverse engineer monsters in order get things like Orc Wizards and Orc Assassins in a game that sounds this modular.

Things to ponder about the scaling bit: Is it possible this would work both ways? Can I bust out my Colossal Red Dragon against a group of level ones?


----------



## WotC_Trevor (Jan 31, 2012)

Jeffrey said:


> Am I reading this wrong (blame it on a bad cold and fever) but shouldn't the word "not" be placed in Monte's reply in the first sentence between "ask to do things that are" and "specifically covered"?
> 
> Ow. It hurts to type.



It should be something like "are not covered by the rules" but I missed the key word there with all the blogging. Sorry for that one.


----------



## WotC_Trevor (Jan 31, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm now curious about whether this got changed a bit in the paraphrasing, as reviewing the tweets from last night, they all seem along the line of
> 
> 
> Monte: Identifying a D&D ranger is like looking at whether it's best represented by Aragorn or Drizzt.
> ...



Yeah you've got it right Plane Sailing. It was more about looking at the ranger and seeing where he falls. The idea is that you could build a ranger like aragorn, or if you like a two weapon style ranger or a beast companion style ranger, you could build those as well.

That discussion point was more about looking at the question, and determining if there is one overall feel to give people, or if you can give them options to flesh out the different archetypes of ranger.


----------

