# DDXP Begins Today!



## Morrus (Jan 26, 2012)

Today is the first day of D&D Experience in Forte Wayne. The convention lasts four days, and is sponsored and attended by WotC.

This year there will be public (but under NDA) playtests of the next iteration of D&D, as well as seminars, panels, and Q&A sessions. With luck, there will be plenty of juicy D&D Next scoops emerging from the convention - and if you're there and you have some information please don't hesitate to email me (*morrus at hotmail dot com*) so that I can share it with the rest of us who were unable to attend.

Today's main seminar is *Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions* - "Join Mike Mearls, Monte Cook, and Jeremy Crawford as they discuss the origin for the idea to create an edition of _Dungeons & Dragons_ that encompasses all previous editions. The designers discuss the challenges in creating compatibility and balance, as well as the exciting possibilities such a system creates. Seminar to be followed by a Q&A session."

The playtest is called _*Caves of Chaos*_: "Join the first public playtest of the next iteration of the _Dungeons & Dragons_ roleplaying game. The playtest offers players the chance to run pre-generated 1st-level characters through the Caves of Chaos, a four-hour D&D adventure. Wizards of the Coast staff will be running several tables each day. As part of the playtest, participants must sign a special non-dislcosure agreement for playtesters." 

*Adventure Description*: _For years, Castellan Keep has stood on civilization’s frontier, commanding a grand view of that dismal realm known as the Borderlands. A forlorn place, rife with monsters and terrors beyond imagining, adventurers have used this fort to seek glory and plunder in this dangerous realm, to unearth fabulous treasures and destroy foul monsters. Of all the haunts found here, none equal the Caves of Chaos in both danger and the promise of reward. Rumors abound of the wicked humanoids, the sinister monsters, and the dark priests that run amok in this dungeon. Only the most cunning and bold adventurers dare to face the dreaded caverns. Do you have what it takes to survive the Caves of Chaos? _

If I hear anything, I'll update this post! All updates below.







_A game of D&D Next hosted by Alphastream. The group is battling a room full of orcs. From __Twitter__._​ 
_



_​ 
_



_​ 



 


*SEMINAR: Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions* 

WotC Live Chat Coverage​
Follow #dndnext hashtag on Twitter​
Live tweets from Critical Hits​
Live tweets from E. Foley​
Live tweets from Rolling20s​

Transcript of the seminar​
Trollish Delver: What we learnt from the first D&D Next seminar - an excellent summary article.​





_Picture from Twitter: Monte Cook, Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford_​


----------



## Ravenbow (Jan 26, 2012)

It would be nice if it was streamed but alas.


----------



## Phaezen (Jan 26, 2012)

*D&D Next news from DDXP*

Spotted this on twitter

https://twitter.com/#!/gregbilsland/status/162543334005538816/photo/1

Note, there are no minis/tiles in the picture, despite them battling a room full of orcs.


----------



## Blacky the Blackball (Jan 26, 2012)

Gotta love the instantly recognisable Caves of Chaos map...


----------



## Anthro78 (Jan 26, 2012)

What exactly is the purpose of having "open playtests" under a NDA?  I don't think that means what WotC thinks it means...


----------



## Jack Daniel (Jan 26, 2012)

No battlemat...

And the map of the Caves looks like it was taken straight out of B2.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 26, 2012)

Minis not necessary? 

*fingers crossed*


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Jan 26, 2012)

Phaezen said:


> Note, there are no minis/tiles in the picture, despite them battling a room full of orcs.




I'm guessing that's intentional to show that you can play without mini's to try to win back those who worried that it was too focused on mini combat. We will probably soon see picture with minis to show that you can use them if you want to. (Personally I love minis and use them even for games that don't need them).

I don't suppose anybody with eyes sharper than mine can make out anything written on those papers?


----------



## Blacky the Blackball (Jan 26, 2012)

Not a hope, I'm afraid.

Even zooming in and fiddling with the contrast, each line of text is only a pixel or two high given the resolution of the image (which was taken on an iPad rather than with a proper camera).


----------



## Phaezen (Jan 26, 2012)

And here is a pic with minis

https://twitter.com/#!/gregbilsland/status/162554939707621377/photo/1

Different table by the looks of things


----------



## filthgrinder (Jan 26, 2012)

oh noes! minis! Terrible horrible! panic panic panic!
https://twitter.com/#!/gregbilsland/status/162554939707621377/photo/1

Heh, I actually love minis.
So two pictures, one with, and one without minis. I imagine they want to show off all the options.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 26, 2012)

The second picture is definitely the opening of Cave A. Wish I could tell something about the sheets though.


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 26, 2012)

On the bright side, maybe having a combat with a substantial number of minis in a tight space means a move away from the ultra-tactical style of 4E?


----------



## scruffygrognard (Jan 26, 2012)

Goldenrod sheets and the classic, B2 map eh?  Smells like an attempt to channel old-school charm


----------



## Charles Dunwoody (Jan 26, 2012)

cperkins said:


> Goldenrod sheets and the classic, B2 map eh?  Smells like an attempt to channel old-school charm




I failed my save.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 26, 2012)

Kaodi said:


> On the bright side, maybe having a combat with a substantial number of minis in a tight space means a move away from the ultra-tactical style of 4E?




I hated the 20x20 room packed full of orcs, ugh. Fighting = tactics. 

No doubt we'll see a character sheet real soon now.


----------



## Gundark (Jan 26, 2012)

Come on, damn you eyes squint......squint


----------



## Agamon (Jan 26, 2012)

Anthro78 said:


> What exactly is the purpose of having "open playtests" under a NDA?  I don't think that means what WotC thinks it means...




Open to anyone that wants to play...and sign an NDA.  As opposed to closed playtests, where the players are handpicked.


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 26, 2012)

Jack Daniel said:


> No battlemat...
> 
> And the map of the Caves looks like it was taken straight out of B2.




This has been one of my curiosities. Does this new system mean I can just grab an old 1E module and run it with no conversion? Maybe we'll find out in the near future!


----------



## filthgrinder (Jan 26, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> No doubt we'll see a character sheet real soon now.




To actually play in the D&D:Next games you have to sign an NDA. The rest of DDXP and all the seminars do not require the NDA. I doubt we'll be seeing a character sheet soon.


----------



## Agamon (Jan 26, 2012)

IronWolf said:


> This has been one of my curiosities. Does this new system mean I can just grab an old 1E module and run it with no conversion? Maybe we'll find out in the near future!




No conversion would be odd.  I'd put money on simple conversion, though.


----------



## OchreJelly (Jan 26, 2012)

Can't it be just like the movies where someone with the right software can zoom in on the character sheets and "enhance" to get a clean rendering?


----------



## DM Howard (Jan 26, 2012)

Exciting!


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 26, 2012)

Agamon said:


> No conversion would be odd.  I'd put money on simple conversion, though.




Simple would be cool too.


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 26, 2012)

OchreJelly said:


> Can't it be just like the movies where someone with the right software can zoom in on the character sheets and "enhance" to get a clean rendering?




I was thinking the same thing. Where's the forensic FBI lab when you need one?


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 26, 2012)

filthgrinder said:


> To actually play in the D&D:Next games you have to sign an NDA. The rest of DDXP and all the seminars do not require the NDA. I doubt we'll be seeing a character sheet soon.




Well, maybe WotC will show off some stuff. NDA might just be a way to control the info, not to eliminate it. 


This short message was brought to you by Tapatalk and my iPad


----------



## bhandelman (Jan 26, 2012)

Agamon said:


> No conversion would be odd.  I'd put money on simple conversion, though.




This would be perfect, maybe a conversion guide for each edition to the new one.  

Hopefully the NDA is dropped towards the end of the week.  Pretty soon enough people will have played it won't help, but I can understand if they want to limit information while the con is still going.


----------



## Khaalis (Jan 26, 2012)

Just a few thoughts from looking at the image (not a high res shot, I cant clean it up much).

Did they simplify initiative or are the tent cards just a DM tool to simplify initiative order?

The golden sheets don't appear to be character sheets in the classic sense. The text appears to be more block text than character sheet stats.  Either that means its fluff/background write-ups, or the sheets are set up in such a way as each ability (skill, power, class feature etc.) has a "stat line" and a paragraph of text to go with it (which just seems a lot more complicated than a basic PC sheet). Also, it looks like there may be a white "PC sheet" with the actual stats hidden from the camera. You can see it peaking out from under "initiative #2"'s gold sheet (and to a lesser extent #1's also).  If true, then white and gold sheets in the middle of the table were PC #6 (unused at this table) and is the gold cover sheet with character description text, and a PC sheet turned upside down so as not to be included in the photo?


----------



## Windjammer (Jan 26, 2012)

Jack Daniel said:


> No battlemat...




That was a bit premature on your part. 

Here's "Another picture from the <s class="hash">#</s>*dndnext* playtest." posted 55 minutes ago:







Follow it on twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/search?q=#dndnext


----------



## filthgrinder (Jan 26, 2012)

Jack99 said:


> Well, maybe WotC will show off some stuff. NDA might just be a way to control the info, not to eliminate it.




Possible, and I'd love to see it. However, I'd imagine they'll keep a lot of stuff "under wraps" so that the DDXP attendees get that special feeling of having inside information. So if WotC waits a couple of weeks to release information, the attendees get a chance to blog and tweet in nonNDA breaking generics, with the warm fuzzies. Making sure the community has warm fuzzies about D&D Next is a big deal. In order to do that, they need to make sure the thought leaders and strong voices in the community are attended. Giving them exclusive sneak peeks, and inside information are ways to accomplish those goals.


I just hope they run these games at PAX:East so I can play! 

Anyways, I'd love for them to video podcast a game.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 26, 2012)

filthgrinder said:


> To actually play in the D&D:Next games you have to sign an NDA. The rest of DDXP and all the seminars do not require the NDA. I doubt we'll be seeing a character sheet soon.




Yes, but as many people as are playing we're still VERY likely to be seeing a lot of information pretty soon. NDAs work great when you have a dozen people you know well signing them and they have good reasons to follow them. Not so much when its a whole bunch of fairly anonymous gamers who are all likely to be pretty motivated to have something to say. Not saying people SHOULD violate an NDA, but they'll be lucky if that 'veil of secrecy' lasts a week. lol.


----------



## froth (Jan 26, 2012)

Jack Daniel said:


> No battlemat...
> 
> And the map of the Caves looks like it was taken straight out of B2.




_of course_ theres a battlemat

https://twitter.com/#!/gregbilsland/status/162554939707621377/photo/1


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 26, 2012)

So, what time does today's D&D Next seminar start?


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 26, 2012)

There is a table with a battlemat. And one without. 

Which is probably the point.


EDIT: The seminar is at 12:30 EST.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jan 26, 2012)

It's clearly not D&D as we know it.  I don't see a single Mountain Dew can.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 26, 2012)

If it is Cave A and the minis are out, I think it might be the case that the 5e has minis as standard.  The first table might just not have had them out yet.

Which would be a shame.  I have a large collection of minis, but drawing out the maps is a big time sink during the session, and collecting minis is a cost barrier for new and casual players.

I'm more in favour of minis as an optional extra for those who love them.


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 26, 2012)

TerraDave said:


> EDIT: The seminar is at 12:30 EST.



Thanks.

Do we know whether or not it is going to be streamed live online?


----------



## gloomhound (Jan 26, 2012)

I hope minis are optional as well.


----------



## Tehnai (Jan 26, 2012)

On Puget Sound said:


> It's clearly not D&D as we know it.  I don't see a single Mountain Dew can.




Nah, man, it's modular, people can bring Mountain Dew to the table, if they want to, but they can also bring Dr. Pepper, or even both!

We live in a wonderful age!


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 26, 2012)

Twitter


----------



## john112364 (Jan 26, 2012)

On Puget Sound said:


> It's clearly not D&D as we know it.  I don't see a single Mountain Dew can.




That's it! If DnD next doesn't support Mountain Dew at the gaming table I'm out! Who ever heard of a Dewless Dnd?


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 26, 2012)

Knightfall said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Do we know whether or not it is going to be streamed live online?




Given that, IIRC, the seminars require a signed NDA to get into, I would be highly surprised if they will be streamed.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Jan 26, 2012)

Agamon said:


> No conversion would be odd.  I'd put money on simple conversion, though.





I'm betting the new edition retains the d20 ascending AC system, I can't see them ever going back to descending, so conversion of 1E materials could be something as simple as inverting the old descending ACs to make them ascending (old AC7 becomes AC13, etc.) and a few other minor rules issues that can be handled on the fly during the game. If that's the case, WOTC would be smart to put out the older edition materials as PDF or POD again and have an instant back library of product available for the new rules when they are released (or better yet, when they release the playtest!)


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 26, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> Given that, IIRC, the seminars require a signed NDA to get into, I would be highly surprised if they will be streamed.




  WotC reversed that earlier this week. But it's about 15 minutes to launch and I don't see any signs of live streaming. Maybe we'll get a podcast recording later.


----------



## The_Baldman (Jan 26, 2012)

or maybe they will be. You know we are crazy like that.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 26, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> Given that, IIRC, the seminars require a signed NDA to get into, I would be highly surprised if they will be streamed.




Baldman (the organizer) said this, but it has been denied by the WotCs...most recent update was that there would be no NDA for the seminars.


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 26, 2012)

wavester said:


> or maybe they will be. You know we are crazy like that.



That would make my day. I want to know as much as possible, right now!


----------



## kimble (Jan 26, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> Given that, IIRC, the seminars require a signed NDA to get into, I would be highly surprised if they will be streamed.




I believe there was a tweet saying that the seminars would not require a signed NDA.


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 26, 2012)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> WotC reversed that earlier this week. But it's about 15 minutes to launch and I don't see any signs of live streaming. Maybe we'll get a podcast recording later.






TerraDave said:


> Baldman (the organizer) said this, but it has been denied by the WotCs...most recent update was that there would be no NDA for the seminars.






kimble said:


> I believe there was a tweet saying that the seminars would not require a signed NDA.




That is awesome news!! I am gladly corrected.


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 26, 2012)

gloomhound said:


> I hope minis are optional as well.




I love minis, but if they cannot recreate a mini-less game with minis as optional, they will have failed.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jan 26, 2012)

look how the goblins don´t stand on a single square...
it seems as if it is just used to illustrate the battle...
battlemap as an option is important. But not as default!


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 26, 2012)

First of all, let me just say this about that: *B2 KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS*?  Cool.  Very, very cool.  While those sheets are impossible to read, I also don't see a lot of clutter on them so it could be that the base game is yes indeed a very streamlined and easy-to-snap-onto form factor.  Looking forward to more info.

Now, regarding minis...

I don't not want minis.  I have two dozen *DWARVEN FORGE* sets, some 500 plastic minis and 300 metal (about 1/5th of which are painted).

*I like me some miniatures and terrain as an AD&D player, however...*

Insofar as *DWARVEN FORGE* is very subtly carved into grids, I do not *use* a gridded combat system.  Most miniatures are "heroic" 28mm scale, which is to say they are 32-35mm.  Even *WIZARDS OF THE COAST*'s miniatures feature a 1" round base.  This means that two man-sized figures can just stand in a corridor of *DWARVEN FORGE*, which I want to represent the average 10' (2") dungeon hall.  Scale combat rules for *AD&D* dictate that *three* man-sized figures can fight abreast in a hall, four smaller humanoids or demi-humans can (gnome/halfling/kobold/goblin etc.) and so on.  Current miniatures don't afford me the room to do that.  *Thus*, miniatures (and terrain) are for *general placement* only when it comes to the figures themselves.  Spell areas of effect I hew more closely to the rules on, noting that just because a group of figures may be crammed in at odd angles on the terrain, that does not mean that they are not as they claimed they were - woebetide the low-level, closely grouped party that encounters an enemy magic-user with a *sleep* spell (or indeed is incautious with their own)!

What irks me is not the miniatures and frankly I boggle at my fellow *AD&D* fans who are dismissive of them; no, what gets under my skin is the *insistence* on them, and the ridiculous (and I mean that literally: it is, should be and has been rightly the target of ridicule) "gridding" rules that accompany later miniature play!

Were we playing at Roundheads and Cavaliers, or the desperate struggle of a fire-team in the jungles of Southeast Asia, or an arbitrary but agreed-upon set of rules for fantastical future conflict mapped on a sand table or foam terrain out-of-doors, yes, then precise measurements should be the rule of the day!  But insofar as Redoleent the Fighter's plastic avatar can't be wedged in between Gutboy Barrelhouse, the expertly painted *REAPER MINIATURES* dwarf and the chess-piece representing the cleric, I think some room for abstraction is in order, and not forcing a grid-only, miniatures-not-optional rule gives we DMs (and players!) the breathing room we need, yes?


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jan 26, 2012)

Critical Hits is live tweeting the *Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions* seminar right now. so is *E. Foley*. *Rolling 20s* has pics.


----------



## ArcaneSpringboard (Jan 26, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> Given that, IIRC, the seminars require a signed NDA to get into, I would be highly surprised if they will be streamed.




Trevor clarified a couple of days ago the Seminars wouldn't need NDAs, but the playtests would.


----------



## Henry (Jan 26, 2012)

Windjammer said:


> That was a bit premature on your part.
> 
> Here's "Another picture from the <s class="hash">#</s>*dndnext* playtest." posted 55 minutes ago:




I see minis, a mat, markers, all types of dice, character sheets...

yep, looks like D&D to me.


----------



## Cybit (Jan 26, 2012)

Ironically enough, the mini in that last picture is a Star Wars Miniature -- Force Adept


----------



## kitsune9 (Jan 26, 2012)

FATDRAGONGAMES said:


> I'm betting the new edition retains the d20 ascending AC system, I can't see them ever going back to descending, so conversion of 1E materials could be something as simple as inverting the old descending ACs to make them ascending (old AC7 becomes AC13, etc.) and a few other minor rules issues that can be handled on the fly during the game. If that's the case, WOTC would be smart to put out the older edition materials as PDF or POD again and have an instant back library of product available for the new rules when they are released (or better yet, when they release the playtest!)




I'm totally down with that and agree with you 104%.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Jan 26, 2012)

In case people are interested, there's a semi-live chat stream of the session going on right now on WotC's site: Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (D&D XP Seminar Chat Stream)


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 26, 2012)

Heh, based on the tweets it sounds like ascending bonuses will be demphasized in favor of giving classes more interesting things to do. And the orc is relevant at more levels right out of the monster manual.

Sounds exactly like my treatise on no ascending bonuses. 

Yeah baby!


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 26, 2012)

Ooh, and Mearls and Cook talked about the Fighter having the "Noble" package to give them social skills! 

Its like they read my mind on some of this stuff when designing 5e. 

And to be fair, a lot of other's players minds as well.


----------



## possum (Jan 26, 2012)

And so, Keep on the Borderlands enjoys its fifth iteration (including Encounters and Hackmaster).


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 26, 2012)

[MENTION=22260]TerraDave[/MENTION]

Without knowing anything about the mechanical implementation of what it will look like, and how close it will match what I envisioned in the other thread, logically it makes sense to de-emphasize ascending bonuses. It allows you build a world where your basic orc is still relevant several levels later.

It allows you to make a game that is super compatible with all prior editions. So much so that with minimal conversion you can run Keep on the Borderlands or classic Tomb of Horrors, or you can shift gears and run through a Paizo AP, or slap on the minis rules and run the 4e Madness at Gardmore Abbey, all with 5e PCs. Thats an amazing degree of flexibility and power.


----------



## GSHamster (Jan 26, 2012)

I was following some live-tweets of the seminar, and they kept referencing "three pillars" when talking about classes.

Can someone explain what these pillars are?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 26, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> I was following some live-tweets of the seminar, and they kept referencing "three pillars" when talking about classes.
> 
> Can someone explain what these pillars are?




  Combat, Exploration, and Role-Playing--the three key pillars that cover about 90% of the game experience, and that they want to really get right and make sure all classes can participate in to some extent.

  (The other 10% is probably niche modules like crafting, mass combat, dominion rulership, and so forth.)


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 26, 2012)

Well, damn. After following the live tweets of the seminar I'm not all that excited about D&DNext. A DM that only wants to run a basic game using only the core (like me) with players that want complex, mini-based combat just won't work and I have no interest in such a game. Sucks, I was hoping for something different. Oh well.


----------



## OchreJelly (Jan 26, 2012)

I think it was "roleplay", "combat", and "explore".  Lots of good insight in those tweets / stream, but nothing too concrete.  I'm really interested in seeing this modular approach in action.


----------



## SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS (Jan 26, 2012)

GSHamster said:


> I was following some live-tweets of the seminar, and they kept referencing "three pillars" when talking about classes.
> 
> Can someone explain what these pillars are?




Exploration, roleplay and combat.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jan 26, 2012)

Well, I would but Wayne is not my Forte.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jan 26, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> Well, damn. After following the live tweets of the seminar I'm not all that excited about D&DNext. A DM that only wants to run a basic game using only the core (like me) with players that want complex, mini-based combat just won't work and I have no interest in such a game. Sucks, I was hoping for something different. Oh well.




I'm not sure how you got that. They said nothing about mini's that I recall, and if you don't want the complex modules used in your game, don't allow them. I don't see how that's changed.


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 26, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> Well, damn. After following the live tweets of the seminar I'm not all that excited about D&DNext. A DM that only wants to run a basic game using only the core (like me) with players that want complex, mini-based combat just won't work and I have no interest in such a game. Sucks, I was hoping for something different. Oh well.




I don't think the DM and the players wanting to run/play two dramatically different styles of play is a problem that can be solved by D&D. Heck, I don't think that is a problem that can be solved by *any* RPG system.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 26, 2012)

Dragonblade said:


> [MENTION=22260]TerraDave[/MENTION]
> 
> Without knowing anything about the mechanical implementation of what it will look like, and how close it will match what I envisioned in the other thread, logically it makes sense to de-emphasize ascending bonuses. It allows you build a world where your basic orc is still relevant several levels later.
> 
> It allows you to make a game that is super compatible with all prior editions. So much so that with minimal conversion you can run Keep on the Borderlands or classic Tomb of Horrors, or you can shift gears and run through a Paizo AP, or slap on the minis rules and run the 4e Madness at Gardmore Abbey, all with 5e PCs. Thats an amazing degree of flexibility and power.




It makes sense. 

But is it "core D&D" if the math has always gone up....

In any case, the quote from the WotC chat was:




			
				Monte said:
			
		

> Instead of the figher 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.




Which could be interesting.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 26, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> I don't think the DM and the players wanting to run/play two dramatically different styles of play is a problem that can be solved by D&D. Heck, I don't think that is a problem that can be solved by *any* RPG system.




You know, you're right. I don't know what I was expecting to be honest. You know, WotC is concerned with making a D&D that "feels" like D&D. There's only one thing they need to do to accomplish that. They don't need playtest. They simply need to read Gary Gygax's D&D and make a game that evokes all the "feel" of his books.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 26, 2012)

Lots and lots here.

Still, we need to see more of this modularity in action to really get a feeling for how it might work.


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 26, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> I don't think the DM and the players wanting to run/play two dramatically different styles of play is a problem that can be solved by D&D. Heck, I don't think that is a problem that can be solved by *any* RPG system.




This is very true.  You can't fault 5e for not merging two radically different styles of play, it's apples and oranges.  I think best case scenario is that 5e will be able to loosely replicate any of the old editions, with a splash of new 5e paint, and DMs and players with similar interests will naturally gravitate toward the kind of game they want to play.


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 26, 2012)

Nebulous said:


> This is very true.  You can't fault 5e for not merging two radically different styles of play, it's apples and oranges.  I think best case scenario is that 5e will be able to loosely replicate any of the old editions, with a splash of new 5e paint, and DMs and players with similar interests will naturally gravitate toward the kind of game they want to play.




I think that there are two things that may be getting mixed up together here. WotC said that the players would be able to mix styles. That is, you could have players who are playing basic D&D-style characters at the same table as characters who are playing 3.X-style characters.

If what I read via the tweets are correct, the DM would have to do no extra planning for that combination of characters.

However, the DM/Players will *always* have to come to some sort of consensus on the style of game that they are playing? Minis/maps or verbal descriptions only? Lots of combat, more exploration or mostly social-style gaming? Now, according to the tweets, the system will be such that they will be able to shift from one style of play to another from session to session.

However, I am quite certain that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to try to *fairly* DM both people who are playing a highly tactical combat-style of RP with a loosey-goosey verbal description of what is going on-style of combat *in the same encounter*. You could probably switch from encounter to encounter though. Would all depend on players/DM preferences.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 26, 2012)

TerraDave said:


> It makes sense.
> 
> But is it "core D&D" if the math has always gone up....
> 
> ...




I worked with a guy in college on a system that used this same principal. The initial reason was to make it so even 1st level characters had a chance against say 10th level characters. So a low level character is somewhat undifferentiated from the baseline for his class where as a high level character is much more unique/specific but not necessarily statistically much superior. He's just able to do things that he prefers better, and the things he doesn't prefer he might be actually worse in.

I would love to see this kind of concept applied to D&D.


----------



## tbarrie (Jan 26, 2012)

SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS said:


> Exploration, roleplay and combat.




How are they defining "roleplay" such that it excludes exploration and combat? Do they mean social interaction?


----------



## Phaezen (Jan 26, 2012)

New tidbit 

Twitter / Wizards_DnD: You've all been good boys ...


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 26, 2012)

Phaezen said:


> New tidbit
> 
> Twitter / Wizards_DnD: You've all been good boys ...




Well, warlord's back.


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 26, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Well, warlord's back.




Woot!


----------



## Henry (Jan 26, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> Well, warlord's back.




To which I say, "yahoo for the Marshal/Warlord!!"

I like the idea of the class -- now, if they can streamline the abilities to make sure there are very few to no "quasi-magical" powers in there, I'm set. If Pathfinder can pull off the Cavalier, then WotC can pull off a passable Warlord.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Jan 26, 2012)

tbarrie said:


> How are they defining "roleplay" such that it excludes exploration and combat? Do they mean social interaction?



Yes.



Remathilis said:


> Well, warlord's back.



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Anselyn (Jan 26, 2012)

The core mechanic of #dnd is: player says 'I want to X' and DM responds. Therein lie the stories. [MENTION=6671448]Monte[/MENTION]JCook #dndNext #ddxp


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 26, 2012)

_Does his happy dance for the warlord being in D&D Next._

The marshal/warlord is one of great classes to come out of 3e/4e.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 26, 2012)

Nothing personal against the Warlord/Marshal, but I didn't think he was going to be in the "core" book, so to speak.

Remathilis "He'd better not have bumped the druid or bard for that slot" Ooi.


----------



## Ichneumon (Jan 26, 2012)

The warlord's back? It never went away.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Jan 26, 2012)

This is a playtest. A late-alpha playtest, at that.

All this means is they wanted people to test playing a class:warlord in _Caves of Chaos_. I think it's very early days to be drawing lines around "core", or even understanding what available class choices mean in the core.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 26, 2012)

All I see is Background: Warlord, not Class: Warlord.

I'd be tickled pink to see a Warlord in 5e (though I'd rather call it a Knight, with all the attendant baggage) but I think we might be jumping the gun here.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 26, 2012)

Phaezen said:


> New tidbit
> 
> Twitter / Wizards_DnD: You've all been good boys ...




Yeah see, they're losing me by the minute. But, to be fair, I'm sure I'm not their target audience.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 26, 2012)

Actually, vis a vis the Warlord, I have a theory that it isn't the class at all, but like the noble, a roleplaying classlet for those who want more combat leadership options attached to their existing class.

In other words, I'm guessing that the Warlord has become a 4e-style theme.  So I'm predicting 5e fighter warlords, but also wizard warlords, cleric warlords, and so forth.

If instead of being a class, it is the character archetype for bossing people around.... would that turn the frowny emoticons upside down for those that don't like the warlord?


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 26, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> Yeah see, they're losing me by the minute. But, to be fair, I'm sure I'm not their target audience.




You probably are, as WotC has pretty much stated their target audience is everyone who has played D&D, ever.

Thing is, I don't understand why content that will make other players happy should be making you unhappy in what is being touted as a modular game, especially when its the height of simplicity to just say, "Yeah, that class? Not at this table."

Though that would be silly of you because Warlords ROCK.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Jan 26, 2012)

How hard is it to ignore a class you don't like? We've been doing that for years (decades!). 

Including "best of hits" from all editions means, that if there's an edition you don't like, you can count on Next having _something _you don't like in it. Everyone's supposed to get a bone, and pretty much by definition, we won't all like all of them.


----------



## paladinm (Jan 26, 2012)

I just seem to view Warlord as a fighter with leadership skills.  A knight is a fighter with riding and weapon skills.  Why the heck does it need to be a separate class??  Same thing with a "noble".. I never liked that as a class name even in Star Wars.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 26, 2012)

Deadboy said:


> You probably are, as WotC has pretty much stated their target audience is everyone who has played D&D, ever.
> 
> Thing is, I don't understand why content that will make other players happy should be making you unhappy in what is being touted as a modular game, especially when its the height of simplicity to just say, "Yeah, that class? Not at this table."
> 
> Though that would be silly of you because Warlords ROCK.




I'm not unhappy. WotC can make any version of D&D that they want and I'd still be happy. I will just keep playing AD&D.

I guess I'm selfish, but if the core basic of this new edition isn't *super* simple with just archetype classes and the four classic races, then I won't be involved. I see the word Warlock or Tiefling anywhere? I'm out. I'm not unhappy. I'm just going to play a different game.

But again, I don't expect WotC to cater to my specific desires.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 26, 2012)

Deadboy said:


> Thing is, I don't understand why content that will make other players happy should be making you unhappy in what is being touted as a modular game, especially when its the height of simplicity to just say, "Yeah, that class? Not at this table."




Back in my AD&D games, I _loathed_ the monk and never allowed one in my campaign. Still a damned fun game and I didn't mind the wasted page or two.


----------



## Uder (Jan 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Actually, vis a vis the Warlord, I have a theory that it isn't the class at all, but like the noble, a roleplaying classlet for those who want more combat leadership options attached to their existing class.




We used to call those kits.


----------



## Thalionalfirin (Jan 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Actually, vis a vis the Warlord, I have a theory that it isn't the class at all, but like the noble, a roleplaying classlet for those who want more combat leadership options attached to their existing class.
> 
> In other words, I'm guessing that the Warlord has become a 4e-style theme.  So I'm predicting 5e fighter warlords, but also wizard warlords, cleric warlords, and so forth.
> 
> If that is the case, it means that the warlord is less a class, and more a character archetype for bossing people around.   Would that turn the frowns upside down for those that don't like the warlord if my theory is true?




That would be really cool.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 26, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> I'm not unhappy. WotC can make any version of D&D that they want and I'd still be happy. I will just keep playing AD&D.
> 
> I guess I'm selfish, but if the core basic of this new edition isn't *super* simple with just archetype classes and the four classic races, then I won't be involved. I see the word Warlock or Tiefling anywhere? I'm out. I'm not unhappy. I'm just going to play a different game.
> 
> But again, I don't expect WotC to cater to my specific desires.




Frankly, I think your ideal 5e is being printed in April.  It's a limited run though, so make sure you reserve your copy.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jan 26, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> I'm not unhappy. WotC can make any version of D&D that they want and I'd still be happy. I will just keep playing AD&D.
> 
> I guess I'm selfish, but if the core basic of this new edition isn't *super* simple with just archetype classes and the four classic races, then I won't be involved. I see the word Warlock or Tiefling anywhere? I'm out. I'm not unhappy. I'm just going to play a different game.
> 
> But again, I don't expect WotC to cater to my specific desires.



I absolutely agree that the core game ought to be dead simple (and thus, in many ways, "classic"), but that's for the sake of the poor, bewildered new players.  I figure we veterans can figure out which modular bits we need to add to play the game we want.  It seems unreasonable to write the game off for allowing _options_ which aren't to your taste.

That said, I certainly understand that any new game is going to have to offer something _better_ than the game you're already happy with in order for it to be worth your time and money.  I just hope you give it a chance to prove its worth, rather than seeing the inclusion of other playstyles as an exclusion of yours.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 26, 2012)

Uder said:


> We used to call those kits.




Sort of, except kits were class specific.  Just as I'd assume the noble options that the DDXP fighter has is available to all classes, I'd assume that the warlord option would be available to all classes.   After all, why not?


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Frankly, I think your ideal 5e is being printed in April.  It's a limited run though, so make sure you reserve your copy.




Yeah man, I have all the AD&D books I need, but I did call my local shop and pre-ordered a set the day they were announced. Looking forward to the cover art reveal.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 26, 2012)

GreatLemur said:


> I absolutely agree that the core game ought to be dead simple (and thus, in many ways, "classic"), but that's for the sake of the poor, bewildered new players.  I figure we veterans can figure out which modular bits we need to add to play the game we want.  It seems unreasonable to write the game off for allowing _options_ which aren't to your taste.
> 
> That said, I certainly understand that any new game is going to have to offer something _better_ than the game you're already happy with in order for it to be worth your time and money.  I just hope you give it a chance to prove its worth, rather than seeing the inclusion of other playstyles as an exclusion of yours.




I will say that I really *want* to like this new edition. I want WotC to win me over. We'll see, but some of today's reveals have left me less excited.


----------



## Ichneumon (Jan 26, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> ...I see the word Warlock or Tiefling anywhere? I'm out...




While I can understand different tastes, and filtering the available options to suit one's own home game, thinking that the presence of the Warlock or Tiefling gives a game warlock-cooties or tiefling-cooties does puzzle me.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 26, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> I will say that I really *want* to like this new edition. I want WotC to win me over. We'll see, but some of today's reveals have left me less excited.




Even the return of fat halflings?   The return of halflings that look like plump hobbits in the artwork is my best news of the day.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 26, 2012)

Ichneumon said:


> While I can understand different tastes, and filtering the available options to suit one's own home game, thinking that the presence of the Warlock or Tiefling gives a game warlock-cooties or tiefling-cooties does puzzle me.




Call it what you want, but that isn't D&D to me and I won't play or buy it. Simple as that.

I don't like almonds in my candy bars either, so I don't but candy bars with almonds. I don't hate them or wish them ill will, I just buy and enjoy other candy bars.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Even the return of fat halflings?   The return of halflings that look like plump hobbits in the artwork is my best news of the day.




If the game does, in fact, use more Tolkien-like classes and races (like this fat halfling that they're speaking of and the Aragorn-type ranger), then that suits my style of D&D just fine. But words are wind. We'll see.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 26, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> Call it what you want, but that isn't D&D to me and I won't play or buy it. Simple as that.
> 
> I don't like almonds in my candy bars either, so I don't but candy bars with almonds. I don't hate them or wish them ill will, I just buy and enjoy other candy bars.




Yeah, but the stated design goal of this edition is not to be a single food item but instead to be more of a buffet.  If you are going out to a buffet and there is one tray that has a side dish you don't like, you don't go to another restaurant.  You just don't dig out of that tray.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Yeah, but the stated design goal of this edition is not to be a single food item but instead to be more of a buffet.  If you are going out to a buffet and there is one tray that has a side dish you don't like, you don't go to another restaurant.  You just don't dig out of that tray.




Okay, that's true. I guess my argument isn't constructed too well. You know, I guess I just need to come to the realization that I've been playing this game for about 33 years and that I'm a die-hard fan of classic fantasy and Gygaxian game design, and that my taste in what I expect D&D to be just aren't gonna manifest in any new books nowadays, and that I should just keep on enjoying the D&D that I already have and like. There'll be less disappointment that way.


----------



## paladinm (Jan 26, 2012)

I wonder if Aragorn would really fit the Ranger model as laid out in Any version of D&D.. Granted, he was always a stealthy fighter with woodland experience and tracking abilities; but I don't believe he had mage/cleric abilities (like in OD&D) or druid abilities (like in later versions).  I kinda think he became almost a paladin after he claimed Anduril (and his kingship).  But I digress..lol


----------



## GreatLemur (Jan 26, 2012)

paladinm said:


> I wonder if Aragorn would really fit the Ranger model as laid out in Any version of D&D.. Granted, he was always a stealthy fighter with woodland experience and tracking abilities; but I don't believe he had mage/cleric abilities (like in OD&D) or druid abilities (like in later versions).  I kinda think he became almost a paladin after he claimed Anduril (and his kingship).  But I digress..lol



I'm not a Tolkien guy by any stretch, but might he have had _Warlord_ abilities?  Like, a Ranger that had swapped out his spellcasting abilities for a Warlord kit?


----------



## paladinm (Jan 26, 2012)

He was healing and bossing undead around.  Definitely paladin of some stripe.


----------



## Deadboy (Jan 26, 2012)

paladinm said:


> I just seem to view Warlord as a fighter with leadership skills.  A knight is a fighter with riding and weapon skills.  Why the heck does it need to be a separate class??  Same thing with a "noble".. I never liked that as a class name even in Star Wars.




Under that logic, a Ranger is just a fighter with woodsy skills and a Paladin is just a fighter that got religion. Though maybe that would be fine with you... Personally, I like them as different classes as that frees up the classes to exemplify those archetypes mechanically without also having to conform to one degree or another to the fighter archetype.


----------



## Kurtomatic (Jan 26, 2012)

A lot of folks have a pretty common-sense notion that a "basic core" means a stripped down 4X4 class/race game, and everything else (other classes/races) must be in segregated optional rules modules. Because we know so little about what they've cooked up so far, this model of the core does seem consistent with what they're saying.

However, I am not convinced yet; I just don't think we know enough. They're being intentionally vague, and that obfuscates much of the meaning in these descriptions.

Another model of "basic core" is a game with lots of _simple _classes (and races, for that matter). This fits it well with the greatest hits meme. 

For example, do you think it would be possible to write-up an AD&D version of the [warlord] class? Sure you could! You could write up a BEMCI warlord for that matter. They wouldn't play quite like a 4E warlord by any means, but I think they could capture essential spirit of the "taclord" experience expressed in earlier edition mechanics. Granted, they'd be wordier class write-ups than the fighter, with some special class rules, but not too dissimilar to the thief class. 

Now you're looking at a model which, in addition to simple fighters, wizards, etc, also has simple warlords and sorcerers and barbarians and warlocks and hell, maybe even simple swordmages and avengers. Whatever fits in the available page spread. But they're all simple executions that fit on a one-page  character sheet with few mechanical inflection points.

You want the warlord hot-rodded up with 4E-style mechanics? You'll need a rules module for that...

BTW, the idea that [warlord] could just be a kitted add-on to another class is well within the _Next _descriptions we have to date. So I'm not discounting that idea, I'm just using the notion of a core warlord class to show how our understanding of what "core" means is pretty limited at the moment. Still very early days.


----------



## paladinm (Jan 26, 2012)

Not quite... rangers and paladins at least have enough uniqueness to warrant separate classes.  But you're right, they could be simulated with good skill/feat choices and a bit of multiclassing.  I just don't see that the warlord has enough special abilities to warrant a class of its own.  IMHO.


----------



## GreatLemur (Jan 26, 2012)

paladinm said:


> Not quite... rangers and paladins at least have enough uniqueness to warrant separate classes.  But you're right, they could be simulated with good skill/feat choices and a bit of multiclassing.  I just don't see that the warlord has enough special abilities to warrant a class of its own.  IMHO.



Rangers and Paladins were quite explicitly Fighter sub-classes when they first showed up, so I could easily see them being sub-classes/kits/builds/archetypes/whatever of the Figther in a new edition.  I don't think it's gonna happen, but I think it would be possible do do it in a satisfying way.  (But that's coming from me, who totally doesn't care about either class.)


----------



## Saracenus (Jan 26, 2012)

Khaalis said:


> Just a few thoughts from looking at the image (not a high res shot, I cant clean it up much).
> 
> Did they simplify initiative or are the tent cards just a DM tool to simplify initiative order?




Those numbered tent cards are a simple convention for tracking initiative that I first saw playing 3e, and I have used them during D&D Encounters (4e). I also know the DM, and Alphastream favors this method of tracking init because it gives the players a visual on when their turn is coming up. If there is a delay that would change the init order you just exchange the cards to reorder the initiative round when the player or monster comes back in.

So, in short, its edition neutral.


----------



## trancejeremy (Jan 26, 2012)

ferratus said:


> If instead of being a class, it is the character archetype for bossing people around.... would that turn the frowny emoticons upside down for those that don't like the warlord?




Well, no, because I just don't think you need game mechanics to play a "leader" character. That's something that should be roleplayed.

And realistically, if you let someone who doesn't have real world leadership skills try to play a character that does boss others around, it's really not going to work well - lots and bickering and such.


----------



## OpsKT (Jan 27, 2012)

I was unable to get to this with a real keyboard earlier (Kindle good to view, not so much on the reply) so I'll make one big quote/comments post. 



Wormwood said:


> Minis not necessary?
> 
> *fingers crossed*




Same here. Give us good rules for an option, but don't make them required. I like to pass on them except for large fights with lots of combatants, or Dragons. I figure Dragons always deserve nice set pieces. 



mudbunny said:


> I don't think the DM and the players wanting to run/play two dramatically different styles of play is a problem that can be solved by D&D. Heck, I don't think that is a problem that can be solved by *any* RPG system.




Indeed. And if any person could solve that problem, their talents would be put to better use at the United Nations than making games for nerds and grognards. 



SlyDoubt said:


> I worked with a guy in college on a system that used this same principal. The initial reason was to make it so even 1st level characters had a chance against say 10th level characters. So a low level character is somewhat undifferentiated from the baseline for his class where as a high level character is much more unique/specific but not necessarily statistically much superior. He's just able to do things that he prefers better, and the things he doesn't prefer he might be actually worse in.
> 
> I would love to see this kind of concept applied to D&D.




Agreed so much, I wish I could give you x5 on the XP. 

One of my biggest issues with d20 v3.0, v3.5, Pathfinder, Saga Edition Star Wars, and 4e is that _there is no good reason for the numbers to go that high._ Really. The higher the numbers, and the more factors that add to them, the greater the chance for errors and needless complexity. This is not Final Fantasy XIII where we go from critters with 200 HP to end bosses with 6.5 _million_. 

The lifetime bonuses (sans magic items) should be about +10. HP at Epic levels should be in the 50's range (Demigods might have like 200), with a Dragon being feared because they have 70 HP and some natural DR. 

I'd like to see the sacred cow of +X items die as well, to help keep that math working. Have magic items have properties, not bonuses. It keeps the _'numeric arms race'_ to less insane levels, and makes magic items truly _magic_. 

In fact, with the swingy nature of the d20 non-curve and the current math, people look for every bonus they can find just to actually be as good as their numbers and class _should_ suggest. So numbers that stayed on the low end across the life of the campaign would make each +1 a PC got more relevant to the expression of the path from starting squire to _'Big Damn Hero._



trancejeremy said:


> Well, no, because I just don't think you need game mechanics to play a "leader" character. That's something that should be roleplayed.
> 
> And realistically, if you let someone who doesn't have real world leadership skills try to play a character that does boss others around, it's really not going to work well - lots and bickering and such.




So, the only people that should be playing Paladins are Political Science or Management majors and all Bards should be played by actual musicians? I think you are missing a vital point to role-playing...


----------



## dm4hire (Jan 27, 2012)

I don't get the NDAs either.  Really if anyone wants to steal the game they can legally do it thanks to the OGL and regular copyright laws.  WotC needs to defang their lawyers.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 27, 2012)

OpsKT said:


> I'd like to see the sacred cow of +X items die as well, to help keep that math working. Have magic items have properties, not bonuses. It keeps the _'numeric arms race'_ to less insane levels, and makes magic items truly _magic_.




I have to have +X weapons.  I agree with numerous posters that a more interesting sword has powers, but there is still room in my world for a sword that is just sharper and more accurate because it was honed/created by magic.  i.e. + to hit / damage.  

That's the swords they ADD the powers too!


----------



## ferratus (Jan 27, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> Well, no, because I just don't think you need game mechanics to play a "leader" character. That's something that should be roleplayed.
> 
> And realistically, if you let someone who doesn't have real world leadership skills try to play a character that does boss others around, it's really not going to work well - lots and bickering and such.




Obviously you're not a player of 4e.  You'd be amazed at how well player characters fall into line following a character's lead when he gives them bonuses to attack/damage/saves/hp to obey.

That's why the Warlord has such affection among 4e players.  It takes what should be an obnoxious premise, and it _works_.


----------



## Warunsun (Jan 27, 2012)

Why does all of the talk of D&D Next sound like Fantasy Craft? I am sure it will be a lot simpler than FC but dang it does sound like they are channeling it. I looked it over once (FC) and decided against purchasing it. While the customization sounded awesome I figured it would have been entirely too much work for the Dungeon Master to work out all the details and make player's handbooks. I also figured you best not let your min-maxers ever look at that core book because they would want to use a lot of stuff you as DM didn't want.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 27, 2012)

Just because it's called a warlord doesn't mean it plays anything like a 4E warlord. Except in concept. That he's a sort of social fighter type. Like a tactician.

Warlord was neat anyway.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jan 27, 2012)

3.X Added a new class (sorcerer) and it was awesome. The warlord concept is awesome and deserves a class. New D&D editions sometimes get us something new, or even cast raise dead on things we thought were gone for good (monk*, I'm looking at you). What I don't want is to have to choose between druid/bard and warlord. In this case, tradition gets the edge.

On that regard, races are an entirely different deal. If I ever see a dragonborn or warforged (and I really like the later) in the Player's Handbook, I know that's an edition of D&D I won't be running. Men (even more awesomeness if that's used in place of humans), dwarves, elves and halflings (the plump ones, please) are the races I want in the core rules. I can see a case for gnomes and half-dudes, but that's where it ends. Everything else goes to optional modules.

Cheers,

*While I really like monks, I want a new Oriental Adventures book to be released, and I want monks to be there, on the spotlight, together with ninjas and samurais.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jan 27, 2012)

ferratus said:


> Actually, vis a vis the Warlord, I have a theory that it isn't the class at all, but like the noble, a roleplaying classlet for those who want more combat leadership options attached to their existing class.
> 
> In other words, I'm guessing that the Warlord has become a 4e-style theme.  So I'm predicting 5e fighter warlords, but also wizard warlords, cleric warlords, and so forth.
> 
> If instead of being a class, it is the character archetype for bossing people around.... would that turn the frowny emoticons upside down for those that don't like the warlord?




I think you may be on to something here. Notice how the picture of the warlord sheet has the top half of it cut off? This could very well be some kind of "kit" or "sub-class".


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 27, 2012)

I'm liking what I hear so far.

I expect that we'll see a lot of what we currently think of as classes as builds/kits/subclasses under classic-core "umbrella" Class headings.

I'm hoping "role" (as in 4e) is kept as a concept but nixed as an intrinsic part of a given class and made more of a "You take this box of optional class features you will be playing a (role)"

I really like a lot of the ways that a shallow power-curve (with respect to level) can improve the game.  Easier encounter balance.  Characters of differing levels playing together.  Monsters being viable without tweaking at a wider level range.

I like the sound of making tools to enhance the use of Social Encounters and Exploration to the level we've enjoyed Combat at.

Nice.


----------



## the Jester (Jan 27, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> Okay, that's true. I guess my argument isn't constructed too well. You know, I guess I just need to come to the realization that I've been playing this game for about 33 years and that I'm a die-hard fan of classic fantasy and Gygaxian game design, and that my taste in what I expect D&D to be just aren't gonna manifest in any new books nowadays, and that I should just keep on enjoying the D&D that I already have and like. There'll be less disappointment that way.




OR you could just try it when it comes out and keep an open mind.  

But play what you want, that's for sure!


----------



## Falling Icicle (Jan 27, 2012)

"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." - Monte Cook

I think this is the most encouraging thing I've heard about the new edition. I was really hoping they'd do something to reduce the drastic scaling from levels, so that not only do lower-level monster remain relevant, but you could also throw in a higher-level monster against lower-level players and they'd have a reasonable chance to fight it. It sounds to me like the new edition will be alot more like playing an e6 game, and that makes me happy.


----------



## Lidgar (Jan 27, 2012)

In general there are waaaay too many positive vibes in this thread. Is everyone feeling OK? It is kinda freaking me out.

But heck, count me IN with the positive. Devil is always in the details, but so far what they are saying is Good and Spiff.


----------



## darjr (Jan 27, 2012)

Lidgar said:


> In general there are waaaay too many positive vibes in this thread. Is everyone feeling OK? It is kinda freaking me out.
> 
> But heck, count me IN with the positive. Devil is always in the details, but so far what they are saying is Good and Spiff.





Yes this. It seems that this is a trend in a lot of venues. I like it a lot.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 27, 2012)

I think the positive vibe comes from two main places:

1.  They are asking for our input.  So if we hear anything we don't like, we've got a chance to help to change it.

2.  What they've said so far actually sounds really good, if they get the details right.  We've got a chance to influence the details (as in 1 above).

You'd have to be basically entirely pessimistic to not be at least cautiously intrigued.  Therefore, a whole lot of general optimism, with a bunch of natural scepticism.

Hopefully it will continue!


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 27, 2012)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> 3.X Added a new class (sorcerer) and it was awesome. The warlord concept is awesome and deserves a class. New D&D editions sometimes get us something new, or even cast raise dead on things we thought were gone for good (monk*, I'm looking at you). What I don't want is to have to choose between druid/bard and warlord. In this case, tradition gets the edge.
> 
> On that regard, races are an entirely different deal. If I ever see a dragonborn or warforged (and I really like the later) in the Player's Handbook, I know that's an edition of D&D I won't be running. Men (even more awesomeness if that's used in place of humans), dwarves, elves and halflings (the plump ones, please) are the races I want in the core rules. I can see a case for gnomes and half-dudes, but that's where it ends. Everything else goes to optional modules.
> 
> ...




I find that an odd statement.  New class archetypes are okay, but new racial archetypes are not?  Granted, to deliver a simpler, classic experience we probably won't see tieflings, dragonborn, and warforged in the core books (or box) . . . . but if we did, it'd be awful silly to write off the game because of it.  It will be just as easy as ever to say, "In my campaign, no devil-dudes, dragon-guys, or robots allowed!"


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 27, 2012)

tbarrie said:


> How are they defining "roleplay" such that it excludes exploration and combat? Do they mean social interaction?




Um, you can both explore and fight without any roleplaying.  Pick any videogame to play and experience it for yourself.  And I'm sure that nothing will prevent you from roleplaying _while_ you explore or fight!


----------



## buddhafrog (Jan 27, 2012)

Dragonblade said:


> [MENTION=22260]TerraDave[/MENTION]
> 
> Without knowing anything about the mechanical implementation of what it will look like, and how close it will match what I envisioned in the other thread, logically it makes sense to de-emphasize ascending bonuses. It allows you build a world where your basic orc is still relevant several levels later.
> 
> It allows you to make a game that is super compatible with all prior editions. So much so that with minimal conversion you can run Keep on the Borderlands or classic Tomb of Horrors, or you can shift gears and run through a Paizo AP, or slap on the minis rules and run the 4e Madness at Gardmore Abbey, all with 5e PCs. Thats an amazing degree of flexibility and power.




I assume you are right, but I don't understand how / why.  Can someone explain this in the most basic terms, with details / examples?

thanks.


----------



## Khaalis (Jan 27, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> I'm not unhappy. WotC can make any version of D&D that they want and I'd still be happy. I will just keep playing AD&D.
> 
> I guess I'm selfish, but if the core basic of this new edition isn't *super* simple with just archetype classes and the four classic races, then I won't be involved. I see the word Warlock or Tiefling anywhere? I'm out. I'm not unhappy. I'm just going to play a different game.
> 
> But again, I don't expect WotC to cater to my specific desires.




Not to sound too negative here, but it sounds like what you are saying is that all you will ever play is AD&D and that if D&D5/Next isn't pretty much exactly the same as AD&D, you won't even give it a shot.  So, uh... why are you even involved in the discussion?

The entire point of the new system is to create a New D&D that will hopefully make itself available to a wider audience than 4E did. To do that, it takes constructive input from a wide range of people who are *willing* to make such a modular system work.  All of the people who refuse to come out of their respective corners and have the attitude "my way or no way" simply aren't helping the discussion.  I just don't get it.  Why come into a discussion just to say you won't ever be interested unless the game is exactly the way you want it, when you know it can never be exactly what you want?


----------



## Khaalis (Jan 27, 2012)

Warunsun said:


> Why does all of the talk of D&D Next sound like Fantasy Craft? I am sure it will be a lot simpler than FC but dang it does sound like they are channeling it. I looked it over once (FC) and decided against purchasing it. While the customization sounded awesome I figured it would have been entirely too much work for the Dungeon Master to work out all the details and make player's handbooks. I also figured you best not let your min-maxers ever look at that core book because they would want to use a lot of stuff you as DM didn't want.



Personally, I am a fan of FC (already converted my old D&D world to it) because it fixes SO many of the standard d20 issues. I would be very happy to see some of the design concepts make it into the new D&D.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 27, 2012)

buddhafrog said:


> I assume you are right, but I don't understand how / why.  Can someone explain this in the most basic terms, with details / examples?
> 
> thanks.




See my other thread here.


----------



## avin (Jan 27, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> If the game does, in fact, use more Tolkien-like classes and races (like this fat halfling that they're speaking of and the Aragorn-type ranger), then that suits my style of D&D just fine. But words are wind. We'll see.




Problem is, some D&D players aren't Tolkien fans... and they want to cater all D&D editions... there should be room for Tiefling fans, Dragonborn fans... and if a DM doesn't want to use that on his world he just said that. 

This happens in every RPG system... (I was never able to play an Assamite   )



dm4hire said:


> I don't get the NDAs either.  Really if anyone wants to steal the game they can legally do it thanks to the OGL and regular copyright laws.  WotC needs to defang their lawyers.




It's later alpha, they don't want people to discuss something that may be never in game.



Khaalis said:


> Not to sound too negative here, but it sounds like what you are saying is that all you will ever play is AD&D and that if D&D5/Next isn't pretty much exactly the same as AD&D, you won't even give it a shot.  So, uh... why are you even involved in the discussion?




It's like going to a candy shop and tell all the clients he won't buy chocolate with almonds instead of just buy the chocolate he wants and leave (sorry [MENTION=6060]Falstaff[/MENTION], couldn't resist)


----------



## Nebulous (Jan 27, 2012)

Henry said:


> To which I say, "yahoo for the Marshal/Warlord!!"
> 
> I like the idea of the class -- now, if they can streamline the abilities to make sure there are very few to no "quasi-magical" powers in there, I'm set. If Pathfinder can pull off the Cavalier, then WotC can pull off a passable Warlord.




IF they can do that....fine, i will be ok with that. Conceptually the class is fine.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jan 27, 2012)

Dire Bare said:


> Granted, to deliver a simpler, classic experience we probably won't see tieflings, dragonborn, and warforged in the core books (or box) . . . . but if we did, it'd be awful silly to write off the game because of it.  It will be just as easy as ever to say, "In my campaign, no devil-dudes, dragon-guys, or robots allowed!"




It's not that simple. As someone already pointed in another thread, it's not easy to simply disallow a Player's Handbook race without some players seeing you as a jerk.

Also, the implied setting is a very important part of the D&D experience to me; look at the cover of 4E PH and what you see? Yes, a dragonborn. And they'll also appear a lot around in both modules and sourcebooks, even in the background of the world.

I don't like dragonborns, but I have no problem with people liking them, I just want them to be an option in whatever book they're released, not a relevant part of the core, with people asking me why they're not a part of my setting. I hope I have clarified that.

Cheers,


----------



## quindia (Jan 27, 2012)

When answering a question about the 2e Battlesystem and old school Chainmail, Mike Mearls answered...

_Wargame rules are a great example of the kinds of rules modules we’d like to look at for the next iteration of D&D. They are very useful in some campaigns, occasionally useful in others, and never touched in even more. The same thing applies to skirmish battles, or even using miniatures for the typical D&D session. Miniatures are one of those things that I’d prefer to see people using because they enjoy painting or collecting them, not because they feel that the rules require miniatures._

The whole interview is here. Anyway, it seems like minis and the grid will be optional.


----------



## Falstaff (Jan 27, 2012)

Khaalis said:


> Not to sound too negative here, but it sounds like what you are saying is that all you will ever play is AD&D and that if D&D5/Next isn't pretty much exactly the same as AD&D, you won't even give it a shot.  So, uh... why are you even involved in the discussion?
> 
> The entire point of the new system is to create a New D&D that will hopefully make itself available to a wider audience than 4E did. To do that, it takes constructive input from a wide range of people who are *willing* to make such a modular system work.  All of the people who refuse to come out of their respective corners and have the attitude "my way or no way" simply aren't helping the discussion.  I just don't get it.  Why come into a discussion just to say you won't ever be interested unless the game is exactly the way you want it, when you know it can never be exactly what you want?




You don't sound too negative; I understand your point.

I guess the reason why I felt compelled to post here was because I have heard that WotC is hoping that this new edition will bring older edition players into the new game. Well, I'm one of those 40+ old gamers and based on what I've read so far, I'm not interested. At all.

But I'll leave the conversation. I totally understand how my voice isn't needed.


----------



## The Halfling (Jan 27, 2012)

Falstaff said:


> You don't sound too negative; I understand your point.
> 
> I guess the reason why I felt compelled to post here was because I have heard that WotC is hoping that this new edition will bring older edition players into the new game. Well, I'm one of those 40+ old gamers and based on what I've read so far, I'm not interested. At all.
> 
> But I'll leave the conversation. I totally understand how my voice isn't needed.




I'm quoting Falstaff not to pick on him, but because this quote reinforces the train of thought I had last night on DDN and it's noble intention of unifying the community. 

The disparity of play and design between the editions from BECMI to 4e
is too great. It been 30+ years since the old white box, and if players of that style of system have steadfastly clung to it through 2 to 3 newer incarnations, what makes you think that another new system with another modern design will drawn them in. The OSR movement wasn't about making a new system, it was about getting the old school systems back into print using the OGL.

What a 3e player wants out of a game is different from what a 4e players wants, but BOTH are different from what a OSR player wants. Neither are simple or quick in play. And as for the thought of both kinds of players at the same table, it will come down to what kind of game the *DM* wants to run. A 4e player who wants to run a PC with all the bells and whistles of DDN probably won't be playing with a OSR DM. It's not going to happen. You would have a better chance of a 3e/4e DM allowing an OSR player, though the player's satisfaction level probably wouldn't be too high.

What I see from DDN is a system of codified house rules. A definite throwback to my own old school days, where we all played the same system, but not the same game.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 27, 2012)

quindia said:


> W... Mike Mearls answered...
> 
> _... Miniatures are one of those things that I’d prefer to see people using because they enjoy painting or collecting them, not because they feel that the rules require miniatures._
> 
> The whole interview is here. Anyway, it seems like minis and the grid will be optional.




He repeats elsewhere thats minis won't be needed. 

Also confirms that we will not be seeing a new setting any time soon (the 3E setting search was mentioned in the question):



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> but we want to make sure we have plans in place for fans of a variety of favorite settings. That probably means new settings, like the runners-up in the Eberron contest, will have to wait.


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 27, 2012)

TerraDave said:


> He repeats elsewhere thats minis won't be needed.




I know that a bunch of the playtest games at DDXP yesterday were run mapless/miniless.

(Note, I am not at DDXP.)


----------



## Henry (Jan 27, 2012)

Here's my question...

Can the demo-players who signed an NDA talk about ANYTHING of their experience? Their impression or whether they liked what they played or not? Or if I FELT like D&D to them, even if they can't say why?


Of a hypothetical 10 people, if 50% say, "good," 30% say "bad", and 20% are "indifferent", or 90% say "bad" or something, that at least gives us an overall impression. It kinda sucks if they can't even talk about their feeling of it.


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 27, 2012)

Henry said:


> Here's my question...
> 
> Can the demo-players who signed an NDA talk about ANYTHING of their experience? Their impression or whether they liked what they played or not? Or if I FELT like D&D to them, even if they can't say why?




(Note, not at DDXP)

I know from reading [MENTION=71575]chat[/MENTION]tyDMs twitter feed this morning that he really, really enjoyed it. Also, chatting with a friend who is there, he also really enjoyed it (he was playing in a mini- and map-less game).

In addition, E (from geeksdreamgirl.com) wrote up her impressions here[/url.]

It is long, so I will excerpt her impressions of the game that she had that was run by Monte Cook:



> Immediately after the seminar, I went to my mustering station and was assigned a table for the WotC Secret Special adventure, which was a playtest of the new edition core rules. I didn’t know anybody at my table (at least until Mike of SlyFlourish sat down!) but we were all excited to try the new iteration of D&D.
> 
> While waiting on our DM to arrive, I was scrolling through my Twitter stream and saw a tweet from Baldman Games that if any table yelled “THE BALDMAN RULES” they’d get Monte Cook as their DM. Since I hadn’t heard any tables yelling, I showed the tweet to my table and we all sounded the chorus. Sure enough, Monte himself came to our table to run our game!
> 
> ...


----------



## Henry (Jan 27, 2012)

Fantastic. Thanks, mudbunny!

I also just now saw a post Plane Sailing had on the NExt Forum collecting various tweet responses.


----------



## ferratus (Jan 27, 2012)

The Halfling said:


> The disparity of play and design between the editions from BECMI to 4e
> is too great. It been 30+ years since the old white box, and if players of that style of system have steadfastly clung to it through 2 to 3 newer incarnations, what makes you think that another new system with another modern design will drawn them in?




Some fans of D&D are strict platonists.  There is an ideal form of D&D and that is 1e.  The more things deviate from 1e the less it is like D&D.   1e will always be as near to an authentic D&D experience you can get, and every other edition thus far has failed to measure up.  There is probably not going to be any edition or new ruleset that will displace 1e (or BECMI, or 2e, or 3e) as the place of D&D in their heart.

Myself, I'm a strict Aristotelean.  It is D&D as long as it performs the function of D&D in which I assemble a party of adventurers to explore the dungeon and save the world.   I'll toss classes, levels, six ability scores, vancian magic and everything else onto the bonfire if it aids me in creating a better play experience.   I'll still call it D&D (even if that name isn't on the cover) because I care about slaying dragons and exploring dungeons, not rules subsystems.

So there is going to be a delicate row to hoe between the two of us.  I'm simply not interested in bringing back what I consider (IMO of course) to be broken, disruptive, inefficient and unbalanced game mechanics simply for the sake of "authenticity".   The platonist isn't going to be interested in D&D mechanics if they don't have strong links to the rules and mechanics of his favourite D&D edition.

However... (and here is where the hope comes from) people are perfectly capable of liking multiple editions and multiple styles of play.   Also, some people may have a favourite edition, but can play another edition and be content that they are playing a form of D&D.   Others like aspects of all editions of D&D, and wish there was a way to combine what they like in one edition of D&D.   Finally, there are those who don't like a version of D&D, but can recognize the good ideas that it might have.

I think the absolutists generate a lot of heat on discussion forums (as extremists are wont to do), but I think the vast majority of D&D players are those in the last paragraph.   

I thus have confidence that D&D players and groups will accept D&D if it gives them a means to move towards their favourite playstyle while still keeping all their friends.   I also think (and this may not be true of those who post on RPG forums) that your existing group of friends is more important than your favorite version of D&D.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jan 27, 2012)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> It's not that simple. As someone already pointed in another thread, it's not easy to simply disallow a Player's Handbook race without some players seeing you as a jerk.
> 
> Also, the implied setting is a very important part of the D&D experience to me; look at the cover of 4E PH and what you see? Yes, a dragonborn. And they'll also appear a lot around in both modules and sourcebooks, even in the background of the world.
> 
> ...




And I'm totally bored of people endlessly playing dwarves and elves, so I'd prefer if they don't show up in the core book. Obviously we can all see the problem here. If it is going to be a big tent then it IS going to have to incorporate the things we both like. 

I think there's a point where people might have to look at their highly specific tastes in terms of game elements and ask why they're so set against some perfectly interesting concepts and so hard set on having others. 5e will not succeed without people doing that. This is something in general that has gotten less than a lot of consideration is that WotC is not to blame for people's narrow tastes that divide them up into different warring camps. The people that play, that make up the community of D&D players, are responsible for that. The most that WotC can EVER hope to do is cater to everyone as best it is possible to do. The fans have got to do the rest, so if you want to see a successful D&D game going forward we will all have to look real hard at ourselves and decide to be inclusive and not exclusive. 

D&D is after all a game of imagination and creativity. That should be an inclusive impulse that accepts things and does cool things with them, not a rigid traditionalism or exclusive particularism that can only tolerate some narrow set of things in the game and set ways of doing things.


----------



## quindia (Jan 27, 2012)

I don't think most people are against the existence of warforged and tiefling in the game - personally I just rather not see them as core in the first three books.


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 27, 2012)

Assassin to Wizard Seminar starting:

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (D&D XP Seminar Chat Streams)


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 27, 2012)

You can also chatch a live stream (text) of what is being said here:
D&D XP Seminar: Class Design - Live Blog Live Blogging


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 27, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> You can also chatch a live stream (text) of what is being said here:
> D&D XP Seminar: Class Design - Live Blog Live Blogging




Well, I wasn't planning on getting much work done today anyway


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 27, 2012)

The wizards one is also live (though too many comments from the peanut gallary)

This was interesting:

_Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric.

12:48
Monte: Going along those lines we seperated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in there games as well._


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 27, 2012)

I like the idea of using the fighter as the baseline.



> Bruce: We definitely want the classes to be balanced, though having things exactly mathematically balanced isn't always the goal. Different classes or different play styles will shine at different moments, though of course we want everyone to be able to contribute in the common situations like combat.
> 
> Bruce: If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration, or some other mix of game elements.




ps. Good to hear some love for the (4e) Warlock and Assassin. Fingers crossed.


----------



## Wormwood (Jan 27, 2012)

> Monte: I know it's a bit contreversial, but I think Vancian magic is a core element of D&D. Maybe it's not the only option for magic, but it's definitely an iconic and flavorful one that I would like to retain. It's also an interesting way to handle game balance. For example wizards have magical feats that are basically at will abilities. Balancing them with vancian magic which are essentially daily abilities is an interesting way to go, especially when comparing to the fighter and rogue who have more of an at-will style play. It offers a very different playstyle than those other classes, but those different playstyles are something we want to embrace.
> 
> Greg: Those at-will type of attacks are things that have come to D&D with 4th. How are you guys integrating that in the next iteration.
> 
> Bruce: As monte mentioned, you have those feats that give you at-will style attacks, and some spell or class options will give you at will kind of attacks.




I hate Vancian/daily spells, but this sounds like a reasonable approach. Nice.

edit: Oh yeah, feats are in.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jan 27, 2012)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The fans have got to do the rest, so if you want to see a successful D&D game going forward we will all have to look real hard at ourselves and decide to be inclusive and not exclusive.




I already have a successful D&D game going forward, it's called Pathfinder. I'll only change that if I see an opportunity for a better D&D. Sorry if that makes you upset, but my concept of a "better D&D" has a lot to do with what stays in the implied setting, and if I'm ever going to DM this edition, I want dragonborns to stay confined to books like 3E Races of the Dragon. The same goes for shifters, warforgeds, genasi and other equally "creative" options.

Cheers,


----------



## BrockBallingdark (Jan 27, 2012)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> I already have a successful D&D game going forward, it's called Pathfinder. I'll only change that if I see an opportunity for a better D&D. Sorry if that makes you upset, but my concept of a "better D&D" has a lot to do with what stays in the implied setting, and if I'm ever going to DM this edition, I want dragonborns to stay confined to books like 3E Races of the Dragon. The same goes for shifters, warforgeds, genasi and other equally "creative" options.
> 
> Cheers,




My group is currently playing Pathfinder, our DM loves it.  I am the only one at the table that wants the game to be a better D&D.  None of the other guys are checking the forums about the 5e news.  So it seems 5e will only get to them through me if it presents options to improve D&D.  I'm a huge Eberron fan, when I was DM, that was my world... hence Shifters and Warforged stay in Eberron should I ever run a different setting (prob not).

Brock


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 27, 2012)

Lots o stuff....most surprised....psion and wild talents both mentioned.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 28, 2012)

filthgrinder said:


> I doubt we'll be seeing a character sheet soon.




We live in an age where everyone and their granny has a camera in their pocket, I am floored we haven't seen a character sheet yet, nda or no!


----------



## mudbunny (Jan 28, 2012)

Stalker0 said:


> We live in an age where everyone and their granny has a camera in their pocket, I am floored we haven't seen a character sheet yet, nda or no!




My guess is that each character sheet had something uniquely identifiable about it, probably in layout, and that they also took the name of who played what character, so that they could easily determine who leaked what if they had to.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jan 28, 2012)

For many years now I've gotten the feeling that classes and class abilities are thought of solely as combat roles and powers. The following quote from Mearls' Escapist interview about the essentials does a lot to ease my mind. Plus, they are deliberately talking about highlighting combat, role play, and exploration as different game elements. I guess we'll learn more soon.



> Then you extend that to other classes, where it's really important to have that different feel because otherwise, especially for beginners, it's easy to lose track of "well, you're giving me all these choices, but what's really different?" If you want to sell me on this, and say what's interesting about this class and why should I pick it, you need those very visceral, big differences. That just flows into the rest of the design where you just look at it and say "if that's good for beginners," and if you look at advanced players - I mean, if you look the 4th Edition handbook and you look at those players - you have to be well versed in D&D to understand the difference between the classes. It's the old - I see this comment a lot online - "It doesn't read very well, but it plays very well."




Also, there was another thread were I posted my example of what a Cleric does when not viewed as a fighter. Below is the relevant portion. I'm hoping they take into account how classes mean more than combat styles.



> I should point out, I like to think different classes are suited to different strategies when it comes to playing the game. Mages warp the world around them!; Fighters lead from the front and take out swaths of lesser warriors; Thieves sneak in, take everything, and leave the place unlivable ("How do we eat now?"). Clerics on the other hand, what do they do? Hmm... Here's my estimation of a high level cleric run by a masterful player:
> 
> The cleric goes down to the 1st room of dungeon level 1. There are goblins here, though few. The cleric uses his divine powers, wiles, and talent for converting others to convince the goblins to join him. He does the same in room 2 (it's probably easier as the others are already following him). After that it's the whole level. As they go down to level 2 the challenge is upholding morale and loyalty, not necessarily withstanding a confrontation. He does this all the way down gaining followers and power (big time cleric treasure) as well as goods and information until he finds the BBEG. Then? Well he tries to convert him too, because "why stop here?" But maybe this bad boy is a little out of reach. Or maybe he's an Archdevil or something else naturally evil and vile. If that BBEG hasn't had the wisdom to get out of Dodge City yet, then he's in line for a colossal smackdown. ...and almost every one of them holding a stick is from his puny, worthless minion horde. (Which he probably called them most of the time too).


----------



## fjw70 (Jan 29, 2012)

mudbunny said:


> My guess is that each character sheet had something uniquely identifiable about it, probably in layout, and that they also took the name of who played what character, so that they could easily determine who leaked what if they had to.




If they did do that they didn't tell us about it so it wouldn't be much of a deterrent.

I too am surprised that playtest info hasn't leaked yet. I won't leak but not everyone is as ethical as me (I actually buy the books and DDI subscription I use).


----------



## Alphastream (Feb 1, 2012)

Saracenus said:


> Those numbered tent cards are a simple convention for tracking initiative that I first saw playing 3e, and I have used them during D&D Encounters (4e). I also know the DM, and Alphastream favors this method of tracking init because it gives the players a visual on when their turn is coming up. If there is a delay that would change the init order you just exchange the cards to reorder the initiative round when the player or monster comes back in.
> 
> So, in short, its edition neutral.




As my friend Saracenus says, the table in the first picture is one I ran and I like to use table tents. One of my friends started using the system in Living Greyhawk as a way for us to be ready for when our turn comes. I use them as both player and DM because it is a very strong visual way to help players know their turn is coming up.



Henry said:


> Here's my question...
> 
> Can the demo-players who signed an NDA talk about ANYTHING of their experience? Their impression or whether they liked what they played or not? Or if I FELT like D&D to them, even if they can't say why?
> 
> ...



In general, we can't share anything that isn't already known. You can't "disclose". If something is known to be true, then we can share it. For example, now that the seminar mentioned Vancian magic, I can say "yeah, there is Vancian magic." I can't tell you if that's all there is or anything else that isn't already disclosed. 

That may sound crazy if you aren't used to such agreements, but they are very common in RPGs, the tech world, consulting, etc. I like NDAs because they prevent information from coming out before the proper time. Stuff changes and it doesn't help the customer or the company to have incorrect information. For example, I've seen really bad things in an RPG (I've been fortunate to playtest for more than one company) get fixed in the final release. Breaking that NDA would be a disservice to everyone, perhaps preventing someone from ultimately buying a great product. 

On the general level, I can tell you what anyone watching the playtest area would have seen: people were having fun. I would say the three tables I ran were easily at the top of the fun chart for what I ran at the convention (I also ran Ashes of Athas - which I help administer - and played LFR). If you've read my Wizards blog you know I'm a gamer that started with Moldvay's Basic and I have an appreciation for every edition. I saw what others have said: may people say "this reminds me of _X_ edition," where X was not the same edition for every playtester saying that. That's a really good sign.

I can also say, separate from the tables I ran, that Wizards is clearly committed to making changes based on our feedback. There have been good changes since my first playtest I mentioned on my blog. And just at the con I saw Wizards really invigorated around making a change based on a suggestion. It isn't lip service, which is really cool. That approach really makes me excited as a fan. A quick/silly example: the goldenrod colored paper, as I heard it, was a suggestion by a gamer prior to the convention. 

Will D&D Next be your favorite edition? No one can tell that right now, even if they attended the convention. What is clear is that the playtest of the core seemed to go really well. The best way to find out and to influence the game being what you like is to sign up for the playtest and be a part of the process!


----------



## Alphastream (Feb 1, 2012)

Oh, and one more thing. As Mike Mearls and others said, and as you can tell from the pictures they shared, we could run the combats with or without a battlemap. I chose to go without because I thought that would be fun and a change from what players were seeing for the majority of the con (and I didn't want to pack a vinyl battlemap in addition to my pre-printed Ashes of Athas maps).

I'll note that one of our 4E Ashes of Athas adventures had 1-2 mapless combats depending on the choices players made.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Feb 2, 2012)

Alphastream said:


> Oh, and one more thing. As Mike Mearls and others said, and as you can tell from the pictures they shared, we could run the combats with or without a battlemap. I chose to go without because I thought that would be fun and a change from what players were seeing for the majority of the con (and I didn't want to pack a vinyl battlemap in addition to my pre-printed Ashes of Athas maps).
> 
> I'll note that one of our 4E Ashes of Athas adventures had 1-2 mapless combats depending on the choices players made.




Hooray for mapless combat.  I've always preferred it that way.  On the one hand, I SELL miniatures (LGS retailer, me) so I play with miniatures all the time to facilitate that, but...

As a gamer I prefer without (most combats).  The main reason would be: without miniatures, I remember being there - as if I WERE my character, seeing things from my character's eyes.  WITH miniatures I remember playing a game, looking down at my character from above, detached. 

Not quite as satisfying IMO.


----------



## Alphastream (Feb 2, 2012)

I can say that it was very cool to see everyone's eyes on each other at just about all times. We were truly interacting with each other and feeding off one another. 

I do like tactical combat (highly tactical, if you have seen adventures I help write), so I do like the grid and I absolutely love minis. I'm not worried. Best of both worlds? I think the community has the chance to help make that happen through playtest reports.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Feb 2, 2012)

Alphastream said:


> I can say that it was very cool to see everyone's eyes on each other at just about all times. We were truly interacting with each other and feeding off one another.
> 
> I do like tactical combat (highly tactical, if you have seen adventures I help write), so I do like the grid and I absolutely love minis. I'm not worried. Best of both worlds? I think the community has the chance to help make that happen through playtest reports.




Best of both worlds is what I'm looking for, too.  Whatever tool is best for the job (I hope they do a good job of spotlighting which might be which).


----------

