Quote from: Planet Algol;530167I'd start jizzing diamonds...

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;528665Basially saying if they sugar coat healing surges andmundane powers we will eat it up.

Quotehttp://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.a.../4pod/20120416

They've posted a new podcast(first in a couple of months) interviewing Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls on 5E, followed by some info on the Lords of Waterdeep boardgame.

Some highlights:

1. Core of game is said to resemble Basic in scope, with modules used to get a game that resembles 3E or 4E
2. Core of the game will be constant, and modules will be additions that won't change the core
3. They made a comment that there would be six iconic spells to choose from per level.

QuoteSo the base core will kinda resemble Basic D&D, then we get classes that will kinda resemble AD&D 2nd edition classes (with more high level class features for fighters and rogues and at-will magic 'tricks' and spells for wizards and clerics like 3rd and 4th edition) and on top of that optimizers will be able to customize their characters with skill and feats like in 3rd and 4th edition. Tack on a 4th edition tactical module if you want.

Quote2. Core of the game will be constant, and modules will be additions that won't change the core

Quote from: B.T.;530504How did morale work?

Quote from: B.T.;530504How did morale work?

Quote from: B.T.;530504How did morale work?

QuoteWhat thought, if any, have you given to deciding what modular rules go into the initial D&D Next release and what rules will be released in subsequent supplements?

I chose to answer this question because my answer is going to apply to the many, many product-related questions we get for Rule-of-Three. The work we're doing right now D&D Next isn't what you would call product development; we are not working on books, we're trying to create the game system that is going to be featured and expanded in various products. As such, there are many decisions about what goes into a product that we have not even started working on because it's far too early in the process. While we've got a running list of optional and variant rules we can include (Hit locations! Lingering wounds! Hexes! Firearms!), and many of those will likely appear right alongside the base rules in whatever products we release, no decisions have been made as to what rules variants will go into particular products.

   Are we going to see mostly weapons we're familiar with, doing the same range of damage from d4 to d12, or multiples of dice? Can we expect to see a return of weapon damage types as was mentioned in a previous conversation? Also, do you expect to see any exotic weapon choices in the core or is that something you'd like to hold off for a later release?

Yeah, I'm cheating by letting these three count as one question, but they're all related and allow for relatively simple answers. I think we want weapons to meet player expectations, and some of the basic things you mention (like weapons having varying but basic damage dice) meet those expectations and function well. One area where we might make some tweaks is trying to level the playing field on a lot of common weapons, because for many players, a weapon is an aesthetic choice, and it's kind of a drag to pick a weapon for aesthetic reasons only to find out your character is somehow hampered because you didn't make another, less aesthetically pleasing choice. Also, yes, right now we're looking at typing weapon damage, just like we do with spell damage. So, a mace might do 1d8 bludgeoning damage, for example.

As for exotic weapons, it's too early to know what is going to appear where. However, I would like to point out that when we talk about the "core of the game" we're not talking about the "core rulebooks" for the game. As I mentioned above, we're not working on products yet, we're trying to get the mechanical core of the system down—the basic functions of the game that make the game tick—before we start worrying about what kinds of content goes into a particular product.

   One of the things that people worry about is combat and non-combat abilities competing with each other. Are the designers/developers of D&D Next worried about this kind of thing, and if so, what are you doing to mitigate it?

In general, we want to make sure that everyone has a baseline level of competence in all three pillars of play (combat, interaction, and exploration, for those of you who haven't read previous Rule-of-Three articles) so that they can participate in adventures that use those game play pillars in different ratios. We want players to have a lot of freedom when choosing what to focus on. For example, in 4E if a player wants to blow all of his feats on extra languages and Skill Focus, that's totally OK. Likewise, I play a 27th-level wizard in Chris Perkins' Wednesday night game, and I get far more exciting use out of my utility spells than I do from my attack spells (I'm looking at you, time stop). If I could trade in some of my attack powers for more uses of utility powers, I totally would. So, when it comes to customization points, we want to let people choose what they want to focus on (be that combat, diplomacy, being the best liar ever, being a super stealthy thief, or whatever) and trust the baseline competence we've built into all characters to make sure everyone feels like they can participate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Marleycat;530965Here's the latest batch of Rule of 3 answers....

Quote from: Black Vulmea;530982It really seems like they need to just shut up and release their playtest already, 'cause the gobbledy-gook isn't helping.