http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ro3/20120619
 
And we have the newest Rule of 3...

Quote What can you tell us about Cleric domains in D&D Next? Will we see more cleric spells like the classic buff spells?
Cleric domains represent a baseline choice that clerics make that flavor many of the abilities they gain. First of all, much like spheres in 2nd Edition, the cleric's choice of domain opens up new options for the spells that cleric can prepare each day. Second, the cleric's choice of domain grants some baseline class features that alter how the character plays; for example, the cleric who chooses the War domain gains proficiency in heavy armor and shields, while the cleric who chooses the Sun domain gains resistance to radiant damage. At higher levels, the cleric's domain choice helps provide more powerful class features that form an integral part of the cleric's play style; again, as an example, the War domain cleric might gain the ability to cast a spell and make a melee attack as a single action, while the Sun domain cleric could get a free radiant lance spell once per round.
The D&D Next playtest rules state that advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out. How does this work when you have advantage or disadvantage from multiple sources?
When you have disadvantage or advantage, you have it, no matter how many sources you're getting it from. They are binary conditions, and once you have that condition in a certain situation, you simply have it. However, if you have both, then their effects cancel each other out—you roll no additional dice; again, no matter how many sources grant advantage or disadvantage, having both means that you, effectively, gain the die-rolling effects of neither advantage nor disadvantage at that time. Technically, you still have both advantage and disadvantage (for the purpose of things that key on those situations), their basic effects simply negate one another.
Is the "tactical combat" rules module in D&D Next going to be more akin to what we see in current 4E, will it look more like previous editions, or will it be something else entirely?
With the usual caveat that the tactical combat rules module is still a work in progress, I can give you an idea of where we're headed. We're thinking this chunk of optional rules covers tighter integration with a grid, templates for area effects, more grid-based rules for line of sight and cover, along with more options for movement and forced movement. Perhaps one of the more exciting portions of this module that we're tinkering with is facing rules. Mike has drafted some very tight, clean rules for facing that should add a lot of tactical depth to combat, and make movement and positioning even more important than ever. Of course, we'll see how things shake out in playtesting, but we want the tactical combat module to provide a full, rich tactical experience that is completely compatible with our base rules.

Cleric domains are one of those things that always sounds good in theory ("let's differentiate clerics by god type!") but always ends up kind of lackluster in execution for me. I've just never seen it done all that well.

I've never come up with a good method for it either. I always end up with the same problems the professionals do:
* Some spheres have 10x the number of powers the others do
* Some spheres end up meaningless while others are too powerful
* The spheres are balanced by stretching the themes to such a degree that you may as well not have them

You also never end up with anything remotely realistic to real pantheons (not a lot of powers come to mind for "Priest of the God of Hearth and Home").

Personally, I've moved to using gods as a true pantheon religion format where the cleric worships all of the gods as a whole instead of always being a cult leader. I also am starting to prefer games that don't split out cleric vs. magic-user spells, but that is a strong D&D-ism so I don't do that for D&D games.

For what it's worth, I've long been of the opinion that the type of things they're adding in the 'tactical combat module' have little to no place in D&D.

The basic reason is that the core combat mechanic in D&D is meant to be predictable and rather safe (except for early levels)- contests are primary a issue of resource management. Gygax later expressed discontent with things like 'Save or Die' and critical hits for this reason.

The described 'tactical combat module' however looks to be filled with options to make combat unpredicatable and dangerous (or else they have no tactical impact, and thus can't be in any way tactical options).

The two mechanical impacts are in conflict, a game design pitted against itself.

The 'tactical combat module' also breaks D&D's very high abstraction layer to a significant degree IMO, forcing real world effects upon the HP abstraction which exists to remove those effects.


I supose it's a good thing that they're effectively optional in this edition. It will be interesting to see who uses the module and  under what conditions.



Oh, the whole advantage/disadvantage concept is still a loser with me.