Suggest Your "Rule of Three" Questions for Next Week (4/17)

What are your thoughts about characters that play against type (e.g. dwarven wizards, Goliath rogues, elven paladins, or even the old half-blind lame but vastly experienced warrior)? Is it a design goal to make these types of characters viable and equally effective as those that play to type?

1) The Three Pillars include what has variously been called Social/Roleplay/Interaction. What does WotC mean by this, and what are you exploring mechanically or flavor-wise to enhance this Pillar in the core D&DNext game?

2) What's the timeline on the open play test (i.e. if you had to guess when it would start and how long it will run, when would you guess)? What do you want to make sure you've accomplished before those of us in the broader community get a chance to provide feedback?

3) What if any sorts of features from other games (not just other versions of D&D) might you consider for D&DNext (or future modules thereof)?

Thanks to WotC for taking questions!

I am a huge Tome of Battle fan and was wondering if there are any plans to mine that book for martial maneuvers for 5e?

Also, I get that some people prefer a more gritty playstyle, so I don't expect wuxia/anime style maneuvers to be core, but are there at least plans to add such material as one of the optional modules for martial characters? I'd love to have that in the game.

Will 5e have a save every round mechanic like 4e does? Nothing is more frustrating to me than failing a saving throw and essentially sitting out the rest of the game session while my friends continue to play and have fun.

The fighter concept, at its core, caps out at an earlier level than the magic users. That is, while magic users eventually gain abilities like summoning critters, solving problems, flying, teleporting, and seeing the future, the fighter still hits things with a stick. How do you propose to fix this?

How are you intending on balancing the non-damage effects of attacks? Stuff like push, charm, debuffs, etc. end up being more useful than pure damage in my experience.

Flying (and all 3d combat in general) has been a bit of a headache in the past, both due to complicated rules like flight speed and maneuverability, and when balancing encounters against people who only use melee combat. How is 5e going to handle encounters where monsters (or npcs) can fly, like with a dragon?

Any chance for the comeback of the SWSE condition track? Or anything similar to it?

What's left for 4e? Are we relegated to DDi? Are there any 4e products beyond Dungeon Survival Guide? So much time stands between May and 5e, and 4e has such a shortened life as it is. DDi's been good, but it couldn't possibly cover everything the edition still deserves. Will you guys be focusing any more effort as a designing desired capstone 4e products?

My three questions

1) By default and at the base level of the game, will the next edition of D&D have more granularity than what we have in 4th Edition? While I understand many of the decisions made to simplify the game and even applaud some of them, I feel there are a few areas of the game which would benefit from a little more detail. A few of the people I have played 4th with feel the same way. In particular for me, Grab was somewhat underwhelming. While I understand the reasoning behind wanting a more simplified solution than what was available for Grapple in 3rd Edition, I feel as though 4th went too far the other direction; in general, I feel that statement can be applied to most of the areas I find problematic in 4th.

2) What games are the design team familiar with beyond D&D? Modularity is an idea which the driving force behind some of the systems made by other companies. On the other hand, D&D has not -in the past- been a modular game in the same sense that I would call GURPS or the Hero System modular. Being that this is new ground for D&D as a design goal, I am interested to hear if the design team has thought outside of the Red Box.

3) The idea of using settings as a way to help introduce modularity and different styles of play. As such, what do you feel are the defining characteristics of and how to view the various D&D campaign settings? For example, do you associate Dark Sun with gritty? Eberron with ______? Forgotten Realms with _______? I know that a modular system can allow me to play a setting however I see fit, but I'd still like to know what some of the default assumptions are for the various settings when the design team looks at them or what is heard when the aesthetics and styles of those settings speak to you as a gamer.

CM said:

1. We have heard a lot of tidbits regarding combat statistics already. What sorts of mechanics are you looking at implementing to support exploration and roleplaying, given the revelation at PAX East last weekend that skill challenges will likely not be a core rule?

Click to expand...

I'll second (or third?) this question: 3e and 4e progressively added structure and clarity of shape to the combat arena - a development I regard as a huge step forward for D&D. Next has been spoken about as focussing on another two "pillars" - social interaction and exploration. Will you be adding structured, clear systems for these pillars, giving some mechanical substance, for example, to "social terrain and positioning"?

I dont know if this has been asked before but i have just some questions about how the stats are going to be used in D&D next.

If i have a high wisdom rogue will it mean anything. Will the stats do more than just add modifiers to skill checks. Will the high wisdom rogue make a great tactician or military strategist or will it be a wasted stat. Will a rogue with a 12 dex be gimped.

Inarguably, most classes are differentiated by their combat capabilities. What is the chance of classes designed primarily for e.g. "social" purposes? As in, a manipulative noble who's barely of help in combat situation, but when allowed to talk to enemies, will just defeat any obstacle; or a bard who's less about "buffing" people with arcane music, and more about literally charming monsters and inspiring people through the virtue of his talent rather than magical properties?