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

[Banesfinger]

Since the segment is called "rule of three", I thought I'd ask 3 quick questions:

Q1: So much of what we've heard to date is how the next version will have the 'best' of all prior versions (which is great, by-the-way). But for those of us who have all the prior versions, how much of your focus will be on 'new & innovative' design, instead of just a rehash of what we've seen before?

Q2: Speaking of 'best' of all prior versions, using the various 'snap-on tools', will we be able to play all those old classic adventures (e.g. against the giants 'G' series, or White Plume Mountain, etc)?

Q3: Our group's biggest complaint with the game design has been the dreaded "15-minute working day", where spell casters would use all their resources in the first encounter and rest. This was somewhat mitigated with 4e's 'at-will and encounter' powers (but 'Daily's' didn't help). How will the next version avoid this problem?

 

[Artur Hawkwing]

Will DnD NexT have more use for the d12? It is something I have heard discussed at many a gaming table.

 

[EmbraCraig]

One of the big problems with both 3/3.5 and 4E is combat reallly bogging down at high levels... any specific plans to keep things running smoothly?
Subquestion - will high level play be included in the public playtest?

 

[Quickleaf]

Q: Where will the complexity level of running a character in D&D Next be determined? In sub-class? Feat? Somewhere completely unexpected?

Hi Trevor, I am reiterating the question I posed a few days ago in a thread discussing Rob's "Beyond Class" article where I noted that themes as presented in Rob's article don't seem to support ease of play (though they would support ease of character creation), and wondered where newbie players and players who prefer a simpler character could look to see that implemented in the next edition?

Btw thanks for asking ENWorld

 

[seregil]

**sarcastic comment removed my me. ***

Never mind, I'm grumpy.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Just how basic and bare bones will the core be? If the design goal is to boil D&D down to a "kernel," will that kernel be closer to the original "Red Box" (or Holmes Edition, which is what I started out with) or the 3e PHB in length?

 

[The Grand User]

1. Have there been any innovations for intiative, particularly in regards to large groups (either PCs, NPCs, or both) as well as at higher levels where the ones who win initiative usually win the combat?

2. In 3.X any player had the option to play most any monster as a character through LA, racial HD, and ECL. While it was clunky and akward to work with, it was at least an option that was there but 4E removed the option entirely. Will D&D Next return the option and will it try to better implement it?

3. With the modular nature, how scalable will character power be, level being equal (ie, an extra feats module, gestalt module, etc)?

4. Will some character modules have a benefit only at first level, equivelent to benefits given by race, while others have on going benefits as level incraeses, equivelent to class?

 

[mcintma]

Full, Standard, Move, and Free actions - will they be core?

Or is the action system changing? Thanks

 

[Kalontas]

What is the Wizards' approach towards the less "standard" classes? I heard the talk about demoting Invokers (one of my favourite additions in 4E) into a theme (which, AFAIK, has much less impact on a character than a class), and I don't like the suggestion - it's, IMO, demoting a rather interesting flavour that was added by an oft-maligned edition. I'd hate to see the innovation and uniqueness of 4E be sidelined by tradition and financial certainty.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How is shifting from an "encounter-based" game to an "adventure-based" game affecting longstanding D&D bugaboos (such as "gotcha" monsters, charms, illusions, divinations, save-or-die abilities, flight, and skills like Diplomacy and Perception)?