Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D News Archive #2 September 1999 News from September 1999: September 27, 1999 TSR's Keith Strohm elaborated on the fate of Planescape and the venerable D&D cosmology as they pertain to 3E (on rec.games.frp.dnd): While we do not intend support for the 2nd Edition Planescape setting, 3rd Edition D&D wil feature planar adventures and creatures. Essentially, the same team that brought you all of the fantastically designed PS elements will be working on 3rd Edition D&D product in the future. For a variety of reasons, most gamers did not purchase PS product, leaving a host of really cool material (useable in just about any campaign) untouched. We want to return planar adventuring back to the baseline D&D game. Warriors of Heaven and Guide to Hell (out Sept. and November respectively) are the recent planar products designed for the core AD&D game. The 3rd Edition Manual of the Planes will present rules on how to build your own multiverse. We will insert the "official" planar cosmology as an example of how we built a multiverse using the rules in the book. Any planar adventures for the core will assume the use of this cosmology, but we are encouraging each DM to build their own multiverse.   Playtester Der Verdammte sent in some interesting clarifications about recent scoops from Ryan Dancey: Critical Hits:  The ability to achieve a Threat "depends on the weapon, and there are certain abilities a character can have that expand the "threat" range even further."  So certain weapons might have a Threat range beyond just a natural 20. Backstab vs. Sneak Attack:  A sneak attack replaces "backstab" because it's never been a literal "back"-stab.  For instance, you can walk up to some unsuspecting person and stab them in the gut for "sneak attack" damage, so long as you were nonchalant enough that they didn't catch on until it was too late.  OTOH, there are some creatures that are still immune to it, just because it's still a well-placed blow.  For instance, it doesn't really matter where you hit a pudding or a jelly; they don't have any areas that are more vulnerable than others.  But that's always been the case. Four-bolt magic missile from a 4th-level wizard?:  Ryan's in error.  According to the latest version of Magic Missile, in the playtest document I received last Saturday, the number of missiles per level are the same. September 26, 1999 Here are some sample scenarios, by TSR VP Ryan Dancey, that demonstrate why the "Delay" option for initiative would be useful (scoop sent in by Don Lail): =================== Two mages, standing side by side.  Fire Giant is running towards them.  Both mages have the same initiative. One decides to "delay", the other fires a spell.  If the spell is sufficient to kill the Giant, the second mage can change targets and shoot something else.  If not, the second mage can cast something else at the original Giant.  If they both went on the same initiative, the DM would be justified in ruling that damage would be made after both mages cast spells - so one might waste a spell on a target that would have been stopped by the other. ================== Two mages, opposing each other.  Neither knows the level of the other.  There's a battle going on, and having powerful spells available may mean the difference between success and failure. Mage One would go first in the initiative order, but takes a risk and "Delays".  Mage Two fires her best spell - a four bolt magic missile.  Mage One takes the hit, smiles, makes a concentration roll to cast through the pain, knows her opponent is 4th level, and unleashes the fireball - not the meteor swarm.  [Note:  So a fourth-level wizard can cast a four-bolt magic missile?  Interesting...] ================== Two Rouges are near a monster.  Rogue One is close enough to make a melee attack.  Rogue One has first initiative, the monster second, Rogue Two third. Rogue One elects to "delay".  The monster strikes, Rogue One takes the hit. Rogue Two takes a partial movement action - moving a short distance while still being able to make a melee attack - into a "bracketing position" vs. the monster (in other words, there's a character on either side of the monster).  Under 3e rules, that means that either character can make a "sneak attack".  Since Rogue Two moved before attacking, he'll only get one attack this round. Rogue Two completes the partial action, and delivers a sneak attack to the monster.  The monster howls as the multiplied damage rends fur and bone.  Then Rogue One makes a melee attack; since Rogue One waited for the creature to be bracketed, Rogue One's attack is also a "sneak attack".  Since Rogue One didn't do anything else this turn (except Delay), Rogue One makes an "All Out Attack" (uses all available attack routines).  Since Rogue One has three attacks, all three are "sneak attacks", and Rogue One delivers leathal damage.  (We won't mention the Critical Hit in the middle...)  [Note:  Multiple sneak attacks?  Also, it sounds like the more general "sneak attack" replaces the anatomy-specific "backstab" ability.] ==================   Ryan Dancey's a busy man!  He also provided the rationale behind the rules for priests "trading" memorized spells for healing power (scoop sent in by Don Lail):  Here's the big intention behind this rule:  The smart player (or the player browbeaten into it by the other players) who has a Cleric character should, under 1e and 2e rules, always take the maximum amount of "curing" spells possible.  The 3e system frees the cleric from this need.  Now, finally, all those other really interesting Cleric spells in the lists can be taken without concern that doing so will doom a comrade when things get sticky.  We think this simple change will have a sweeping effect on the Cleric class - creating hundreds of interesting varients from the base "healing warrior" concept - without unduly risking the safety of the party. Mr. Dancey added to what we know of the new rules for Critical Hits:  There are certain times when the "threat range" might expand; say, dealing a threat on a 19 or a 20.  And there are certain times when the damage might be tripled or quadrupled, not just doubled.  (scoop sent in by Don Lail)  [My guess, based on other tidbits, is that it could depend on the level of the attacker, and the type of weapon used.] Ryan Dancey indicates that there are no minimum ability requirements for classes in 3E:  There aren't any ability score requirements in 3e.  There are some special  abilities and heroic feats that won't work, or will work poorly unless the character has certain ability scores over a threshold value, but there are no minimums required to take any class.  There are still some alignment restrictions, but no score restrictions.  (from the TSR message board) September 25, 1999 TSR VP Ryan Dancey told DND-L his vision of what a TV comercial for D&D 3E could potentially look like:   Here's the commercial I would like to shoot.  Whether it gets made or not is anyone's guess at this point. ============================== Begin with a black screen. Soundtrack begins.  Sirens wail.  Sounds of boots marching.  Sounds of anger and unhappiness. Voicover begins.  Images flash in black & white.  Clinton on the rope line with Monika.  Jimmy Swaggart crying on TV.  OJ simpson sitting in court.  Soliders march in front of Saddam Hussien. Voice:  "Some people say that there are no heroes today.  That today's kids don't have any good role models.  Who will the next generation look up to and respect? Fade to black. Sountrack ends. Music begins.  "Ode to Man" or something else really stirring. Voiceover begins again.  More images flash, this time in color.  A seargent waves her platoon forward through the fog of a cool Bosnian morning.  A teacher turns from a blackboard filled with algebraic equations and looks out at a class of attentive studients.  An exhausted fireman, coated with soot, carries a small girl from a burning building. Voice:  "We think the world is filled with heroes.  We think that most people want to fight the good fight, stand up for what's right, protect the helpless and stand tall and proud.  Where do today's heroes come from?  When they were kids, they heard stories of knights in shining armor.  Tales of high adventure.  Times when only a small band of heroes stood against powerful villians.  Those stories made an impact - they set a standard." Fade to black. Music ends. Fade in to a white screen.  Brief pause.  Fade int the D&D logo on a white background.  Brief pause.  Under the logo fade in the words "August, 2000".  A brief pause, then the Wizards of the Coast logo fades in at the bottom of the screen. Voice:  "This summer, a door will open to a fantastic land of myth and legend.  A place where new stories are created every day.  Where good triumphs over evil." Pause. Voice: "Be a hero." ============================== September 24, 1999 Sorry for the (relatively) long absence -- busy, busy, busy.  And now, on with the show... Ryan Dancey responded to a request that TSR make available the playtesters' version of the 3E rules:   No. Reasons why: #1:    The manuscript isn't presentable.  It's usable as a playtest document, but it has lots of bad grammar, spelling errors, and places where the text simply doesn't reflect the rules very well.  Even the current internal version of the document is still undergoing revisions to clean it up and improve usability. #2:    The playtest document isn't current.  Since the end of formal playtesting, the basic system has continued to undergo substantial work - not major changes to major systems, but numerous minor tweaks all over the document to improve the overall game.  Most of those changes currently exist in a "change file" that haven't been incorporated into a manuscript. #3:    Don't open your Xmas presents before Xmas morning.  Part of the fun is the wait.  The delicious feeling of anticipation.  This is a once in a decade change - savor the experience. #4:    We don't want our competitors to take all the good stuff in 3e, copy it, and release something that will be competitive.  I figure 3e is going to give us 8 months to a year of "stunned amazement" from the other hobby game companies before they can react.  During that window, we've got to keep gaining speed, so that they can't catch up.  I don't want to squander the lead before the race even begins. September 18, 1999 TSR VP Ryan Dancey had a few things to say about the art in 3E (on DND-L): For 3e, we're going back to the drawing board (literally) to reconcept the look of Dungeons & Dragons.  We'd like people to be able to walk into a store, see our stuff, and know that it's a D&D product.  If we're successful, people will start to copy us again, and in 25 years someone else with my job will be restating these objectives. We've asked the artists to do the following: 1)    Make the characters look like PCs.  PCs don't walk around wearing wool cloaks and tunics.  They go armed and armored. They are draped with pouches, bags, wand cases, spell components, spare weapons, arrows and bolts, and lots of magic items - rings, amulets, belts, boots, etc.  The look of the PCs is not the look of the peasants, nobility, merchants and other commoners - the PCs are Adventuring Heroes, and they tend to stand out. 2)    Imagine that the technology development stopped in the late medieval period, but that people have continued to innovate within the limits of that technology.  So you will see lots of armor, but no kevlar vests.  Lots of swords, but no firearms.  Lots of horses, but no cars, etc.  Magic tends to warp things - I'll wear a leather tunic with a large armor bonus instead of normal plate mail.  I'll go patchwork - if I need to have one arm free for my magic gauntlet that covers shoulder to fingertips, I'll cut a sleeve off my chainmail. 3)    Take into consideration the threat level of the world.  A fantasy gaming world is an incredibly dangerous place.  It is filled with creatures that regularly swallow people whole, coat them with poison, strike with fangs and stingers, blast with gouts of fire or cones of cold, etc.  Assume that the average Adventuring Hero has seen comrades burned, frozen, etched, disintegrated, turned to stone, polymorphed, and cut, bruised and broken in a thousand horrible ways.  Then allow them to dress themselves.  They're going to opt for defenses, or for clothing that gives them freedom of movement (to run away), or something to hide behind, or ways to hurt things that get within an arms reach, etc. All that said, the graphics you're seeing have been created to spark discussion, so that not only the public, but our own internal teams have something to use as a reference for discussing the look and feel.  All those comments are valuable, even the negative ones. September 17, 1999 The official 3E web site has been updated. Now available is an interview with Bill Slavicsek, "Director of Roleplaying R&D and the man responsible for assembling the 3rd Edition team."  You can read most of the questions and answers here.  Be sure to read Bill's impressive resume at the end of the interview.  Scattered through the interview are some audio clips containing additional questions and answers that are not presented in print.  I've transcribed the audio portions below: Working with Peter Adkison:  "So, Bill, what was it like working with Peter Adkison on 3rd Edition D&D?" "It was great.  He really knows and loves the hobby gaming market, and he's a longtime fan and player of AD&D.  Working with someone in his position who actually speaks and understands the language of games and gamers was a real pleasure.  His insight, vision and direction made the product into something special.  I really enjoyed it." Today's gamers:  "So you mentioned that 3rd Edition D&D will be aimed at a new generation of games and gamers.  What makes today's game players different from gamers of 25 years ago when D&D first started?"  "Well, the biggest difference is that there are many, many, many more choices today.  When we started, when TSR began the industry, as it were, 25 years ago, we were the only game in town.  And in that way, the new gamers and game market is much more sophisticated.  There's more choices, there's more options, there's more things to do with your leisure time and your leisure dollars.  Games today are more visual, players are more focused on multimedia experiences in a lot of ways.  And we had to take all of that into account in the new design.  In many ways today's audience has seen it all before, so we needed to make some adjustments to really catch their attention." "Sacred cows":  "So Bill I've heard the design team talk about the sacred cows of D&D.  What exactly are the cows in that herd?" "Well I won't go into all of them, but I'll give you a sense of the philosophy behind that part of the design.  We looked at AD&D and tried to determine what it was we didn't want to change in its central focus, and those were the things we called the "sacred cows" -- what makes D&D what it is.  Those things include the many types of dice we use, the polyhedral dice; using levels to advancement; armor class; spells and the magic system; certain races, the demi-human races; monsters like mind flayers and beholders; the classes, of course, that everybody wants to play -- fighter, thief, wizard, priest; the range of numbers for your ability scores from 3-18; and using the d20 to generate your hit rolls.  That's kind of the basis of the sacred cows -- there are others but that gives you an example of what we were looking at and saying, 'these cannot change in any fundamental way.'"  "So it's safe to say that a person who's a fan of D&D will look at 3rd Edition and readily identify it as the Dungeons & Dragons experience based on their previous experience?"  "Oh, definitely, that was the whole point of the exercise." The designers:  "You mentioned that Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook and Skip Williams are really the primary designers on the core books for the 3rd Edition line.  Can you talk about the difference in style of those three designers and what each of them bring to the table in terms of their design skills?" "Sure.  Jonathan, of course, has been in the industry for a very long time, as have all of the others.  Jonathan has worked on many game systems, including Ars Magica and Everway.  He brings to the table in addition to that experience his experience with the WotC's trading card R&D department, technical expertise, leadership and analysis that really made him top choice for leader of the team.  Monte Cook, who's been with TSR for many years and with Iron Crown before that, brings a vast knowledge and experience of D&D and its worlds and mechanics, and an exciting sense of story that I think is very  important that the team have as well.  He's very good at making things "cool."  Skip Williams, who's the only one to have actually worked on all three editions of AD&D, brings to the table a sense of history, a sense of continuance, and decades of "Sage Advice" questions and answers that were just invaluable for the analysis of the design."  "Skip, for those who don't know, is the "Sage" of Dragon Magazine who answers all of the rules questions for players when they write in." D&D vs. AD&D:  "So I notice in the course of our interview you continually refer to D&D instead of AD&D (outside of when you are referring to it in a historical sense).  Why do you keep doing that?"   "For the new product and new edition, we made a conscious effort to get rid of the "Advanced" moniker.  There's only one game, it's "Dungeons & Dragons", now.  The Advanced logo kind of makes it unaccessible, kind of off-putting, to certain members of the audience, makes it too exclusive if you will, and it doesn't really -- when we used to have a Basic game and an Advanced game, it made sense to do that, but it doesn't any more and it's just confusing.  So this is just "Dungeons & Dragons" moving forward."  "So, Dungeons & Dragons in 3rd Edition isn't simpler than 2nd Edition Dungeons and Dragons."  "No it's an evolution of 2nd Edition AD&D, we just dropped the A." Also announced at the official site is an upcoming 3E chat: "Join Roleplaying R&D Director Bill Slavicsek and 3E designer Monte Cook in a discussion of "Why 3E?" Bill and Monte will take questions from the public in this live chat on Friday, September 24, starting at 8 p.m. EST. (Hosted in the Events room.)" September 16, 1999 I made a few elaborations and clarifications to the Dragon Magazine bit below. September 15, 1999 In a two-page spread, Dragon Magazine presents 10 3E rules you can use right now.  Overall, the article is a little disappointing, as there is very little new information, but some of it confirms rumors we've been hearing.  Some of the "new rules" aren't presented clearly enough to make them actually usable without seeing the rest of the rules. Very important note:  "With one exception, [the rules outlined below] aren't exactly like the new [3E] rule, but they're close enough to give you a sense for where the game is headed."  Here they are: Armor Class:  Presents the 10-to-30 AC ranges; however, the reader is not instructed to include "to hit" bonuses for the character's level.  Without this information, the instructions are useless except for first level characters.  No one would be able to hit an AC 21 or higher.  See my Combat page for complete charts that clarify this. Level Limits:  ignore demi-human level limits; allow humans to multi-class; "[f]or every class taken in addition to the first, characters take a 20% penalty to all XP earned."  It isn't clear whether they mean humans receive the 20% penalty or all multiclass characters do. Monks and Assassins:  use the Monk and Assassin classes as presented in The Scarlet Brotherhood (a Greyhawk accessory, c1999, by Sean Reynolds).  Monks must be lawful, Assassins must be evil. Character Creation:  describes the method of rolling character attributes as per the FAQ. Exceptional Strength:  remove exceptional strength, adjust the STR table so that the first percentile category is 19, the second is 20, and so on. Initiative:  roll only once for initiative; during the round, characters can give up an action to "Refocus" and move to the front of the initiative order, or "Delay" to move to the end of the order.  If more than one character "Refocuses" they apparently end up going at the same time.  No explanation is given as to why someone might want to "Delay." Combat Rounds:  describes the six-second combat round.  Most interesting is their summary of how to adjust spell casting times and durations:  "divide all time-dependent information (such as spell durations and movement rates) by 10, unless the information states a time in rounds or turns in which case leave the time unchanged.  All spells that have a casting time less than 1 round are resolved on the initiative of the caster.  Spells that have a casting time longer than one round are resolved on the initiative of the caster the appropriate number of rounds after they are cast."  Apparently, 1 "turn" is still equal to 10 "rounds"; in 3E, then, one turn is 1 minute (10 6-second rounds). Spell Bonuses:  allow all spellcasting characters to use the bonus spell chart that priests use.  Priests and Druids still receive bonus spells for Wisdom, as do Rangers and Paladins.  Wizards and Bards receive bonus spells for high Intelligence.  This contradicts one rumor about Bards gaining bonus spells due to high Charisma. Critical Hits:  A natural 20 results in a Threat.  Roll again -- if you hit the second time (a normal hit, not another natural 20), you score a Critical Hit and do double damage.  This way a high level fighter has a greater chance to do a critical than a low-level mage; a character facing an opponent with an untouchable AC would have to roll two natural 20s in a row to score a Critical Hit. Healing Spells:  Priests and Druids (but not Paladins or Rangers) can swap any previously memorized spell for the ability to heal d8 hp per spell level given up. September 14, 1999 TSR Designer Sean Reynolds had this to say about why there would be no Cavalier class presented in the 3E Player's Handbook: "Since the cavalier is just a specialized sort of fighter, and you can build a cavalier by starting with the fighter as a base in 3E, why should we waste valuable space in the 3E PHB making yet another class that can already be created with an existing class?  Just looking at the skills and feats section, you can make a pretty good cavalier-equivalent at 1st-level.  There will also be an explanation on how to make new classes in the DMG." (on the TSR Message Board) September 13, 1999 TSR VP Ryan Dancey dropped an interesting bit on DND-L -- Barbarians will use a d12 hit die.  (scoop sent in by JBS) September 12, 1999 Miscellaneous juicy bits from TSR VP Ryan Dancey (on DND-L): On unarmed combat:  "In 3e, you can attempt to trip (and be tripped), you can attempt to knock over or over run a target in a charge, you can attack weapons and armor, you can attempt to disarm, you can grapple, you can overbear (including an attempt to hold prone), and your party (or the monsters) can gang up to accomplish a grapple or overbearing attempt as a group.  If grappled, you can attempt to break free, you can attempt to reverse the grapple and overbear the person who is grappling you (including an attempt to hold prone).  You can deliver non-lethal damage barehanded, or for a small penalty, deliver "real" damage.  When grappled, you can fight with small weapons, provided you can reach and use them.  There are skills that provide a taste of martial arts, including some skills that require the user to have mastered a previous, less powerful move first.  All of these abilities are handled using the same system as attacks, skill checks, saving throws, etc:  Roll a d20, add some modifiers, and compare to a Difficulty Class (DC).  Sometimes the DC is an "opposed roll" made by the target of the attack, other times, it's a value based on how hard it is to accomplish the effect you're seeking, and other times the DC is equal to the AC of the target." On cavaliers:  "There's no rules needed to play a cavalier.  Any fighter type could do it, by simply agreeing on a code of conduct with their DM and carefully picking skills." On firearms:  "The PHB doesn't list firearms.  The DMG will treat the subject briefly." September 11, 1999 Penalties for heavy armor?  That's what's implied in this quote from NWN producer Trent Oster:  "I can't really comment much on 3E rules, but, I expect the leather-wearing fighter to become a much more popular combination." (spotted at Planet NeverWinter) A reliable source (who has asked to remain anonymous) comments:  "Remember the thieving skill armor adjustments?  That's part of what he's talking about, just expanded." Rumors about spells for specialty priests in 3E:  "There is now a 'core list' of spells for specialty priests, and they also get 2 other spheres appropriate to their deity. These spheres have about 1 spell per level, and the titles now match a deity's portfolio more than anything else. Then generic clerics have their mondo list." (an unnamed source on the TSR message board) September 10, 1999 The chat log from today's "Hasbro & The Future Wizards of the Coast" chat is now available. (scoop sent by Gebhard Blucher) The official 3E site has been updated with some fresh concept art.  New pieces include a female gnome fighter and a male dwarf cleric.  And you can now click on the hard-to-read white-on-black images to see a larger black-on-white sketch. I had no idea the paladin was a half-orc!  Overall, they look very compelling.  Take a look here. September 9, 1999 Hasbro is acquiring Wizards of the Coast for $325 million, with the agreement expected to be finalized by the end of this month.  Read the full press release here. (scoop sent in by Jonathan Petersen) Reassuring words from TSR VP Ryan Dancey on the Hasbro-WotCbuy-out (scoop sent in by Ryan Dancey): This morning, Hasbro announced it's intent to buy Wizards of the Coast, and Wizards announced that the shareholders have voted in favor of the acquisition.  This raises, I am sure, a number of questions regarding the status of D&D. First, let me reassure everyone that the deal will not have any direct affect on the D&D business.  If anything, Hasbro's access to broad distribution will help us bring new people in to the hobby in the coming years. Wizards of the Coast will be run as a separate business unit.  Peter is staying on to manage the company, and all the brand, tabletop RPG business managers, and the R&D staff are staying as well.  Nobody has been fired. Nobody's managers have been changed/replaced by Hasbro. Hasbro has no intentions of altering our current strategies for D&D.  They understand and accept the unique nature of the property, including its more "adult" aspects, including language, tone and content.  (In other words, the fiends from the outer planes will still be called Demons and Devils!) The tabletop RPG category has been returned to substantial profitability this year.  As a result, no one should have concerns that it the business will be terminated or sold due to its size or value.  Within WotC, D&D and the other RPGs we produce are held in very high esteem both as a component of our success, and due to the rewarding entertainment they provide. As the acquisition goes forward, I'm sure that there will be many rumors and questions.  I would ask that you treat all such information as false until you see either an official press release, a post on our web site, or you see confirmation from Wizards' senior managers, myself or other members of the brand management or tabletop RPG business management team, like Keith Strohm, David Wise, Jim Butler and Cindi Rice. I'm sure you'll understand that things are a bit unsettled here at the moment as everyone adjusts to the changes.  During this period of adjustment, it may be hard to reach various members of the D&D team for more information.  If you have any specific questions, please feel free to write to me regarding them.  My email address is dancey@wizards.com.  If you are a member of the media and have questions, please contact Jenny Bendel in our PR department at 425.204.2670 Sincerely, Ryan S. Dancey VP, Wizards of the Coast   WotC will be holding a chat session about the Hasbro-WotC buy-out this Friday, September 10, at 11 a.m. PST.  When the time comes, start here and follow the instructions. (on the CR2 mailing list) September 7, 1999 Some 3E humor, courtesey of "Lord Stevil the Parakeet Shaman": TSR, the developer of the original Dungeons & Dragons role playing game, and the first and second editions of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, has been sued due to material presented in the upcoming release of the next incarnation of the game, Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons.  The plaintiffs are those individuals who stand to be affected most by the edition change, namely the various fantasy races, professional adventurers and other inhabitants of the various worlds that AD&D covers. "It's silly what they're doing," says one dwarf spokesperson, "TSR decidin' to mess with folks' lives like that.  Things're fine the way they are." The third edition has been a while coming, and has had few incarnations in its long life compared to other role playing games on the market.  Though player feedback was responsible for many of the changes from the second edition to the third, TSR staffers were lobbied by all manner of special interest groups.  The assassin's guild was successful in having them reinstated as a class (though a TSR developer pivotal to the removal of the assassin class has been missing, which is being investigated), and fiends insisted on having their previous titles restored (demon, devil, daemon).  Also, level limits have been dropped for demihumans (probably because of allegations of racism), and race abilities have been altered and edited. Many elves in particular are livid about the edition change, claiming they are being discriminated against and unfairly singled out in "balancing" the races.  "I need my Infravision in my line of work," says one seasoned elven adventurer named Eledria, "Low-light vision -- or nightvision, or whatever they call it -- won't cut it when you're dungeon-crawling a mile down."  Many elves bitterly oppose the -15% experience penalty that may be imposed on their advancement.  "I mean, if the original game developers originally wanted us to advance as fast as everyone else and to see in the dark, then by Corellon we should!" says Eledria.  "I know Gary Gygax [the original developer of AD&D] personally, and if he knew about this, heads would *roll*..." Elves share the concerns of many demihumans when it comes to the class changes, which significantly changes how multi-classing will be done. "First of all," says Cedryck, a gnome fighter-illusionist, "this new-fangled way will slow advancement down.  Right now, I average a level behind my single-classed compatriots.  Once I'm converted to 'nerd ed,' I'll be about half the level of the single-classers in each of my classes.  And second, you can only advance in one class at a time.  If you ask me, it sounds more like dual-classing than what I'm used to." Some zero-level NPCs are wary of the upcoming change in D&D3, though their concerns are quite different from those of classed individuals.  Galdhiem, a blacksmith for a small city, sees a lot of adventurers in his line of business.  "I already have armor listed using the old Armor Class system," he says.  "Now, I'll have to figure what the new AC value would be, put out new posters stating 3rd Ed compliance', and teach the new way to the adventurers who haven't bothered to learn it.  And if I keep doing AC the old way, the adventurers would just patronize other smiths who use the new system.  I know, it isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it sure makes things harder on little folks like me." However, many are positive about the rules changes.  Things are looking good for humans, who will be getting a +20% bonus to their experience awards.  And some demihumans, especially high-level adventurers, welcome the new class advancement system. "I'll gladly suffer an XP penalty if means getting rid of those silly level limits and class restrictions," says a halfling thief, adding, "It'd be nice if I could go back and learn to be a mage, now that it's allowed." A red dragon, Rhysis, seems open to change as well.  "Change is often a good thing," she says.  "Just look at what we dragons are in 2nd Edition compared to what we were in 1st.  Definite improvement, I'm certain most dragons would agree.  I'd like to see what 3rd Edition has planned for us; we are the game's namesake, after all, so I'm expecting it to be grand.  I understand that we, and all monsters, will have Ability scores.  I've always wondered how strong I am..." TSR staffers have been thus far unavailable for comment. (spotted on rec.games.frp.dnd) September 6, 1999 More rumors from our D&D Silver Anniversary tour attendee: 3E elves can start with up to a 20 DEX and do not have any inherent bonuses with swords or bows. Spell components will remain in 3E. "...skills before limited to one class such as pick locks will now be a skill that can be picked by any class, just the thief will always be better at it."  This is rather like the 2E treatment of Tracking -- it's a non-weapon proficiency that anyone can buy, but the Ranger had a much greater chance of succeeding with it.  I assume that not all skills will be available to all classes, however.  I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be two kinds of class-related abilities:  general skills that anyone can buy (but that certain classes may excell in), and the "Heroic Feats" we've been hearing about -- class-related skills that are only avialable to a specific class.  (scoop sent in by Stef McCarter) September 5, 1999 A report from the D&D Silver Anniversary tour yielded the following rumors: "...certain races will not suffer a penalty for being multi classed if one of the classes is the race's preferred class.  Example:  a dwarf is fighter preferred so if one of his chosen classes is a fighter he will not suffer an penalty to experience.  An elf is wizard preferred, halfling is thief preferred." "Critical hits will be handled as follows:  each weapon has a certain score required to roll.  It's not a certain number above the required AC.  Once that required number is rolled you then make a second roll and if you hit a second time you do a critical hit."  So with this system, it will be easier for a skilled fighter to make critical hits, and a lot less likely that an opponent with a normally "untouchable" AC can suffer a critical. (scoop sent in by Stef McCarter) TSR VP Ryan Dancey addressed a couple of different issues on DND-L: on the monetary system in 3E:  "The monetary system in 3e is what I'd call 'City of Greyhawk Standard' for want of a better term.  It's not designed to reflect the actual economics that happened on Earth.  It doesn't take into effect the changes in monetary policy that can be made by governments (taxes, amount of cash in circulation, etc.)  It does reflect the idea that there's a lot of gold in circulation, but that the people who have it are usually pretty powerful and they probably risked quite a bit of danger to get it.  It also assumes that the economy is open (not a command economy or something else that wouldn't allow purchases with coin), and that there are common, simple and reliable tests to keep the money system honest without becoming intrusive on the game world." on the removal of weapon speed modifiers to initiative in combat: "3e combat does not have a 'declaration phase' like 1st and 2nd edition combat.  Weapon speed factors modify your initiative.  Without a declaration phase, nobody knows what you're going to do when it is your turn to act, increasing the chaos of the battlefield.  If everyone knew that 'in three rounds I'll strike the orc with my sword', that would be giving information to the other players (and the DM) that reduces the chaos.  Also, we tried to eliminate the situation where someone wants to take an action but due to circumstances the action becomes either impossible, suboptimal, or harmful.  So in 3e, you just do what you want to do when it's your initiative, and you're not bound by some previous 'declared' action."  He adds that with the revised system, it would be easy enough for those who wanted the added realism to add weapon speeds back in. September 4, 1999 Today's scoop about the skill system has been updated with new information straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak).  Look three bullet points down... TSR VP Ryan Dancey (on the TSR Message Board) on spellcasting classes in 3E:  "We had a serious discussion about making arcane and divine spellcasting a skill available for all PCs willing to devote enough skill development to it. Here's the problem as we see it, and the reason we didn't go down that path: 1)    It's a huge break with the tradition and history of D&D.  There are a lot of changes in 3e that I consider to be tune ups and enhancements, or recognition of the way people actually use the game in day to day play.  Allowing spellcasting to be a skill would be the first clear difference between 3e and all previous D&D history.  We didn't want to make that break, not only for itself, but because it would have created a pretty slippery slope down which we don't want to see the game go. 2)    Spellcasting is the single most flexible ability in the game.  It is incredibly hard to balance.  Within the context of 3e, we know which characters will have the ability to cast spells, when they'll get them, how many spells they'll get per day, and what lists of spells they will select their magic from.  If we made spellcasting a skill, we'd lose the fine control necessary to keep the classes balanced. 3)    Nobody would ever play a wizard or a priest again.  The power of those character's spellcasting abilities is balanced by making them otherwise very challenging PCs to play.  Given another option, we think that most players would elect to base their spellcasting characters on a more reliable base class." TSR's Ryan Dancey described William Wallace of Braveheart as the quintessential 3E Barbarian:  "He's passionate to the point of incoherent, and his passion is infectious.  He improvises rapidly - not using a structured force, he relies on the individual abilities of his companions.  He can live off the land and knows its ways.  When injured, he makes a nearly superhuman effort to continue the fight; being incredibly focused on bringing down his target before he too falls on the field of battle.  He's a 3E Barbarian." (on the TSR Message Board) TSR's Ryan Dancey  (on DND-L) addressed the 3E skill system.  In 2nd edition, non-weapon proficiencies are based on ability scores (roll your Strength or less on a d20 to succeed, for instance).  In 3E, where high rolls are always good, it works a little differently:  "The system in 3e doesn't work like the current system.  You don't roll with your ability score as the modifier.  Given a DC [Difficulty Class] of 20, a person with a STR of 16 (assuming no other modifications to the roll, like skills or environmental effects) would have about a 10% chance of success.  A person with a STR of 14 would have about a 5% chance of success." Given this information, a person with a 14 STR gains no bonus to the d20 die roll, while a person with a 16 STR gains a +1. UPDATE:  Mr. Dancey was kind enough to write me with a correction:  "There's a +3 modifier for a 16 STR and a +2 modifier for a 14 STR."  He indicates that for his example above, then, the character with STR 16 has a 20% chance to succeed, and the character with STR 14 has a 15% chance to succeed.  (scoop sent in by Ryan Dancey) This seems to be like the Skills & Powers take on NWPs -- you received a starting score in your proficiencies, and your high stats provided a bonus to the score, while low stats provided a penalty.  In S&P the chart looked a little something like this:   Ability/                   Proficiency Subability                Modifier  3                            –5  4                            –4  5                            –3  6                            –2  7                            –1  8–13                          0  14                           +1  15                           +2  16                           +3  17                           +4  18+                          +5 The 3E chart will probably look similar, though with the bonuses and penalties being applied to the die roll and not the DC.  With stats above 18 possible for monsters, and with PCs able to increase their ability scores as they gain levels, it seems pretty probable that the 3E modifiers have been "stretched out" over a greater range to include these higher stats. September 3, 1999 Why 10K?  I have no idea!  :)  But as of today 10,000 hits have been registered here at the 3E Info Central since its inception on August 9th.  Okay, so it's not really 3E news.  What can I say -- slow news day.  (from Eric Noah, the guy who runs this site) September 2, 1999 TSR's Jim Bishop is stirring up trouble at the Neverwinter Nights Development Board.  He's posed a question concerning the Bard class:  should there be one in 3E?  If you have an opinion, you might want to drop by and voice it.  Jim was seen on the NWN Hot Topics board, as well, responding to a complaint about spears being considered 2-handed weapons in the 2E rules.  His reply:  "Can't go into detail, but that's been fixed in 3E (MAN I can't wait until the next official FAQ comes out)." September 1, 1999 If you're following 3E at all, you're surely aware of the ambitious Neverwinter Nights computer game to be developed by Bioware.  I am pleased to announce the opening of Planet Neverwinter, a fan site run by Silverdawn (of Baldur's Gate Chronicles fame) and Thaladar (of Thaladar's Scriptorium fame).  I will be helping Sliverdawn and Thaladar with the site's 3E-related information, attempting to make sure the 3E material there is as accurate as possible.  (Bear in mind, of course, that what is true for NWN isn't necessarily so for 3E in general.)  Given how essential BG Chronicles and Thaladar's Scriptorium were for Baldur's Gate, Planet Neverwinter is sure to become the premier site for NWN. (from Eric Noah, the guy that runs this site) Dungeons & Dragons, D&D 3E and AD&D are all property of Wizards of the Coast.