Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D News Archive #3 October 1999 News from October 1999: October 25, 1999 If you're looking for a big, meaty chunk of 3E-related stuff, I'd suggest you check out the Forgotten Realms 3rd Edition Supplement, created by David Hatfield and Kevin Rocha.  Warning:  it is largely based on speculations and guesses.  Some of the guesses are pretty logical (I'm particularly impressed with their treatment of Saving Throws), while others are brave attempts at filling in the huge gaps in our scant knowledge of the 3E rules.  The document covers races, classes, combat, saving throws, and a bunch of other stuff, with a Realms twist.  You can also download this as a Word (.doc) file at the 3rd Edition Rules Speculation Page.  You may e-mail Kevin Rocha at Krocha@smith.edu with questions.  (thanks to Kevin Rocha for the scoop) October 22, 1999 Chaotic Neutral with a Twist.  The Playtesters at Work section of the official 3E web site has been updated again.  This time Der Verdammte's group managed to change the 3E team's minds about what Chaotic Neutral alignment means (scoop sent in by Der Verdammte): Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit": A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. The chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it. Audio clips have been added to the recent interview with Kim Mohan posted on the official 3E site.  Here are transcripts of the recordings if you don't wish to download the relatively small files: "3rd Edition D&D Playtesters:" "Outside of being avid AD&D players, is there anything else that 3rd Edition playtesters have in common?" "I guess I'd have to say, in general, 'no.'  We purposely tried to select a number of groups that had a wide variety of age ranges and occupations and game experience because we wanted to get the best overall reaction from by large body of people.  we didn't concentrate on any particular category within that broad span.  We purposely tried to get a few groups who were composed of teenagers or young people; we were lucky enough to get a few groups composed of people who had been playing for 15 or 20 years; and at both ends of that spectrum and every point in between.  Every group had its particular individual aspects that made it worthwhile working with them and enabled them to contribute in a way that no other group could have." "Keeping the Secrets:"  "With all of this information changing hands between you and the playtesters, how did WotC manage to keep this a secret for as long as we did?" "It wasn't all that difficult.  We ended up being lucky enough to work with a lot of people who were very trustworthy.  Everyone who wanted to be a playtester on this project, or in fact anyone who playtests anything for this company, has to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which essential promises that you won't reveal any of this information to anyone who isn't also involved in the testing.  Everybody who wanted to be playtesters was perfectly fine with committing themselves to keeping everything a secret.  In almost a year and a half of working with outside playtesters I did not hear of one single instance where one of the people in that group said something to a person they shouldn't have been communicating with.  I understand that that doesn't mean it never happened, but we do have a lot of people lurking on mailing lists and participating in newsgroups.  If anything had gotten out over the web I think somebody around here would have gotten wind of it.  But in fact it simply never happened.  The people we chose were trustworthy to a fault and all the way through the process they respected the opportunity to do what we were asking them to do and they understood that being secretive about it was part of that package."  "Wow, it sounds like our players are honorable to the extreme to say the least." " I think they care so much about the game itself they don't want to do anything to jeopardize our ability to produce the best game we can." "Playtester Feedback:"  "You mentioned that the playtesters themselves were a fairly diverse group of people.  Would you say their comments and feedback were as diverse?""No, I guess I wouldn't.  Everybody's got their own particular cause, their own particular axe to grind.  Everybody who saw this material seemed like they were approaching it from a different direction.  We had a lot of -- especially in the early stages of the playtest operation -- a lot of reactions that were really all over the place, because everybody looked at a different part of this very large body of information.  They kind of fixated on one piece of it that they thought that they could help us by commenting on.  But over the course of time, as all of the groups got more familiar with the entire body of work -- and it is a lot of words -- over that period of time, everything kind of got homogenized.  Eventually, everybody had something to say about any aspect of the rules that they felt worthy of comment.  So I would say that the process got more smooth and more localized the deeper we got into it.  But in the beginning it was very much like trying to ride ten wild horses at the same time." "Sharing Your Thoughts:"  "So for people who weren't fortunate enough to participate in this playtest process, what are some suggestions as far as things they could do to let their views be known, or let their opinions be heard as far as the D&D game is concerned?"  "Well, like I've said before, the people at Wizards have a very substantial presence on all the Internet mailing groups and newsgroups related to D&D and the other the products that Wizards puts out.  We read that commentary and I suppose we are affected by it in some measure just by the fact of exposing ourselves to it.  Honestly, I can't say whether that kind of input has any direct effect on the nature of the product, but we can gauge a general level of interest and a general mentality among this group of people who avidly talk about the games they love.  If you want to make yourself heard, even though you aren't ever perhaps talking directly to someone who works here, get on one of the active newsgroups or mailing lists, put out some intelligent posts, and assume and understand that somebody on the other end who is in a position to do something with that information is reading and observing what you have to say."  "I guess the same would hold true for more traditional modes of communication in terms of snail mail to our publications or just dropping a line to our Customer Service folks in terms of any questions or comments they might have?"  "There are a lot of ways to get in touch with us and most of them are pretty obvious.  If you send a letter to anybody here who should be receiving that kind of information, then it will get into the right hands or be transferred into the right hands of somebody who can take that material into account.  I'd like to think that we give consideration to any honest, interested feedback that we receive.  Again, you might not find tangible evidence of this showing up in a product that we put out, but it all goes into the big idea hopper and whatever comes out the other end is at least in part affected by the input that we get.  I would encourage anybody who has an opinion to share, and who can share that opinion intelligently and concisely, to get in touch with us and let us know what they think." October 20, 1999 Playtester Der Verdammte had some interesting things to say about Saving Throws in 3E (on the TSR Message Board): Fortitude saves are saves that require you to have physically resisted an effect.  If the saving throw is against a spell that (for instance) turns your bones into jelly, a fortitude save is probably appropriate.  But the fortitude save is not a general licence for you to resist damage. If the save is for half damage, or a save indicates that you've dodged or partially dodged an effect (or a trap, or whatever), a Dodge is called for. If the save requires mental resistance (certain old saves vs. PPD, or saves vs. spells which applied the character's wisdom modifier), a Mental save is appropriate. Once you see the info, you'll understand.  Saves are always specified in the rules, and there are excellent guidelines in the conversion document for figuring out what save is appropriate for a given effect (not that an intelligent person couldn't figure that out anyway, given knowledge of 2e and 3e rules, though). Der Verdammte added that Thief Skills will be folded into the universal skill system and be expressed as  "d20+modifiers vs. DC rolls, just like everything else."  In 2E, Thief Skills are expressed as percentages, rolled on d100.  (on the TSR Message Board) October 19, 1999 The official 3E web site been updated with a new Personality Spotlight and Interview with Kim Mohan, a veteran editor for TSR and the Playtest Coordinator for the 3E project.  It all starts here (be sure to read his impressive resume at the end of the interview section).  We're told that additional questions and answers for the Interview will be added in RealAudio format in the coming days.  There's not much information about the game per se, but some about the playtest process, and hints that more playtesters might be needed in a few months. In addition, a chat with Kim Mohan will be held on Friday, Oct. 29, from 9 to 10 p.m. Eastern (6 to 7 p.m. PST) in the new Wizards Presents… room.  (scoop sent in by Allister Huggins) October 18, 1999 Monsters as PCs?  An attendee of the "If You Ran TSR" Seminar at GenCon asked TSR VP Ryan Dancey about a possible 3E equivalent of The Complete Book of Humanoids.  Ryan's reponse indicated that there would be a few pages at the end of the 3E Monster Manual covering similar ground.  While this almost certainly pertains to humanoids, he could have been possibly referring to other types of monsters as well.  It's already known that all monsters will be described in terms of the six Attributes (Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, etc.).  So it's not much of a stretch to imagine Dragon wizards and other monster/character class combos (either as NPCs or PCs).  My personal favorite, of course, is the brain mole ninja!  ;-)  (Scoop sent in by William Ronald) October 17, 1999 The official 3E web site has had a small update in the Playtesters at Work section.  This section highlights how playtesters' reports helped shape the 3E rules.  The update includes some juicy information about the effects of heavy armor on DEX bonuses and certain physically demanding non-weapon proficiencies.  Here's a table that demonstrates some of the new information (thanks to Der Verdammte for the scoop): 3E Armor Table (Partial) Armor Type Armor Class Max Dex Bonus Skill Check Penalty Splint Mail 17 +0 -7 Half Plate (aka Plate Mail?) 18 +0 -7 Full Plate (aka Field Plate) 19 +1 -6 Armor Class is the 3E AC (starting from 10 and going up to 30, where higher is better), derived from previously known information.  These numbers are speculation, but match the 2E equivalents. Max Dex Bonus is a cap to any bonuses [to AC or other Dexterity-related rolls, such as the Dodge saving throw] the character would otherwise receive for high Dexterity.  "Heavy armor limits the wearer's mobility, making it more difficult for him or her to use Dexterity to dodge an attack. For example, a character with a Dexterity of 16 normally has a +3 bonus to any checks related to Dexterity -- but if that character is wearing splint mail [or] half-plate, ... the bonus is negated." Skill Check Penalty reflects the fact that heavier armors make it harder to perform certain strenuous activities, such as climbing and swimming.  The penalty in this column applies to the d20 roll for skills that are affected in this way. Note:  Full Plate, while heavier than Splint Mail or Half Plate, is less cumbersome because it is a carefully fitted and the weight is more evenly distributed.  It is more expensive and must be tailor made by a master armorer for the character who wears it, though a captured suit can be altered for 200-800 gp.  [This was the point that Der Verdammte's playtest group was able to make, thus changing the originally planned rule that Full Plate would have the most severe penalties of all armors.] October 16, 1999 The November 1999 issue of Dragon Magazine (#265) contains a few interesting 3E tidbits: 3E Core Rules?  "...I can tell you that the year 2000 will see the release of great electronic DM tools as a big part of the 3rd Edition D&D game release."  (Dragon editor Dave Gross, in "D-Mail") "The Big Announcement."  It may seem a bit late, but Dungeon Adventures editor Chris Perkins filled this month's "Countdown to Third Edition" column with a report on the Big Announcement at GenCon.  There's very little new information presented.  Only a couple of items of note: Attendees got to see illustrations of new monsters, "including a nasty, tentacled thing called the dropper, which Ryan Dancey gleefully described as 'not your father's piercer!'" The article includes photos of D&D legends Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax. The issue included some other goodies not related to 3E -- a solo Alternity: DarkMatter adventure, the return of Phil Foglio's "What's New" cartoon, a preview of the 1999 Dragon Annual (including an article by Gary Gygax), and the first look at products from TSR's year 2000 lineup. Looking for another source of 3E-related goodies?  Check out the  3rd Edition Rules Speculation Page by Tenzhi the Ti Hsien.  Be warned:  the info contained there is based on guesswork -- but that's the whole point!  The site looks like an unfurnished dorm room at the moment (a little bare) but I'm sure it will grow. October 14, 1999 Are the PC races more balanced in 3E?  A valid question.  Some feel that the elf gets all sorts of benefits with no restrictions, while other races such as dwarves and halflings share too many traits to make them truly unique.  Here's playtester Der Verdammte's opinion on the subject:  "I won't give you any detail, but I like what I have in my PHB.  When I got finished reading the entry for 'Human,' I went 'That's the best one!'  Then, when I finished reading 'Elf,' I went, 'That's the best one!'  Et cetera.  Basically, in 3e, whatever race you happen to be playing is the best race in the whole game.  (Which is to say, they're all balanced.)"  (on the TSR Message Board) UPDATE:  New Official Info about the Assassin issue: Andy Collins, Editor/Designer for WotC, posted the following on DND-L: "Funny, I was just looking at the back of my 3E t-shirt I got at GenCon and remarking that everything on it was still true..."  He's undoubtedly referring to the "Monks & Assassins ..... Yes"  remark on the T-shirt.  So there you have it -- the Assassin isn't gone, and Hasbro isn't evil.  :) (thanks to Kevin Chan and Jefferson Krogh for the scoop) More on Assassins in 3E:  Desslock ain't the only one with "reliable sources," folks!  :)  My very own reliable source (and you'd agree wholeheartedly if I mentioned this playtester's name) indicates the following:  "It's been my understanding that the Assassin class will be presented in the [3E] DMG.  Although I've seen an Assassin class, it is not in the PHB that I have.  I'd go with what Ryan said until you hear differently from him.  The "current draft" of the 3e rules is [just] the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK.  So, obviously, there is no assassin there.  That's completely consistent with what Ryan said.  All that's really necessary for play, as Sean once said, is the PHB."  So what does this mean? The last "official info" was that the Assassin would be appearing in the DMG. The "current draft" of the 3E rules only includes the PHB, and this is all the playtesters have seen or need in order to playtest the game. It's a good bet, then, that the Assassin will indeed remain in 3E.  Again, I'll keep you posted as this develops. October 13, 1999 Is the Assassin class D.O.A.?  Hard to say.  While the forthcoming computer game Neverwinter Nights (which will follow 3E rules) will not not permit Assassin PCs, that doesn't mean the Assassin class isn't in the 3E rules.  What's even more likely to stir up the blood is the rumor that the acquisition of WotC by Hasbro has something to do with this situation.  Here's the Assassin timeline: From the very first day of the Big Announcement in early August, the return of the Assassin class was one of the selling points of 3E.  Even the T-shirts touted "Monks & Assassins ..... Yes". The Neverwinter Nights site, which went online about the same time as the Big Announcement, touted Assassins (and Barbarians and Monks) as possible PC class choices.  This was undoubtedly true at the time, given that the NWN crew probably had a fairly early draft of the rules.  Perhaps the Assassin was originally planned to be in the PHB.  So it's likely that, given what they knew, they thought the Assassin could be selected as a PC class choice in D&D 3E. A rumor concerning the Assassin Class was addressed by TSR VP Ryan Dancey way back on August 18: Are assassins in the PHB or the DMG?  "DMG.  They will be presented as material that DMs need to think hard about before allowing them in the game, and the reasons for that careful consideration will be outlined." Note that the Hasbro acquisition announcement didn't occur until September 9.  So WotC had already decided on placing the Assassin in the DMG before that deal went down. On September 21, Lead Writer/Designer for NWN Rob Bartelposted a message about Assassins not being in NWN's initial release.  My guess is that this was the first they really knew that the Assassin would be in the DMG.  Note his hopeful tone:  "Depending on how the 3e rules continue to develop, assassins may just make an appearance in future (and at this point purely hypothetical) expansions." The October issue of Dragon Magazine contains an article about how to simulate a few of the 3E rules in a 2E game.  One of the suggestions is to use the Assassin class presented in the Greyhawk supplement The Scarlet Brotherhood as a stand-in for the 3E Assassin class.  However, the October issue was released in September, and the article was probably written well before that. On October 7, CRPG reviewer/reporter Desslock posted a news item stating that some reliable source tells him that the Assassin has been removed from the "current draft" of the3E rules.  He believes that family-friendly Hasbro has something to do with it. So is the Assassin dead?  Until we get further confirmation, there's no way to know at this point.  I've got inquiries in the works and I'll report back as soon as I know more about the situation. October 10, 1999 The official 3E web site has received a major facelift and re-organization.  Sections include: Playtest Group of the Month:  Features the gaming group of Jeremy Cronk, aka Der Verdammte, a frequent poster of tantalizing hints to the TSR Message Board and rec.games.frp.dnd.  He includes positive opinions of his experiences with testing the 3E rules.  Also included is an example where a 3E rule was changed because of the constructive criticism provided by this playtesting group. Personality Spotlight:  Contains the previously released interview with Bill Slavicsek. How Did We Create 3E?:  Hmmm ... contains links to Playtest Group of the Month and the Bill Slavicsek interview ... again.  Actually, it appears to be the exact same info that is on the new main page.  Weird.  Perhaps this area will grow and change over time. 3E Background:  Contains info on the Big Announcement, the FAQ [not updated as far as I can tell], the designer bios, and the concept art.  Most of the stuff that was on the main page previously. Community:  Links you to the general WotC message board/chat areas. October 9, 1999 Does size matter?  According to Sean Reynolds (TSR Designer), the current draft of the 3E Player's Handbook contains more words than the most recent revision of the 2E PHB.  (on the TSR Message Board) October 7, 1999 TSR Designer Sean Reynolds talked about the 3E conversion book on the TSR Message Board: The last responses I got (9/21/99) were that the conversion book was going to be 16 pages, would be available for sale, would be included in Dragon as a special section, and available from the website....  The only reason a price tag would be put on the conversion book would be so that customers without access to the web (or Dragon, for whatever reason) would be able to pick it up from a store or order it from a store.  We have had a lot of problems with "free" products (such as the fast-play Alternity rules and the free adventures that were supposed to be given out with the ALT PHB and ALT DMG) not making it into the hands of customers because of goof-ups by distributors and retailers; putting a price tag on it means they're financially accountable for it and not as likely to throw them away or give them to friends. Here is a piece of 3E concept art that doesn't appear on the official 3E site: a male human rogue.  He appears in the D&D 3rd Edition Concept Art section of the Neverwinter Nights Image Gallery. October 5, 1999 TSR VP Ryan Dancey responded to a few questions posed by "Remathilis Eveningwind"on the TSR Message Board: Can you start out as a multi-class (roll up a fighter/mage) or do you have to acquire them (start as fighter, gain level, become mage)? "There are draft rules for starting with two classes.  They're complex, and somewhat confusing.  They may not make the cut. If they don't we'll probably keep working on them and introduce them in some future product." Are some of the "power combos" (paladin/bard, ranger/mage, ranger/bard, cleric/bard) more balanced now?  "Yes." [Do the 3E rules] cover redundant abilities? (I'm a ranger/thief, what is my MS/HS?, or how many spells does a mage/bard get?)  "Yes. Yes.  (You keep separate lists of spells for each class.  You keep track of which spell, from which list, you're casting.  So you may be able (example only here) to learn a 5HD fireball and a 7HD fireball.)" October 3, 1999 A 3E-related chat was held today with TSR's Keith Strohm.  You can read the log here (courtesy of Ralph).  Some of the highlights: "We are currently planning the shape of the Core Rules 3.0, and you will definitely see more electronic products for 3rd Edition. Some traditional software and some related to our web-enhanced material [like what] we did for Warriors of Heaven." "I'd say that the multiclassing rules, streamlined combat system, and the changes to the classes (to make them more functional, balanced, and exciting), are some of the most important changes [to the rules in 3E]." "2nd Edition books will not be obsolete. 3rd Edition still feels like D&D and it uses many of the same mechanics. Playtesters who have been testing for the past year have been doing so converting 2nd Edition material on the fly. In  short, all of your source material will be useable, and all of the mechanics you want to use will be "convertable." We'll even help you out by producing a conversion book." "...we decided on making the conversion booklet available separately. If we sell it (and we're still looking at other possibilities) we'll do it for a very low $4.95 or so price point." (thanks to Ralph, LrdTuerny and Pax for the scoop) October 2, 1999 Dungeon Magazine and 3E:  In the November/December issue of Dungeon Adventures (#77), editor Chris Perkins responded to questions regarding the magazine's plans for switching over to 3E:  "When 3rd Edition is released in August 2000, the magazine will begin publishing 3rd Edition adventures.  The switch from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition will occur in Issue #82.  (Issue #81 will be the last issue of 2nd Edition adventures.)  We have no plans to reserve space for 2nd Edition conversion sidebars, since the two editions are not so different as to require them.  Although 3rd Edition brings some significant improvements to the D&D rules, the adventures themselves probably won't change much -- a few rules here, a few monster statistics there.  Dungeon Adventures experienced a similar transition between 1st Edition and 2nd Edition; we expect that our dedicated readers will embrace the new game, and we plan to update our guidelines in the coming monts so that our contributors can familiarize themselves with 3rd Edition formats and changes." Rumors:  Some of the speculation and rumors being passed around on the TSR Message Board and rec.games.frp.dnd have been around long enough that they are beginning to be taken as fact.  So, for example, if you've got your heart set on the 20% XP bonus for being a human, you might want to read this from playtester Der Verdammte: "Heh...actually, there's been a change in the rules about experience bonuses, but I don't think I can really comment.  I think this is one of the reasons why WotC has a release schedule, because sometimes outdated information comes out and screws things up.  Sorry I can't help further...For now, call it a 'rumor.'" October 1, 1999 TSR VP Ryan Dancey clarified the Delay option.  The recent Dragon aritcle suggested a combatant would have to give up an entire round's actions to be able to Delay in the next round, but this isn't so:  "The way the text in Dragon is written is incorrect.  Delaying still gives you an action - it just moves that action to the end of the round, and you act last in every round from there on out."  Also, if several characters Delay, they go in order of their original initiative roll (but at the end of the round); and if several characters Focus, they attack in the order of their original initiative roll (but at the beginning of the round).  (on rec.games.frp.dnd; scoop sent in by "weaponsmith")