D&D 5E Where is D&D Headed Next (Wired.com)

[Minigiant]

Sounds cool but not sure about having that as a particular mechanic only for rogues. Seems like something I'd like to see for other classes as well. Could call them different things for different classes. Schools for wizards, for instance?

I hope not.

I prefer it is more like rogues just get half a background and half a theme as a bonus. The skills and feats still exist in other themes and backgrounds.

Rogues just start with 5 skills, 2 traits, and 2 feats.
Everyone else starts with 3 skills, a trait, and a feat.

 

[Mattachine]

Well, I was encouraged.

 

[Li Shenron]

I’d say that in general, the game has the open-ended nature of AD&D, the character flexibility of 3e, and the clarity and ease of DMing of 4e.

If the ostler says his wine is GOOD then it must be, right?

I have no doubt that this sentence represents WotC's targets for 5e, but frankly it is not up to them to judge if they've succeeded, it is up to us, and we'll show it when it comes to actually buying the books and play the game.

Everything else in the interview however looks promising, and tells me that the WotC team has the right spirit for the job.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

"We want to have a solid set of rules, but at the same time I think D&D is at its best when the game is about the DM’s rulings rather than the actual rules. The rules are a tool that a DM uses to keep the game moving and inform decisions. The rules don’t make decisions for the DM, unless that’s how the DM wants the game to work."

This is the most encouraging thing I've heard about the game yet.

 

[Kzach]

I prefer it is more like rogues just get half a background and half a theme as a bonus. The skills and feats still exist in other themes and backgrounds.

Aren't themes set and class neutral? I thought that a theme is something any class can take and gives the class X benefit, regardless of their class.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I hope not.

I prefer it is more like rogues just get half a background and half a theme as a bonus. The skills and feats still exist in other themes and backgrounds.

Rogues just start with 5 skills, 2 traits, and 2 feats.
Everyone else starts with 3 skills, a trait, and a feat.

Why should the rogue be the only one with such a benefit.

Cleric with domains, wizards with schools does not sound wrong. The fighter could be left alone, or he could chose stances.
I believe best is not to force every class to have such a feature, but for wizards and clerics this seems totally right. (the fighter could have the same result with just chosing which weapon and armor to use e.g.)

 

[Minigiant]

Aren't themes set and class neutral? I thought that a theme is something any class can take and gives the class X benefit, regardless of their class.

I believe that themes are class neutral too. But schemes aren't.

Example.

Soldier Background: Endurance, Intimidate, Survival, bonus level
Slayer theme: Power Attack feat at level 1
Charlatan Scheme: Bluff, Disguise, and Feint Attack feat

 

[Sanglorian]

EDIT: Nevermind, beaten to the punch by Minigiant himself!

 

[Ratskinner]

I think you're grossly misinterpreting what he's saying.

It's fairly well known, or at least agreed upon, that 3.x took a lot of power out of the DM's hand by codifying the system so well that players would constantly correct or reinterpret DM rulings, citing page numbers and rules updates and Book X which changed the Core Rules for Rule Z, X and Y.x31z.

Fourth edition just made that worse by giving players so many damn options that as a DM you couldn't keep a track of even a quarter of them let alone all of them. As a 4e DM you ended up having the choice of either restricting the game to X, Y, Z publications and the rules therein in order to maintain some semblance of control over your game, or you had to acquiesce to the greater power of the Compendium and Character Builder and Rules Update PDF's.

I understand, agree with, and tend to support that analysis of D&D edition-history. If he had stuck with that, I'd have no issue. (And to be clear, I'm being somewhat facetious and teasing about what I'm fairly sure is sales-speech and not their actual analysis of previous editions.)

So what he's trying to say is that he wants players to understand that options, whilst great, also stifle creativity at the table and that allowing a DM more control over what happens at the table, supported by the rules themselves, helps facilitate a more enjoyable experience, as has been the case in less restrictive systems such as AD&D and OD&D.

Except that (I suspect avoid ticking off 4e fans) he said they were all equal in that regard. Its not that either of the quotes I selected is problem by itself, its the combination that sounds silly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Seems to me that schemes are to the rogue what domains are to the cleric, schools are to the wizard, and maneuvers/exploits are to the fighter. And quite frankly... if the rogue is meant to be its own class rather than just a baby fighter, it's needed.

The primary class mechanic for Wizards are spells. And these spells get divided up and categorized by what they do to make them easier to understand-- their "school". And some wizards specialize in a specific school.

The primary class mechanic for Clerics are prayers. And these prayers get divided up and categorized by the god that grants them, making them easier to group-- their "domain". And each cleric's god grants them access to one or more domains.

The primary class mechanic for Fighters are maneuvers/exploits. And these combat maneuvers get divided up and categorized based upon the type of weapon you have, how you attack with it, and what happens when you hit. And some fighters specialize in a specific weapon.

The 4E rogue didn't have his own thing... he shared the fighter's combat exploits. They both were martial hand-to-hand combatants. Which was fine in 4E's combat-centric mechanics... but in a D&DN game where exploration and interaction are brought back to the fore... the rogue should be moving further into those to pillars. So sharing maneuvers/exploits with the fighter will not accomplish that. They need their own mechanics that are focused on what they do, and what differentiates them from fighters (and wizards and clerics obviously). Thus schemes.

Basically... take everything rogues do... and divide them up and categorize them into groups that are all similar. The acrobatic moves that burglars use are one set of schemes. The manual dexterity, sleight of hand and escape artist moves that manipulators use are another scheme. Charlatans use bluff and magic items. Thieves break open locks and disarm traps. Thugs intimidate, guard, and blackjack people from behind. And if I was to venture a guess... currently at level 6 you probably can take an Advanced Theme to specialize in a specific scheme... same way you can become an Evoker or Necromancer if a wizard, a Domain cleric, or take Axe Specialization if a fighter.

Will you get bonuses to skills and extra feats based upon scheme? Perhaps. But I would also venture a guess that there will be a whole mass of "special abilities" and "tricks" that are just rogue game mechanics that are divorced from skills and feats. The same way Disarm and Knock Prone and Bull Rush are combat maneuvers that just exist as mechanics that fighters can do and are not skill or feats themselves. Use Magic Device will not be a skill-- it will be a specific Rogue mechanic. Uncanny Dodge will not be a feat-- it will be a specific Rogue mechanic. Backstab will not be a skill or feat-- it will be a specific Rogue mechanic. Slow Fall will not be a skill or feat-- it will be a specific Rogue mechanic.

And just like Paladins will probably get access to some cleric prayers and fighter maneuvers... Bards will get access to certain wizard schools and rogue schemes, Monks will get access to certain fighter maneuvers and rogue schemes, and Rangers will get access to certain cleric prayers (nature related) and rogue schemes.