D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: 01/10/2014

[Derren]

I predict that all optional rules in the PHB (Feats/Multiclassing) will be core and supported in further products (more feats, etc.) and all options in the DMG will be forgotten. And I am also pretty sure that with the caveat magic item requirement will eventually evolve into a Christmas tree again.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sounds good to me so far, Im hopeing we may get alot more options then they are hointing at though...

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Uh...he says the opposite. He even uses the word "majority", and then follows it up with speaking to the optional rules which are "most likely to be of use to a large segment of players".

The only stuff he indicates might appear in a product "down the line" is "radical optional rules (like doing away with ability scores and only using the modifiers or scrapping classes and going with a "build your own" model)" and "Major structural changes to the rules". I don't think that is "most" of the optional rules, nor do I think it is stuff "people are expecting to come out with the core rules".

Yeah, I have a feeling that some people are expecting "major structural changes" as optional rules listed in the DMG or PHB. I've seen a number of posts around here asking for stuff that I would consider "major structural changes" and the threads almost always end with "Oh well, WOTC said they'd cater to all playstyles. I'm sure that'll just show up as one of the optional rules in the DMG."

I also think that what WOTC considers "major structural changes" are probably quite a bit different from what most players do. They are very dedicated to the structure of their rules.

I still suspect that they believe that a "tactical combat module" is a major structural change and likely isn't coming until at least a couple of months after the initial release.

 

[am181d]

I still suspect that they believe that a "tactical combat module" is a major structural change and likely isn't coming until at least a couple of months after the initial release.

Yes. And I'm wager it will merit its own release, heavy with tactical-enabled spells and abilities.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yeah, I have a feeling that some people are expecting "major structural changes" as optional rules listed in the DMG or PHB. I've seen a number of posts around here asking for stuff that I would consider "major structural changes" and the threads almost always end with "Oh well, WOTC said they'd cater to all playstyles. I'm sure that'll just show up as one of the optional rules in the DMG."

I also think that what WOTC considers "major structural changes" are probably quite a bit different from what most players do. They are very dedicated to the structure of their rules.

To be honest, I was quite surprised by the response in Q&A related to such structural changes.

If it's just a default "maybe" answer, so as not to scare away some fans of those examples, then I understand it.

But truth is, major structural changes almost certainly won't ever be presented, not even as examples, or at best they will be presented in a minimally playtested Unearthed Arcana book, to be used by 0.01% of the gaming groups or less.

I still suspect that they believe that a "tactical combat module" is a major structural change and likely isn't coming until at least a couple of months after the initial release.

I have been having for a while the feeling that the "tactical combat module" won't ever be published, and will become a common joke against 5e.