Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana probably coming to D&D website (Reddit AMA)

[Nebulous]

There are seven 3rd-party companies that have released 5E adventures so far, even without a proper license. I'm really looking forward to Necromancer Games' Quests book.

(See my sig for my list of available 5e adventures).

Cheers!

I'm anxiously looking forward to everything Necromancer is coming out with soon: essentially, a Monster Manual 2, a massive book of adventures, and a spell book. Now sure, lots of this is updated from 3e, but i'm still excited for it.

 

[Nebulous]

I can see that MerricB. When is the last time you saw multipage threads bitching about the balance implications of a given monster or monster book? About the only thing I can think of is how monsters interact with various versions of Polymorph spells. But, that was a problem with Polymorph, not a problem with the monster. The solution has never been, "Restrict the game to core monsters"!

Right, you rarely see in the long history of this game people complain about too many broken monsters

And i agree with Merric too, they're much more likely to restrict character options. That said, SOMEWHERE down the line, it would be nice to see a Player's Handbook 2, but i'm talking like 5 years from now. And if not, i don't care either.

 

[Nebulous]

I haven't actually sat down and looked at this, but, how hard is it to make monsters in 5e? In 4e, it was ridiculously easy, and in 3e, I really struggled. Where would 5e fall in that spectrum?

I don't know. I would say it falls between the two, 4e and 3e. I know without having to calculate skills and feats and a much wider range of numbers, it will be simpler. I also feel like 5e monster design might have a far higher degree of "art" to it and not just number crunching.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

As far as new players caring about old settings...

I think part of the reason for giving new players this material is to bring D&D players together--to emphasize a shared D&D lore and product identity. Note, I said "emphasize" not "enforce." There are always going to be new options and weird variants (just think of Dark Sun when it came out). But by having some commonalities you perpetuate the D&D identity.

Some people don't seem to care at all about the D&D identity, but the designers are certainly intentionally shifting to more strongly emphasis D&D brand identity, and there are a lot of people who do care quite a bit about it. New players coming in are likely to be exposed to it by means of associating with others who are already well-versed in it. It would be nice if they could easily find material explaining it so that they aren't dependent on others to trickle info out to them when they feel like it.

 

[Warunsun]

You may want to wait and see what the DMG is going to give us in terms of multiclassing variants. Mike Mearls mentioned gestalt characters (I'm hoping he means AD&D style simultaneous multiclassing) as being in the DMG, so unless it got cut for space we should have it available to us in December. If it was cut, it'll probably come out in the web articles sometimes early next year.

It doesn't seem to be listed in the Table of Contents. It is possible it is under "Adventuring Options" or one of the other generic section titles. If they do present reasonable multi-classing rules I might use them but what I have worked out should also be fine. In the previous version of Gestalt every player advanced in multiple classes simultaneously. I don't believe you were intended to have single classed ordinary dudes mixed in. I am going to guess it is another one of these promised or hinted modules that didn't make the final cut.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It doesn't seem to be listed in the Table of Contents. It is possible it is under "Adventuring Options" or one of the other generic section titles. If they do present reasonable multi-classing rules I might use them but what I have worked out should also be fine. In the previous version of Gestalt every player advanced in multiple classes simultaneously. I don't believe you were intended to have single classed ordinary dudes mixed in. I am going to guess it is another one of these promised or hinted modules that didn't make the final cut.

It wasn't very long ago that it was mentioned. I'm sure it will either make it in or be in post-DMG web articles for important cut content.

There is the question of whether it will be what we are looking for (an AD&D style multiclassing system) or the 3e gestalt systems that no one* actually used or wants to see again.


*Exaggeration--I'm sure someone liked it, but it isn't compatible with the normal game, while the AD&D version is.

 

[Gundark]

MM mentioned that at one point they had a weapon maneuver tied to each weapon - I wish that had stayed in, or had been thrown into DMG!

Yeah that was in the first internal playtest. It was really clunky. For example a dagger could be used as a free action to make an attack at -2 (-5?) in addition to normal attacks.

 

[Gundark]

Agreed. I don't believe that for a minute. I don't see how they can stay in business only making one or two products a year. They have to be able to make money and you make money by producing products either in print or electronically. If they don't, Hasbro will fold the product line in a heartbeat.

Isn't Hasbro wanting to make a quality high budget D&D movie? If that happens and it does well at the box office, then we'll see Harbro care a LOT more about D&D

 

[TerraDave]

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-AMA)/page10&p=6424414&viewfull=1#post6424414

I guess it was buried deep in this thread.

 

[Morrus]

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-AMA)/page10&p=6424414&viewfull=1#post6424414

I guess it was buried deep in this thread.

Thanks! I put that on the news page a few hours ago.