D&D for Beginners (new product)

[MerricB]

Going through Geoffrey's wish list:

1. Only four classes: cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. (And certainly no prestige classes.)

Almost undoubtedly will be the case.

2. No non-human PCs.

Nope. Playing elves and dwarves is a key feature (and attraction) of the D&D game - especially with Legolas being so popular in the LotR films, this would be a particulary poor option to take.

3. A six-page combat section.

As in "simple combat section"? I'd agree with that.

4. Drop skills and feats. Assign specific abilities to each of the four classes.

Definitely a "no" to dropping skills altogether; they are intrinsic to the game - although setting the skill choices with no options for classes is fine. Limiting the skills to ones only useful to the classes is fine, though: Spot, Search, Listen, various thief skills. Leaving out some complex skills like Concentration would be good as well.

Feats, I'm not sure of. I don't think feats like Weapon Focus, Toughness and Improved Initiative need be dropped; but there are many complex ones that need not be included.

5. Include a sample dungeon level.

I think it is coming with such.

6. Have rules for advancement all the way up to level 20.

No. At high levels, the game relies too much on skills and feats; up to level 5 would be sufficient; after that, direct people to the full version of 3.5E

7. Drop the spikey[-hair, blue-hair, nose-ring, tattooed-loser look. Replace it with Conan the barbarian look. Or even with Lord of the Rings look.

Prefer the LotR look.

Cheers!

 

[Steverooo]

Going through Geoffrey's wish list:

1. Only four classes: cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard. (And certainly no prestige classes.)

Almost undoubtedly will be the case.

2. No non-human PCs.

Nope. Playing elves and dwarves is a key feature (and attraction) of the D&D game - especially with Legolas being so popular in the LotR films, this would be a particulary poor option to take.

So include Legolas and Gimli, but drop Aragorn?

 

[MerricB]

Absolutely! This is a game of fantasy, not boring mundanity! No playing of anything you can be in real life!

Cheers!

 

[WanderingMonster]

7. Drop the spikey-hair, blue-hair, nose-ring, tattooed-loser look. Replace it with Conan the barbarian look. Or even with Lord of the Rings look.

Am I alone in saying that I don't mind the look of 3e? I think the look is part of the branding of D&D. Why should it look like Conan, LotR, or anything else? It should look like D&D.

 

[rounser]

It should look like D&D.

That's the problem - it doesn't. It looks like turn-of-the-millenium 3E branding. The FRCS looks D&D for some reason, IMO, though - the core books don't.

It says something about the game that LotR looks more D&D than D&D does these days...

 

[WanderingMonster]

PoTAYto, PoTAHto. I suppose we could hijack the thread and discuss what D&D really looks like, but it'll all boil down to subjective preference anyway.

I do think that the beginner set is a good idea.

 

[rounser]

it'll all boil down to subjective preference anyway.

Funny thing is, I do like 3E art in a way....the old concept art looks better than the finished product. Finished product looks too self-concious, posey and photoshopped to me...things I don't associate with D&D.

I do think that the beginner set is a good idea.

I doubt it'll be a D&D Lite, though. I think the best that can be hoped for is that if the rules are cut down in a way that the "lite" folks are hoping for, that they can be extrapolated for levels beyond which the box set supports. (I'll be very, very surprised if it goes to level 20 - where would they put all the spells alone, let alone monsters...)

I can't see them dropping feats or skills in this game, though...the most they'll probably do is cut down combat rules a bit, and simplify some feats to match...so my prediction is that it won't be a D&D Lite.

 

[Droogie]

I hope this product is a complete game unto itself. I hope it gives rules for advancement all the way to level 20. I don't want this to be a mere "here's the first 3 levels of play, now you have to buy the hardbacks".

This needs to be a simple (but not kiddy-fied) version of 3.5 D&D. Slimmed-down, streamlined, quick and easy to understand right out of the box.

Also like Melan mentioned, it would be great to have this whole product put in the SRD and to allow 3rd party publishers to make products based on its simplified rules.

I don't think thats going to happen, Geoffrey. I think WotC would rather poke its own eyes out than suffer the whole "basic/advanced" nightmare again. This game is meant to be an introduction to the "full" game, nothing more. I see maybe 5 levels at most.

I agree about the artwork, though. If they want to bag curious adults as well as younger folks, I'd like to see the artwork a little classier and archtypical.

 

[S'mon]

That's the problem - it doesn't. It looks like turn-of-the-millenium 3E branding. The FRCS looks D&D for some reason, IMO, though - the core books don't.

It says something about the game that LotR looks more D&D than D&D does these days...

Agreed on that. The D&D rulebooks look self-consciously punk-medieval in what I assume is an homage to Magic: The Gathering. It doesn't look like most people's idea of fantasy. LoTR films are much closer and have wide kiddie appeal.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think thats going to happen, Geoffrey. I think WotC would rather poke its own eyes out than suffer the whole "basic/advanced" nightmare again. This game is meant to be an introduction to the "full" game, nothing more. I see maybe 5 levels at most.

I agree about the artwork, though. If they want to bag curious adults as well as younger folks, I'd like to see the artwork a little classier and archtypical.

Agreed on both points. 5 levels seems right - it gives Wizards (PC & NPC) the chance to cast _evil_ spells like Fireball!
Plus, with 5 levels you don't need to worry about iterative attacks/full round actions et al.