D&D 5E D&D Next info from PAX Prime + answering questions

[Cybit]

So, I went to all of the seminars for D&D Next at PAX Prime, and got to have several chats with Mearls and crew in between panels (I was enforcing in the Dungeon at several points), and there was a TON of info about how the game is being designed, etc etc. A lot of what is floating around these boards as "known information" is, frankly, erroneous, and I've been trying to fill in those threads as best as I can. However, there are a lot of threads with a lot of philosophical debates that have strayed from the point about 15 posts in.

So, in that vein, I'm just going leave this as an open Q&A for folks to ask questions, and me to do my best in answering them. Some of the answers will be me reading between the lines on what they gave me in terms of answers, and some will be inference, and I will state as such if the situation comes up. But other than that, feel free to fire away with questions and I'll do my best to answer them.

Couple of key points

1) The game is in alpha test. They are routinely rewriting classes completely and wholesale redoing mechanics on a weekly / monthly basis. So do not think the playtest is indicative of the final version. They are quite willing and ready to change darn well near everything based on feedback from the surveys.

2) The way the game is being designed is as such: Narrative, narrative, narrative, narrative, story, narrative, mechanic, balance, narrative, story. There is a huge emphasis on narrative, and every mechanic having a place in the story and making sense. However, they are making sure that the options are all balanced as well, and the mechanics are intuitive. They are tackling these from both sides, and doing a pretty slick job of it so far.

3) The game is being designed more from a "teach a DM to fish" rather than "give players lots of fish" method. They are making lots of good, solid, core mechanics, and then teaching DMs how to make the specific mechanics / lore that their specific game may need, rather than trying to create a Prestige Class / variant / feat that meets every single specific case a player may want.

4) Multi-classing is like 3E, but being designed specifically for multiclassing. Basically, a 5th level character who takes their first level of paladin gets different abilities than a first level player taking their first level of paladin, and a 10th level character who takes their first level of paladin gets different abilities then either of them. This is so they don't have to redo the base class in order to tone down people taking 1 level of fighter / ranger / etc, in order to powergame. This also means a 15th level fighter taking 1 level of paladin gets abilities that are relevant to her/him at 15th level, rather than something that does her or him no good.

Beyond that, ask away!

 

[Sigma77]

This is a slightly biased question, but any news on the mechanics of the Paladin? Also, what Wizard Traditions might contain?

Aaaaaand... any idea what PrCs might look like?

 

[Cybit]

1) Regarding the paladin -- no news yet. They're still working on the story behind the paladin and the mechanic that would come from that story element, which would be unique to the paladin. All classes have to have an archetype, a significant place in the world that can't be easily created by varying backgrounds / themes / feats, before they are made a full blown class. They seek to avoid the class bloat of later editions in this route. That said; they are more or less saying that the paladin will be a full blown class.

Wizard Traditions seem to be tied to the various schools if I remember correctly. Wasn't much asked about them, though.

Prestige Classes were talked about to be very 3rd edition-esque, except their abilities might differ based on what level you start the Prestige Class at. Same deal with multi-class, they're going out of their way to design it in such a way that you don't have the "dip and take 2 levels in this class to get these abilities" powergaming of earlier editions, which led to classes having to be re-written specifically for multi-classing. A multi-class wizard will be pretty different from a straight wizard in terms of when they get their abilities and what abilities they get. (at least that's what they currently see it as)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Obviously I don't expect answers to all of these, but any new info would be great!

1. Do they expect (or hope) to introduce any classes NOT seen in the first PHB of a previous edition? (Such as a non-Vancian divine spellcaster?)

2. Do they still hope to include every previous core class into the first PHB as a class? If not, which classes are on the fence for being demoted to a specialty/kit or just left for later? (I've heard specific references to monks, barbarians, rangers, paladins, and bards as full classes, but warlords, illusionists, assassins, and even druids seem possible candidates for being eaten by other classes or delayed past the first 5e PHB.)

3. Are wizard traditions currently expected to be similar to cleric domains, sorcerer origins, and warlock pacts in general structure (a small number of unique spells and maybe some custom abilities and/or proficiencies), or are they more or less mechanically defining (like a "wild mage" tradition that lets you spontaneously cast like a 3e sorcerer on the one hand, or 3e-style school specializations on the other)?

4. Which current playtest classes are they pretty happy with (for the moment), and which do they expect to significantly overhaul in the near future (aside from adding wizard traditions)?

5. How many races do they expect to add, give or take a few?

6. Will we get to playtest modules next time around?

7. With regards to multiclassing, are they worried about people upset that a level 15 fighter can study magic for a few weeks and cast a high-level spell with his first multiclass level of wizard? (Personally I see this as a necessary tradeoff if you want multiclassing to work mechanically, but it's the kind of thing people get upset about.)

8. What's the coolest thing we haven't gotten to playtest yet?

9. Are they planning on continuing to use the 3e spell lists as a basis for 5e spellcasters, or are they planning on a fairly dramatic rehaul? (Some current playtest spells like "Bless" and "Aid" don't seem to really jive with the 5e style.)

10. Why did they get rid of physical skills from the last playtest? (I know this is very much up for re-evaluation, but I'm wondering what the impetus was in making this change.)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

One broader one too:

If you scale up the current system, a character's power comes maybe 50% from basic attacks and cantrips at level 1, but much less so by level 5. (I.e., a level 1 rogue does maybe double damage with Sneak Attack at level 1 and about 4x damage by level 5; similar ratios for fighters with Deadly Strike, wizards with max-level spells vs. cantrips, etc).

Is this expected to continue all the way up, or will basic spells and cantrips increase in power as you level to keep pace to some degree?

 

[Cybit]

Obviously I don't expect answers to all of these, but any new info would be great!

1. Do they expect (or hope) to introduce any classes NOT seen in the first PHB of a previous edition? (Such as a non-Vancian divine spellcaster?)

Don't think so? They've said in the past that their goal was to have every class ever in a PH1 within this PH1; either as a core class, or as a playable concept from a base class + theme + specialty + feats + etc.

2. Do they still hope to include every previous core class into the first PHB as a class? If not, which classes are on the fence for being demoted to a specialty/kit or just left for later? (I've heard specific references to monks, barbarians, rangers, paladins, and bards as full classes, but warlords, illusionists, assassins, and even druids seem possible candidates for being eaten by other classes or delayed past the first 5e PHB.)

As sort of stated earlier, that's the hope. But, they also don't want class bloat ala 3/4E. Every class needs to have a unique place in the narrative / story AND a class defining mechanic based on that unique narrative "thing". They're not tied to "divine spontaneous caster" or that methodology of creating classes. Each class needs a very unique spot in the narrative and story, and a mechanic(s) that can be tied to that uniqueness.

Did I mention they are pushing story / narrative extraordinarily hard? Even the questions about mechanics came back to the narrative first.

3. Are wizard traditions currently expected to be similar to cleric domains, sorcerer origins, and warlock pacts in general structure (a small number of unique spells and maybe some custom abilities and/or proficiencies), or are they more or less mechanically defining (like a "wild mage" tradition that lets you spontaneously cast like a 3e sorcerer on the one hand, or 3e-style school specializations on the other)?

Seems like the cleric domain / sorcerer origin / warlock pact bit. Note that domains are a huge deal though, as they show what spells the cleric has access to. As it stands, the domain restricts what spells a cleric can get. A Domain of War cleric isn't going to get many blasty spell types, they're going to get access to buffing spells / spells used in melee on a battlefield. Part of redoing casters is based on the idea that casters can't have all the options for everything on them, or within an a day's rest. I suspect wizards will undergo the same thing, as they seem to recognize that the power of spellcasters within the Vancian system is a) the ability to stack spells, b) the ability to handle any and all situations at even medium levels, and c) the ability to use spells to get themselves to a place where they can rest safely on a consistent and more or less uninterruptible basis.

These are all things they wish to tackle.

4. Which current playtest classes are they pretty happy with (for the moment), and which do they expect to significantly overhaul in the near future (aside from adding wizard traditions)?

Fighter is the big one they seem to be happy about, but they're waiting on feedback from folks first. I imagine clerics & wizards are waiting for higher spell levels to be tested.

5. How many races do they expect to add, give or take a few?

In the core? I don't think too many, if many more. But a lot of races will be setting specific / setting optional, IE, tieflings, etc etc. They have made it sound like a lot of races will be eventually brought in. Also, Dragonlance seems to be making a come back.

Universes brought up during the panels
===================================
Planescape
Dragonlance
Forgotten Realms (if there is a default world, this will be it)
Eberron
Ravenloft
Dark Sun
Gamma World

6. Will we get to playtest modules next time around?

What kind of modules? Not sure what you mean by this? Adventures? Rules Modules?

7. With regards to multiclassing, are they worried about people upset that a level 15 fighter can study magic for a few weeks and cast a high-level spell with his first multiclass level of wizard? (Personally I see this as a necessary tradeoff if you want multiclassing to work mechanically, but it's the kind of thing people get upset about.)

It depends on how they implement it. The first level of multiclass wizard might just allow usage of magic wands, etc. They have really only thought out loud about multiclass as far as I can tell.

8. What's the coolest thing we haven't gotten to playtest yet?

Apparently one of them is running a kick ass Dark Sun game.

9. Are they planning on continuing to use the 3e spell lists as a basis for 5e spellcasters, or are they planning on a fairly dramatic rehaul? (Some current playtest spells like "Bless" and "Aid" don't seem to really jive with the 5e style.)

They will keep the spells but change the effects I suspect. Less bonuses, more advantage / disadvantage, or something completely different.

10. Why did they get rid of physical skills from the last playtest? (I know this is very much up for re-evaluation, but I'm wondering what the impetus was in making this change.)

They weren't totally happy with it, so they removed them from this playtest while they fix it. They're deliberately removing things from playtest as to not distract from what they wanted playtested. For instance, they might put arcane spell failure from armor back in. But right now, they don't want folks obsessing over that, they want them trying out the fighter / warlock / sorcerer. So they just removed it, said "no armor for wizards!", and plan to come back to it.

 

[Cybit]

One broader one too:

If you scale up the current system, a character's power comes maybe 50% from basic attacks and cantrips at level 1, but much less so by level 5. (I.e., a level 1 rogue does maybe double damage with Sneak Attack at level 1 and about 4x damage by level 5; similar ratios for fighters with Deadly Strike, wizards with max-level spells vs. cantrips, etc).

Is this expected to continue all the way up, or will basic spells and cantrips increase in power as you level to keep pace to some degree?

Unsure, but I suspect the next playtest will answer this question. Based on the generic tone of conversations, I suspect they will scale up some.

 

[n00bdragon]

1) The game is in alpha test. They are routinely rewriting classes completely and wholesale redoing mechanics on a weekly / monthly basis. So do not think the playtest is indicative of the final version. They are quite willing and ready to change darn well near everything based on feedback from the surveys.

I really wish they would take this mantra out back and shoot it. It's invariably used as a cop out to avoid criticism of the game. Pro-tip: The BEST time for criticism in the alpha stage. I'm really disturbed by how absolutely dismissive the design team has been of some of 5e's critical flaws and how it's handwaved away with "we'll fix that in the future".

2) The way the game is being designed is as such: Narrative, narrative, narrative, narrative, story, narrative, mechanic, balance, narrative, story. There is a huge emphasis on narrative, and every mechanic having a place in the story and making sense. However, they are making sure that the options are all balanced as well, and the mechanics are intuitive. They are tackling these from both sides, and doing a pretty slick job of it so far.

This is disheartening for two reasons:
1. It flies straight in the face of their "its your game" objective. If it's truly my game of D&D then the narrative should be left up to me. So (assuming I were going to use this ruleset) either this "narrative heavy" game will impose its own narrative upon my game or it will just be a giant wad of overpriced paper with pretty pictures and no purpose.
2. The placement of mechanics in that list makes me think they aren't considered important and the placement of balance makes me think they just don't care at all. What was Mr. Mearls writing about in his recent LnL column? I don't know which version of Mearls I am supposed to believe, although I'm leaning towards the "doesn't give a damn about crunch" version since that's what the two playtests up until now have been representative of.

3) The game is being designed more from a "teach a DM to fish" rather than "give players lots of fish" method. They are making lots of good, solid, core mechanics, and then teaching DMs how to make the specific mechanics / lore that their specific game may need, rather than trying to create a Prestige Class / variant / feat that meets every single specific case a player may want.

Perhaps it's my bias showing but I read that as "We know our product has serious problems, but rather than address them we would like to teach you how to ignore them."

4) Multi-classing is like 3E, but being designed specifically for multiclassing. Basically, a 5th level character who takes their first level of paladin gets different abilities than a first level player taking their first level of paladin, and a 10th level character who takes their first level of paladin gets different abilities then either of them. This is so they don't have to redo the base class in order to tone down people taking 1 level of fighter / ranger / etc, in order to powergame. This also means a 15th level fighter taking 1 level of paladin gets abilities that are relevant to her/him at 15th level, rather than something that does her or him no good.

$100 says the best build for every full caster involves no multiclassing whatsoever.

 

[Li Shenron]

They're deliberately removing things from playtest as to not distract from what they wanted playtested. For instance, they might put arcane spell failure from armor back in. But right now, they don't want folks obsessing over that, they want them trying out the fighter / warlock / sorcerer. So they just removed it, said "no armor for wizards!", and plan to come back to it.

This is very valuable info, and something we should probably print on the back of our playtesters' hands so as to keep in mind

 

[gweinel]

Did they mention anything about druid or bard?
The only info we have about these classes i think is that they fiddle with the "celtic tradition" of bard (which in imho is cool).