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

[BobTheNob]

Look, thanks for the post. I work in software design and find the biggest hurdle is making people understand that concept (foundation) and objective are the first things to establish before you start on the solution. So its encouraging they are stating the narrative is the highest concern and the mechanics and balance are actually lower.

I have worked on projects that have worked, and projects that have failed, and generally prototyping has always been the path to the best solution and what I am hearing I find very positive. Hell, I spent all July putting a prototype together only to have the thing scrapped as it wouldn't meet needs, but thank God we did, because by doing so we know why it wouldn't work and avoided delivering the wrong solution.

Sometimes you have to put ideas out there to confirm they wont work just as much as you have to put ideas out there to confirm that they will.
[MENTION=6689371]n00bdragon[/MENTION]
Way to find the negatives in everything. Your last post just comes across as a guy that has a grudge to get out.

You just did not come across as a guy who loves his D&D or the guys designing it. Im sure you are going to respond to this by saying "No I do love D&D and thats why Im trying to save it cause these guys are going to destroy it!". But really, put down posts mostly get ignored. If you love your game, find a way to give constructive feedback.

 

[Cybit]

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".

They're not disagreeing with you, it's the "hey, we want you to test this specific part. We're not ready to unveil the solution we have to this other thing yet." A lot of the criticisms of the playtest are "it's not complete" or "it's not enough!", which, well, it's an alpha test, with 2 years remaining. If content is not your issue, you can bring up in the surveys that you are interested in X content, but don't make it your beef with the system.

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.

So, part of this is me not being able to quite communicate what I wanted. They are very, very, big on the "it's your game" idea. It's kind of the core concept of the design. There is, however, a "ye olde" generic fantasy setting that they have to try to describe for the players who don't want to create a whole new 'verse. That said, they talked about how they want to present different versions of a monster's lore within the monster manual. IE, a minotaur could harken back to its mythological roots, or, as a sidebar, they would talk about "what if minotaurs were clans? had a whole nation? how would that change things?" and give the DM suggestions on doing that.

As for narrative vs mechanics; he doesn't want the two to ever be disconnected. He believes it is a false choice between narrative and mechanics, that the two can actually be balanced and make sense in the world, and that's what they are aiming for. Bounded accuracy seems to make this easier (but still hard overall) than WotC expected.

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."

The design goal seems to be really this: Here is this base game. Here are all the knobs you can turn to make the game the way you want it. There are certain things we will never be able to fix without breaking something else on a whole-scale level. However, we can teach you to manage / run your game and world the way that is best for you and your group. When you think about it, that's the common tie that binds all D&D editions to each other. The general 'verse, the d20, and the idea that each game is it's own unique creature. Teach everyone how to make that game they really want to play, and create a system solid enough and flexible enough to accommodate it, and, voila, you have what was thought impossible.

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

Probably.

 

[Cybit]

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).

So, I actually asked about the druid, and what the difference is between a druid and a nature god based cleric, and they said they're working on the place of the druid in the world. There would be some overlap between the two, but they wanted druids to have their own distinct place in the world, with their own unique "thing" that makes them, well, them. My hunch is that wildshape will be that "thing". One thing to note; spellcasting while wild shaped will probably go the way of the dodo. To quote one of them, if a druid is wildshaped into a bear, they should be doing so to smash face, not to turn into a spellcasting bear.

It really goes back to the way they are designing all classes, which is that they want to make any class designed feel like it cannot be replaced or replicated by another class taking certain feats / combinations of mechanics.

As for Bards, they will, like most concepts that differ vastly between editions, be based on their mythological roots.

That's a key point made at the panels; if the editions don't have common roots for a given element (monster or archetype / class), they will instead use the mythological roots of that creature as a base, and then give alternate options to match what other editions did. Minotaurs were the example for this.

 

[The Shadow]

Cybit, I wish I could give you 100 xp for this thread! What you say makes sense, and is really helpful.

I just wish that the Legends & Lore column could or would say this stuff half so explicitly.

 

[n00bdragon]

Look, thanks for the post. I work in software design and find the biggest hurdle is making people understand that concept (foundation) and objective are the first things to establish before you start on the solution. So its encouraging they are stating the narrative is the highest concern and the mechanics and balance are actually lower.

I have worked on projects that have worked, and projects that have failed, and generally prototyping has always been the path to the best solution and what I am hearing I find very positive. Hell, I spent all July putting a prototype together only to have the thing scrapped as it wouldn't meet needs, but thank God we did, because by doing so we know why it wouldn't work and avoided delivering the wrong solution.

Sometimes you have to put ideas out there to confirm they wont work just as much as you have to put ideas out there to confirm that they will.
@n00bdragon
Way to find the negatives in everything. Your last post just comes across as a guy that has a grudge to get out.

You just did not come across as a guy who loves his D&D or the guys designing it. Im sure you are going to respond to this by saying "No I do love D&D and thats why Im trying to save it cause these guys are going to destroy it!". But really, put down posts mostly get ignored. If you love your game, find a way to give constructive feedback.

I dunno. I think you made it all the way up to yellow there a few times.

 

[Cybit]

Cybit, I wish I could give you 100 xp for this thread! What you say makes sense, and is really helpful.

I just wish that the Legends & Lore column could or would say this stuff half so explicitly.

The thing is, if it is stated in L&L, it's treated as a final decision by the community. While at a situation like PAX, with 10-15 people in the audience (the panel hadn't been advertised outside of WotC's site), they are far more likely to talk about the ideas and concepts they have floating around. If we were treating this like a true alpha test and not a "This is the final game!!!", they'd be more likely to talk off the cuff.

All of this is just their current ideas and thoughts on the matter. They pointed out how after the first playtest, they literally redid the fighter entirely as a class due to feedback.

Also, if you get one of them talking about gaming design and theory, they will talk about all sorts of cool stuff. I have way more respect after talking to them in person, as they really do understand a lot of the complaints and decisions they're making, and the side effects. The most fascinating game design conversation I've had in a while was with Mearls about how to give players the feeling of increasing power without increasing attack bonuses and damage, and how to mitigate that feeling of "oh wait, I don't really feel more badass." Tip: they intend to give you more options, and more badass options, as a way to make you feel stronger. Sideways progression as opposed to linear upward progression. On top of more HP / damage / feats / etc.

 

[Cybit]

I dunno. I think you made it all the way up to yellow there a few times.

As for my points?

 

[GX.Sigma]

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".

So... they're saying they're going to change the game based on feedback, and you take this as meaning they don't want feedback? They say they're going to fix something, and you take this as meaning they're not going to fix things?

My brain hurts.

I think what you're saying is that, when someone on the internet criticizes something about D&DN, someone else on the internet says "it's just a playtest, it'll be different in the final version." To use that argument to quell criticism is indeed bull****, because the game won't ever get to that final version if there is no criticism.

If, however, someone complained to the developers about something, and the developers said "we'll fix that in the future," then what just happened was the feedback cycle working as intended. Someone revealed a flaw in the game, and the developers confirmed that they are going to fix it. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[The Shadow]

The thing is, if it is stated in L&L, it's treated as a final decision by the community. While at a situation like PAX, with 10-15 people in the audience (the panel hadn't been advertised outside of WotC's site), they are far more likely to talk about the ideas and concepts they have floating around. If we were treating this like a true alpha test and not a "This is the final game!!!", they'd be more likely to talk off the cuff.

...This actually makes a lot of sense. I mean, the EN World forums are in general a more sensible place to be than, say, the WotC forums, but even here we've had a certain amount of hyperventilating.

Tip: they intend to give you more options, and more badass options, as a way to make you feel stronger. Sideways progression as opposed to linear upward progression. On top of more HP / damage / feats / etc.

This makes good sense to me also, though as always the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

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.

Wait, what? Are you saying that domains have changed already since the last playtest packet? Because in playtest 2, domains do *not* restrict access to spells at all.

If you're saying that domains *will* start restricting access to spells, along the lines of 2e spheres (though no doubt with the Next "prepared-spontaneous" mechanic) you will make me a very happy man.

If you're also saying that you suspect that wizard traditions will also restrict access to spells, you will make me even happier!

Though for wizards, perhaps a shade less so. I don't see any reason why most wizards couldn't cast simple illusions; I just think that the more fancy illusion spells should be the province of specialists.

Hm, if all wizards are going to have a tradition, and traditions restrict spells, that means the end of the generalist wizard. And I, for one, shall not shed a tear at his passing.

 

[slobster]

I'm curious about anything you've heard on monster design. Anything at all really, but especially thoughts on whether roles will see any reprise (brute, soldier etc.), whether and how solo creatures might stick around, and thoughts about the accuracy/durability of monsters we've seen so far in the playtest.

I'm also curious as to whether they think that NPCs fully statted up using PC creation rules will be viable opponents in this game. In 4E they pretty explicitly weren't so. In 3.x there wasn't really any other option given in the rules, but they still tended not to work very well as foes due to various quirks of the math and magic item stuff. Any word on how that issue might be dealt with in DDN?

Also, thanks for sharing the wealth!