D&D 5E (2014) GAMA Trade Show and Game Developer Conference start Monday - announcement Tomorrow?

[Ichneumon]

Same concern here... what did he tweet?

He said that peace (pacifist) clerics probably wouldn't be in the PHB.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Same concern here... what did he tweet?

Q: Can we expect subclass of cleric with Turn Fiends feature? And what about "pacifist cleric"?

A: probably not in the PH, but definitely a cleric of peace is on the list. Turn fiends ability might be more of a warding effect

Q: Any news as to which gods will make up the Pantheon of Forgotten Realms? Interested in about Mystra/Azuth/Eldath/Helm/Eilistraee

A: We'll hit the most important gods first, will take some time to get to all those. We'll point out which ones match generic domains

Q: There's one important thing that will decide for me whether or not I'll play 5E - will the Flumph be in the core monster book?

A: Perhaps... the monster list is getting long and space is always short...

Q: With #dndnext near: will it be (just) Forgotten Realms and dragons, or will fans of other settings be embraced?

A: it'll take time to hit everything, but we know that not everyone plays FR

Going through his tweets for the last week or two there is a lot of "Not in the PHB(DMG, MM), but certainly at some point" posts.

 

[Li Shenron]

He said that peace (pacifist) clerics probably wouldn't be in the PHB.

Ok... that seems quite different from the subject of domains plenty to me. Granted, a pacifist cleric could be designed using a domain/subclass, and in 5e it probably would. But then at most he's talking about that specific domain, and for a character concept which is not super common. Hopefully this doesn't mean that any domain beyond the 3 seen is out of the PHB.

Our concern is that having 3-5 domains is really too few. It's not the same as with other classes (with the exception perhaps of the Wizard), the archetypes of which can be done using subclasses but also just using the base rules i.e. focusing on melee rather than archery, or focusing on specific combat options such as grappling, takedowns etc. To have religions feature a significant role in a D&D campaign (which is more often than not), the vast majority of gaming groups always use large pantheons, rarely less than 10-12 deities. Not all of them necessarily need their own domain of course... but really even 5-6 domains are still way too few, you'll still find most of them inappropriate for many deities. I think it's been something like ~20 years since D&D featured this, it would be quite weird not to have it in 5e.

 

[Li Shenron]

Q: Can we expect subclass of cleric with Turn Fiends feature? And what about "pacifist cleric"?

A: probably not in the PH, but definitely a cleric of peace is on the list. Turn fiends ability might be more of a warding effect

Q: Any news as to which gods will make up the Pantheon of Forgotten Realms? Interested in about Mystra/Azuth/Eldath/Helm/Eilistraee

A: We'll hit the most important gods first, will take some time to get to all those. We'll point out which ones match generic domains

Thanks!

I don't know if we already have knowledge on whether the core books will have Forgotten Realms material (i.e. as default setting) or if they will have only "generic" material. Will the PHB present a list of FR deities? Or will it only present domains but not deities names? Because in the first case, obviously it can only present the most famous FR deities (otherwise there are hundreds...). In the second case, it means Mearls is referring to FR specific books, but then it's less important.

Anywyay here it sounds like the PHB domains will be generic. Which actually doesn't say much... some domain can cover a "large concept" such as Magic, Nature, War, Death, Justice, while others can cover a relatively "narrow concept" such as Retribution, Caverns, Slime, Poetry, Traps. Still even the narrow concepts are generic in the sense that you can have a deity with such domains in pretty much every setting, there is hardly anything setting-specific there. Clearly, the PHB will have a limited number of domains and it makes sense it covers larger concepts.

 

[Ichneumon]

Ok... that seems quite different from the subject of domains plenty to me. Granted, a pacifist cleric could be designed using a domain/subclass, and in 5e it probably would. But then at most he's talking about that specific domain, and for a character concept which is not super common. Hopefully this doesn't mean that any domain beyond the 3 seen is out of the PHB.

Our concern is that having 3-5 domains is really too few. It's not the same as with other classes (with the exception perhaps of the Wizard), the archetypes of which can be done using subclasses but also just using the base rules i.e. focusing on melee rather than archery, or focusing on specific combat options such as grappling, takedowns etc. To have religions feature a significant role in a D&D campaign (which is more often than not), the vast majority of gaming groups always use large pantheons, rarely less than 10-12 deities. Not all of them necessarily need their own domain of course... but really even 5-6 domains are still way too few, you'll still find most of them inappropriate for many deities. I think it's been something like ~20 years since D&D featured this, it would be quite weird not to have it in 5e.

While looking at the cleric description, it occurred to me that we've never been told just how much ground the Knowledge and Nature domains cover. Knowledge may well swallow up Magic. Nature may be the home for elemental/storm clerics. Even so, I think Death needs to be added to this domain list, at the very least. The Civic or Civilization domain is also important, and it could encompass Justice & probably Art as well. Travel would round out a set of eight, and this domain could include Trickery. (tricksters often have to travel!).

Right now though, I believe Mearls & Co are in the thick of deciding what will make the cut for each book, and more than 5-6 domains just might not be an option. Or it might be an option that will make someone else unhappy if taken.

 

[delericho]

Dear WotC, any time you want to talk to your fans about your plans, that would be dandy. Every time I have to get information by reading someone else's summary/interpretation of a trade show I wasn't able to attend, that just pisses me off.

At the moment, you're doing a worse job selling me this edition than you did 4e.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

It'll be interesting to find out just how far the ongoing 4e support will go. I'd expect the publication of system-neutral books to continue, and offering 4e versions of elements (classes, magic items, etc) in books otherwise dedicated to 5e could happen as well.

I hope not! Including 4e things in 5e books is a total non starter for me and would sway purchasing decisions against the books for me. Now, if they want to continue supporting and releasing 4e only books I've no problem with that and they can happily do it for any previous edition but please WotC don't mix edition support together.

 

[RevTurkey]

Just show us the books WoTC! C'mon!

 

[darjr]

That is 100% for sure what happened, although the "placeholder" date was almost certainly input by someone on the publisher side of things. Whether it was the _right_ date, or whether that person should have done so is, of course, an open question that there is no way of knowing. But the listing definitely came from the ISBN.

Avoiding stuff like this is why we generally post our product solicits within a couple of days of ordering the ISBN. B&N, Amazon, etc. constantly scrape databases for this information, so you've got to be careful, especially when dealing with an important release.

So would the price have come from the ISBN?

 

[jodyjohnson]

At this point the best guess would be that WotC requested the ISBN for a Starter Set and Players Handbook and B&N scraped the data and filled in the blanks with best guesses.

They didn't even have the title right. The products will not be officially called "D&D" but "Dungeons & Dragons".

WotC caught wind of it and had them removed.