• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E L&L 6/23 A Living Rule Set


log in or register to remove this ad

Surprisingly, people have so far been far more responsive to the send PDF / survey philosophy than the "lets check DDI to see how many of XYZ option was chosen" idea. People are also alt-o-holics on DDI, so there were a lot of characters that were never leveled and never moved beyond the theory stage.

I like this idea; they just have to make sure to get a good swath of playtesting groups. I think there are certain groups that will never be happy and don't want to compromise; I think you just need to leave them behind. They are more about getting rules that fit their super specific niche (Which ironically tends to heavily house rule the system they claim to love, but yet find it appalling they might need to do the same with another system) to the point of the exclusion of other playstyles. Outside of those groups; make sure you get a group of new to D&D folks, younger players, older players, experienced players, etc.

I'm glad to hear they don't want to go down the route of PF and have a new printing with new errata every year (it's not planned that way, but it has been that way so far, sigh); I think my roommates have bought 3 Core Rulebooks already. The reason I believe them this time is I know how little they want to ever have to work on ANY of those books again; I'm pretty sure Mike has the PHB still popping up in his nightmares to this day.

Also, on the daggers bit; in one game a rogue has managed to save the party single handedly by having daggers on himself, while another rogue is wishing he kept daggers. Once you get out of straight "in non society area w/ bad guys to kill", you can hide daggers on your person. Not so much with a rapier or short sword. There is an implied "all three pillars" balance trying to be made, so games that are very heavily biased towards a single pillar are going to have naturally have better options than others. A game that's all about politicking and talking, for instance, I suspect charisma based classes may shine in. :-p
 


I share your desire for house-rulable (?) digital tools. The DDI tools were great for open play, but they really constrained what you could do in a customized home game.

I paid a lot of money to be a DDI subscriber and they let a lot of people down. It was seen, rightly I think, as a cash grab to make you have to pay to access your own characters online because they were stored in the cloud, instead of paying for it once.

You do know you could download any characters you made, right? DDI-made characters weren't stuck in the cloud.

If Wizards were serious about seeing where the game is evolving to, they should add a way to add houserules to the online tools, see how many people are using which ones, then make those official "optional" rules, similar to how the article describes. Surveys are a poor way to get to the data that will already exist in the online builder. They will see how many times Expertise is taken, then see how little it's taken once people select "free expertise fix", to use a 4e example. Then they can see "change Second Wind to be a reaction that gives 1d10 + level Temp HP when you take damage", and see how many people use that instead of the default.

There's nothing saying they can't do that. My impression when reading the article is that they would use that data, assuming they have access to it. (Since they're outsourcing the tools, that's not a given, but hopefully the contract provides WotC access to usage data.)
 


I believe they are stylized anvils with superimposed hammers.

I figured it was an attempt to reduce the effectiveness of his armor. Combined with his oversize weapon somebody is really trying to get this Dwarf killed :) I've been ignoring D&D art since before 3E. This is actually better looking than a lot I've seen. Once you ignore the over-sized hammer and the point / edge traps on the armor...
 


I don't think that picture is supposed to represent the Dwarf Cleric in the starter set. The dwarf in the image has the symbol of Moradin (an anvil with a hammer) all over him, but the character sheet says he's a cleric of Marthammor Duin (whose symbol is a boot with a mace).
 
Last edited:

Mistwell said:
And the award for "blindly commenting without reading the thing he's commenting on" goes to...Shadow!

Congratulations shadow!

Perhaps my nerd rage was a little quick and my comment came off as a blind putdown rather than the sardonic prediction it was intended.

I did read the the Legends and Lore column, but I'm really cynical when I hear 'living game', and I find it hard to believe that we won't see new books every year. (Okay...maybe not every year, but maybe every three years or so.)

Please excuse my cynicism, but I was a little burnt after 3.5 came out after less than three years after 3.0 came out (and suddenly having everyone demand I throw out my 3e books and replace them with the 'newest version of the game'.) Then there is the whole business with the 4e books giving way to the essentials.

Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I'd rather play a 'broken' rule system than have to constantly have to update and change rules.
 
Last edited:

Basic D&D might not be available on July 3rd:

"Wotc_dnd: We haven't finalized that date because they guys are still finalizing the content, but the first Basic Rules should be in July and we'll get an update in August making it more complete."
 

Remove ads

Top