D&D 5E L&L - D&D Next Goals, Part One

[YRUSirius]

I think there will be the "Basic" Dungeons & Dragons Game in the form of a 150/200 page book in a box with dice and sheets. This could range from level 1 to 20 with the basic classes and races (the big four classes and big four races) and basic monsters for the DM. This box or game will be THE Dungeons & Dragons game. This will be our Monopoly, our Settlers of Catan, our Carcassone. Ruleswise it will resemble BECMI the most. I hope this will be priced at the low price of 20 dollars.

And then I think there will be a ONE supplement book that will upgrade your Dungeons & Dragons game to an "Advanced" version. There you'll find more classes, races and monsters for the pro gamers (rangers, paladins, monks, half-elves, half-orcs, etc). Ruleswise this could resemble AD&D and maybe D&D 3E the most. Still wondering if specialities and feats will be in it or not. Another book for 20 dollars.

Finally there will be the module books, mainly books with a theme: Let's say the Tactical Combat Book that will make your D&D game more like 4E. Hope those books will be cheaper at like 15 dollars or something.

-YRUSirius

 

[DEFCON 1]

The one thing I would say though is that I would be highly surprised if the word "Basic" is used anywhere NEAR that first book. "Basic" has too many connotations that I believe go against what they are really hoping to achieve with that publication. I think you're more likely to see the word "Core" or "Base" than you'll ever see "Basic" or "Starter" or "Beginner's".

This method is much more palatable to get across what they want...

Dungeons & Dragons
Book One

Base Roleplaying Game System


Dungeons & Dragons
Book Two

Advanced Player's Handbook


Dungeons & Dragons
Book Three

Advanced Dungeon Master's Guide

 

[YRUSirius]

Yeah, that's why I put Basic into " ". The first product will just be called Dungeons & Dragons, just like Mearls stated.

-YRUSirius

 

[MoonSong]

Although I wouldn't mind a "lite" D&D base game on par with OD&D / Swords & Wizardry complexity, I do hope they don't just do 4 races / 4 classes. I'm hoping they'll have all the PHB core races and classes, even if they're very stripped-down versions.

Can't xp, but definitely D&D is way more than just 4 clases and 4 races. This is something they cannot allow themselves to fail at, the core should include all 12-14 classes and 10 races .

 

[Sunseeker]

But I don't care either. I am merely commenting on a use of language in the WotC articles that makes little sense, probably not worth to discuss. It reminds me of the nonsense of "everything is core!" days.

I'd be happy if they were perfectly honest that their preliminary, low-cost, low-investment "Red Box"-style product was "complete" in the sense that you could play a full game or two out of it, but it did not include the "robustness" of the Trifecta. So sure, maybe the "Red Box" will have 4 races and 4 classes and 10 levels, it'll include a pre-made, simple adventure/campaign, a few dice, maybe a few minis, it'll list off a dozen monsters, bandits, orcs, kobolds, things that are staples to fantasy tropes. Maybe it will come off playing like a LOTR clone. I'm fine with that as an introductory product, and I really don't see what's so horrible or evil about it being an introductory product. That's the point of low-cost, easily available products, getting you hooked.

I wouldn't mind taking a hint from PF and turning the Trifecta into a Duo, but there's a pesky cost issue there of course, will someone buy two books for a total of 34.99 each? Or one book for 59.99?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Can't xp, but definitely D&D is way more than just 4 clases and 4 races. This is something they cannot allow themselves to fail at, the core should include all 12-14 classes and 10 races .

Nope... can't agree with you on this one.

The problem here is spells. If you do 12-14 classes... that means we're talking probably the Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard at a minimum. Having six spellcasting classes means the number of spells needed to be included in the book grows very unwieldy for what is supposed to be a "base" book. Even if it only goes to Level 10... that's 6 levels of spells (Spell Levels 0-5) for which you need to include like at least a half-dozen per spell level per class? Even if some classes shared spells... we're still talking upwards of 200 spells that need to be included and described in the book. I think that's way, way, WAY too much book space to be taken up in the "base" game by spell descriptions. And that's not even considering the fact that some people think the "base" game for classes should go up to Level 20.

It's all going to come down to page space and word count. If they want to make that first "base" game a manageable size and manageable price... I really don't see how they can include that many classes in it. Because spells just take up way too much space. If it's only the Cleric and Wizard... you could probably do spell levels 0-5 (or maybe even 0-9 if you went to Character Level 20)... but that's pretty much about it. Not if you also want to get a lot of the base DM's Guide and Monster Manual info into the "base" game too.

 

[MoonSong]

Nope... can't agree with you on this one.

The problem here is spells. If you do 12-14 classes... that means we're talking probably the Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard at a minimum. Having six spellcasting classes means the number of spells needed to be included in the book grows very unwieldy for what is supposed to be a "base" book. Even if it only goes to Level 10... that's 6 levels of spells (Spell Levels 0-5) for which you need to include like at least a half-dozen per spell level per class? Even if some classes shared spells... we're still talking upwards of 200 spells that need to be included and described in the book. I think that's way, way, WAY too much book space to be taken up in the "base" game by spell descriptions. And that's not even considering the fact that some people think the "base" game for classes should go up to Level 20.

It's all going to come down to page space and word count. If they want to make that first "base" game a manageable size and manageable price... I really don't see how they can include that many classes in it. Because spells just take up way too much space. If it's only the Cleric and Wizard... you could probably do spell levels 0-5 (or maybe even 0-9 if you went to Character Level 20)... but that's pretty much about it. Not if you also want to get a lot of the base DM's Guide and Monster Manual info into the "base" game too.

Ok, let's see:

Sorcerer: use the exact same spell list as wizard - no extra page count
Bard: if the game goes to 10, the bard only needs 3 spell levels, and a good portion of them are repeated on the cleric, druid and wizard lists, only needs leass than half dozen dedicated spells. I don't see 6 spells breaking the pagecount
Druid: The most problematic of the bunch, probalby needs a least 10 to 15 exclusive spells, he then can share form the cleric list
Warlock: The least problematic, isn't a true spellcaster, and rituals are a subset of the wizard.

Again, I don't see how those classes would need so many spells.

 

[Sunseeker]

Nope... can't agree with you on this one.

The problem here is spells. If you do 12-14 classes... that means we're talking probably the Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard at a minimum. Having six spellcasting classes means the number of spells needed to be included in the book grows very unwieldy for what is supposed to be a "base" book. Even if it only goes to Level 10... that's 6 levels of spells (Spell Levels 0-5) for which you need to include like at least a half-dozen per spell level per class? Even if some classes shared spells... we're still talking upwards of 200 spells that need to be included and described in the book. I think that's way, way, WAY too much book space to be taken up in the "base" game by spell descriptions. And that's not even considering the fact that some people think the "base" game for classes should go up to Level 20.

It's all going to come down to page space and word count. If they want to make that first "base" game a manageable size and manageable price... I really don't see how they can include that many classes in it. Because spells just take up way too much space. If it's only the Cleric and Wizard... you could probably do spell levels 0-5 (or maybe even 0-9 if you went to Character Level 20)... but that's pretty much about it. Not if you also want to get a lot of the base DM's Guide and Monster Manual info into the "base" game too.

We could for starters, narrow down the spell list, overlap on a lot of "mundane" spells and provide each class with a few specific spells that only they can have.

Ever-increaseing spells lists can be the domain of splat.

 

[Stormonu]

From one of the surveys, I'm thinking they may really have the spell list pared down - perhaps as little as 10 spells per spell level (BECMI had 12 per level at most, I think?)

So, we are looking at:

Wizard - 60 spells, minimum
Cleric - 60 spells, minimum

Druid might have 60 spells at well, in this pared down set my guess sorcerer, bard and warlock will draw from spells on one of the other three lists (mayhaps with a handful of custom spells if they're lucky), so it *might* be possible to have 120 (or less) spells in the core game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm fine with that as an introductory product, and I really don't see what's so horrible or evil about it being an introductory product.

You gotta think about marketing and psychology and consumer behavior to see the context in which that's not a great idea.

As a lot of others in the thread have stated, "Beginners," or "Basic" or "Introductory" or whatever have a lot of things that ding the value of the product, for instance:

• It implies that the product labeled in such a way is not the "real" experience, but one for people who can't handle the "real" experience.
• It implies that the "real" experience is significantly more complex or challenging in some way, requiring some special expertise to use.
• It implies you're not getting the full experience, but a sanitized version.
• It implies the game was not made to be played by people who aren't already familiar with it, and this product is to make you familiar with it, rather than to show you what the game is like.

All those are massive problems with that label. And none of those are true about a game that is as simple to play up-front as OD&D might be. OD&D is real D&D. It is actual full-fledged D&D. It is short and small and has no races and only three classes, and monster entries only a paragraph long (with stats being a single line in a chart), but there are people who have never needed more than that to run 30+ years of awesome games.

OD&D is not "beginner's" D&D. It is not "lite" D&D. It is not "Basic" or "Introductory" or "Special Christmas Gift Set" D&D. It is 100% fully real D&D. It (or a NEXT book using that as an entry point to the game) doesn't need that "n00b zone" label, and all its negative connotations.

"Advanced" has its own negative connotations that the design/marketing team will probably want to take into account, too, of course. But I think making the first book basic and raw and limited is a great way to not only make people more likely to pick it up (and pick up other things), but also a great way to reinforce the idea that D&D is the kind of game your group makes it. Because most people will likely want more than the core book offers, it's a great way to reinforce the idea that you can add on whatever you want, and end up playing a very different game from someone two counties over.