Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nnms" data-source="post: 5929797" data-attributes="member: 83293">I think you can take a look at the playtest document and see some of the rationale behind particular rules.  Especially by contrasting them with other mechanics.  Take, for example, the departure from having an encounter as a unit of game time connected to power refresh.  Or the removal of in-combat non-magic healing.  Or the movement of things that were under skill descriptions in 3.x under general movement rules.  Or the adoption of an armour system to produce a certain range of ACs through the use of armour categories.As for group expectations, isn't 5E supposed to be able to work for any player of any D&D edition?  So how does "rules as guidelines" and "rulings not rules" work with all of that?And what does it say about the idea of modularity being able to produce differing styles of play when the lead designer thinks the most interesting D&D comes from situations where the DM *must* making a ruling rather than use rules:The Core Concept: Using Rules as Guidelines The biggest thing we're aiming for in D&D Next is to give DMs a set of tools that they can use as they want. Checks, contests, saving throws, and attacks are the basic mechanics of the game in this iteration, and the combat rules and spells lay out specific ways to make use of those mechanics. The most interesting parts of D&D, at least in my experience, come into play when a DM must make a ruling rather than follow the rules to the letter.Are we back to "system doesn't matter"?</blockquote>

Verification